Lets ERASE our history!

a reply to: LSU0408

Why did the South not free their slaves until after they had lost the war? Why did they not free them before the war?

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not a downplay. It would be like you going to war to fight for freedom because that's what you were told, not knowing that in those declarations of war, you were also fighting for other things. Do you honestly think you could round up enough people to fight for, OR against, slavery? Absolutely not. It wasn't even a forethought in the first two years of war.

You are using modern morality to judge how people would react to slavery in the past. People in the past had VERY different opinions on the morality of slavery.

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Krazysh0t

And what are your facts? That the soldiers fought to retain slavery? That's become an eye roller and a head shaker. Totally false, just a twisted lie to make the Confederacy look evil. I understand you'll never acknowledge that, so you don't even have to respond, we're getting nowhere.

See you are forgetting there is more to the Slavery issue than JUST the morality argument. Slavery also had widespread economic and political implications as well. The entire states' rights argument has to do with federal manipulation into states' slave owning laws. Downplaying the significance of slavery to the confederacy and the civil war is history revisionism.

Causes Of The Civil War

What led to the outbreak of the bloodiest conflict in the history of North America?

A common explanation is that the Civil War was fought over the moral issue of slavery.

In fact, it was the economics of slavery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict.

A key issue was states' rights.

The Southern states wanted to assert their authority over the federal government so they could abolish federal laws they didn't support, especially laws interfering with the South's right to keep slaves and take them wherever they wished.

Another factor was territorial expansion.

The South wished to take slavery into the western territories, while the North was committed to keeping them open to white labor alone.

See that? All of those factors are in SOME way related to slavery.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes, Lincoln had originally stated that even though he was personally against slavery, he was reticent try to abolish slavery in the South because he knew how dependent the economy of those states had become on the institution of slavery. But new states forming in the west were not allowed to have slaves. This pissed the Southern rich guys off, because they were planning to expand their operations in those new areas, with slave labor. Thus, the big secessation.

Specifically, eleven southern states seceded from the Union in protest against federal legislation that limited the expansion of slavery claiming that such legislation violated the tenth amendment, which they argued trumped the Supremacy Clause. The war was indeed about protecting the institution of slavery, but only as a specific case of a state's right to declare a federal law null and void. Southern states sought to secede because they believed that the federal government had no authority to tell them how to run their affairs.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

I believe they didn't intend to stay seceded, they only wanted to make a major point and to force Lincoln to allow the expansion of slavery. Obviously not only did Lincoln not call their bluff, he proclaimed war against them to let them know he wasn't going to be kowtowing to them. Did he make the right decision? I wonder what would have happened if he had just let them secede. There is a good possibility that before long, those states would have eventually come back to the union with their tails between their legs. But I think Lincoln may have realized that by then, slavery would have to be abolished everywhere, so might as well just deal with it now rather than later.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: LSU0408

Why did the South not free their slaves until after they had lost the war? Why did they not free them before the war?

Many were freed. And America wasn't the only place that had a need for slavery. Without technology and enough man power, the crops needed hands. And don't think for a second that the north didn't cash in on Southern crops. People blame the South for slavery, but it was all over the U.S. for over 200 years before it was just in the South, and the fault should be laid on Africa as well. We, today, can never grasp the way things should have and could have been done 150 years ago. We can all agree that slavery is wrong, but we all have the blessing of not having to live in those times and we can kind of guess what it was like. Also, do you know why the north abandoned slavery? It wasn't because they thought it was evil.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not a downplay. It would be like you going to war to fight for freedom because that's what you were told, not knowing that in those declarations of war, you were also fighting for other things. Do you honestly think you could round up enough people to fight for, OR against, slavery? Absolutely not. It wasn't even a forethought in the first two years of war.

You are using modern morality to judge how people would react to slavery in the past. People in the past had VERY different opinions on the morality of slavery.

Dude, so are you.

a reply to: kaylaluv

It should also be noted that Lincoln didn't campaign on the idea of ending slavery. The Southern states seceded from the union as a response to Lincoln's election based on political hyperbole and exaggerations about Lincoln's desires as President. Lincoln just wanted to stop the expansion of slavery into new territories. Ending slavery was a decision he came to after several years of war with the South and it mostly started as a tactic to undermine the South's war effort (being that the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the south).

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's not a downplay. It would be like you going to war to fight for freedom because that's what you were told, not knowing that in those declarations of war, you were also fighting for other things. Do you honestly think you could round up enough people to fight for, OR against, slavery? Absolutely not. It wasn't even a forethought in the first two years of war.

You are using modern morality to judge how people would react to slavery in the past. People in the past had VERY different opinions on the morality of slavery.

Dude, so are you.

No, I'm using accounts and historical reports to base my opinions. I'm not the one trying to hide the warts of his history. If I were a Southerner, I'd acknowledge the bad parts of my history along with the good. I certainly acknowledge the US's involvement with its "wars" (more like genocides) against the Natives.

I also readily admit that Northern states held slaves, that our founding fathers owned slaves, and that north wasn't completely altruistic with fighting the Civil War. These are all facts in history that I look at and accept unemotionally. I recognize the importance slavery played on the country as a whole and the significance it played in the south because -I- don't want to repeat history. I want to learn from it and analyze what happened to lead to the things that happened in the past happening.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You're confused. I never said it wasn't fought over the issue of slavery. That's just one of many things that were in the Declarations of Secession. I said most of the soldiers didn't fight to retain slavery. They had their own reasons for what they did. There were many causes of the civil war, including differences between northern and southern states on the idea of slavery, as well as trade, tariffs, and states rights.

