Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-29-2011, 09:46 AM
 
Location: Wheaton, Illinois
10,261 posts, read 21,645,257 times
Reputation: 10453

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
However, to say that "The Civil War was about slavery" implies (to me, at least), that the north was fighting to end slavery, and that is an assertion I disagree with.

One must understand the disconnection between the goals of the two sides; that while the rebels were fighting to preserve slavery the Federals were not fighting to destroy it but to preserve the Union (which was being sundered because the rebels were trying to protect slavery). Once this concept is understood things fall into place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-29-2011, 09:57 AM
 
3,457 posts, read 3,608,326 times
Reputation: 1544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29 View Post
One must understand the disconnection between the goals of the two sides; that while the rebels were fighting to preserve slavery the Federals were not fighting to destroy it but to preserve the Union (which was being sundered because the rebels were trying to protect slavery). Once this concept is understood things fall into place.
I agree. I think there's a subtext to this argument that keeps rearing its head--

When someone says, "The Civil War was about slavery," to me they are saying the north was on some kind of moral crusade to end slavery.

I suppose if you take the view that the Confederacy was the aggressor (it seceded, it fired the first shots), then it's easy to see the entire war being "about slavery" and its preservation. If you take the view that the confederacy was within its rights to secede, and that the union was the aggressor, then the war is no longer "about slavery," it is about a state's right to secede.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2011, 10:06 AM
 
5,730 posts, read 10,086,669 times
Reputation: 8050
Quote:
Originally Posted by j_k_k View Post
For the same reason poor people have often, throughout history, acted against their own interests by vigorously defending the right of the wealthy to milk them dry. Whether it was the church, smugglers, a coal mine or a corporation, answer's the same: because historically, the people don't act in their own best interests. They hose themselves.

We may debate whether this is idiocy, a desire to be associated with the gleam of the social winners, or whatever other reason; but whether it's peasants signing up to go Crusading, Colonials manipulated into throwing lower cost tea into a harbor while buying expensive smuggled tea from future 'founding fathers', poor Southern whites going to war so that wealthy Southern whites could continue to live opulent lifestyles, or poor and elderly people voting for leaders whose stated goal is to make poor and elderly people poorer, it's been with us a very long time.

There's a pervasive myth, necessary to the concept of one-person-one-vote and also necessary to the concept of the labor union, that 'the people' are actually wise. It's incorrect. Historically, 'the people' are dumber than a sack of wet nickels, and when their overlords want to screw them big time, their usual hooks are religion and nationalism. In the South, it was nationalism. So poor whites marched off to war, often barefoot and starving, while rich whites continued cultivating cash crops rather than switch to food crops that would have fed their soldiers, confident that the poor were too stupid to assemble the pieces, stick their bayonets in the ground and go home.
Funny considering how many of those 'Rich southern white people' funded entire UNITS of military out of their own pockets, and their sons, and often themselves 'answered the call' and fought and died...

As to cash crops... a country needs money