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Krazysh0t

You're confused. I never said it wasn't fought over the issue of slavery. That's just one of many things that were in the Declarations of Secession. I said most of the soldiers didn't fight to retain slavery. They had their own reasons for what they did. There were many causes of the civil war, including differences between northern and southern states on the idea of slavery, as well as trade, tariffs, and states rights.

Dude, no one cares about the individual reasons that various individual soldiers had for fighting a war. No one talks about the varying reasons soldiers fought WWI or WWII. Not every soldier fought in the Revolutionary war to create the United States either. I imagine many just wanted the British to get out of their backyard, but didn't really want to LEAVE the British.

Wars are fought for specific reasons, to alter that narrative because a soldier was duped into fighting for a different reason is just a distraction. Like I said originally to you, wars are ALWAYS the fought by the poor to settle grievances of the rich.

I didn't fight in Iraq to secure WMDs/free iraq/avenge 9/11 or whatever other reason we went over there. I fought in Iraq because I was sent there by my superior officers and didn't have a choice in the matter. I joined the Army to turn my life around. None of that has to do with worldwide political reasons. That doesn't change the fact that the Iraq war was fought for a reason (though to this day I have trouble figuring out what it was).

a reply to: kaylaluv

"...pissed the Southern rich guys off"

You said it all right there. Those are the same ones the wrote the Declarations of Secession. Making it about slavery alone wouldn't have been enough to gather hundreds of thousands of men to fight. That's why so many fought for states' rights which meant freedom for the feds telling them what to do. Many people have been feeling the same way lately, wanting to secede from the federal government because its forcing the states to do things they don't want to do. And I hate to break it to you, but the South was perfectly able to live without the north. Had the north been able to make it without the South, Lincoln wouldn't have gotten involved with our right to secede. All he wanted to do with the slaves is ship them back to Liberia or colonize them somewhere in America because he didn't think blacks should intermingle with his race.

a reply to: LSU0408

I hate to break it to you, but the South was significantly behind the North technologically. The South's economy was mostly built on agriculture with little manufacturing. The South had to rely on manufactured goods shipped back down from the North to run their economy. The South wouldn't have been able to survive for very long in the fast industrializing world without the North.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, you don't care why the soldiers fought because it doesn't fit your narrative. If wars are fought for specific reasons, why are you ignoring the specific reasons most soldiers fought? Because again, it doesn't fit your slavery narrative.

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, you don't care why the soldiers fought because it doesn't fit your narrative. If wars are fought for specific reasons, why are you ignoring the specific reasons most soldiers fought? Because again, it doesn't fit your slavery narrative.

It's because it's a cop out. I can't account for the reasons for every single soldier who fought a war. I CAN account for the overall rationalizations used to justify the war and secession though. None of what you have said has warranted the narrative that slavery wasn't that important to the south and the reasons they seceded. You probably also think that the "states rights" argument has nothing to do with slavery don't you?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Agriculture... Something the north didn't have, but depended on. The South would have been just fine. We would have come along in time, may not have been immediate, but eventually.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, you don't care why the soldiers fought because it doesn't fit your narrative. If wars are fought for specific reasons, why are you ignoring the specific reasons most soldiers fought? Because again, it doesn't fit your slavery narrative.

It's because it's a cop out. I can't account for the reasons for every single soldier who fought a war. I CAN account for the overall rationalizations used to justify the war and secession though. None of what you have said has warranted the narrative that slavery wasn't that important to the south and the reasons they seceded. You probably also think that the "states rights" argument has nothing to do with slavery don't you?

Meh, whatever. And states' rights stood for lots of things. You're sweeping generalization of what it stood for is the problem.

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Agriculture... Something the north didn't have, but depended on. The South would have been just fine. We would have come along in time, may not have been immediate, but eventually.

Actually both the South and the North would suffer. If we were to look at this rationally, we could determine that the North would either have to secure new trade routes for its raw supplies. This being because we can assume the bad blood between the north and south would prohibit trade between the two countries. The South on the other end would have no one to export its supplies to initially. The north, being better developed would be able to better control trade and shipping routes around the world, so would eventually be able to secure trade negotiations for raw materials from other parts of the world. The North would also have the capability of locking the south and prohibiting them from trading with anyone.

But even then, the South never stood a chance in the Civil War. The North had the upper hand in the attrition department AND the technology department. Plus, most of the war was fought in the South, so all their plantations and farms were torn up and razed. Any outcome of the Civil War ending without reunification would also result in more wars fought between the North and South later down the line due to bitter blood.

So overall, both economies would suffer and likely crash, but the North would be better poised to recover from it. Heck the only reason the South recovered quicker than it should have after its economic crash post-Civil War was because of the help it received from the North to rebuild.

originally posted by: LSU0408

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: LSU0408
a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, you don't care why the soldiers fought because it doesn't fit your narrative. If wars are fought for specific reasons, why are you ignoring the specific reasons most soldiers fought? Because again, it doesn't fit your slavery narrative.

It's because it's a cop out. I can't account for the reasons for every single soldier who fought a war. I CAN account for the overall rationalizations used to justify the war and secession though. None of what you have said has warranted the narrative that slavery wasn't that important to the south and the reasons they seceded. You probably also think that the "states rights" argument has nothing to do with slavery don't you?

Meh, whatever. And states' rights stood for lots of things. You're sweeping generalization of what it stood for is the problem.

No it stood for the economic ability to apply slave laws to new territories without federal interference. Calling it "states' rights" is just a roundabout way of trying to erase the historical significance of slavery to the Civil War.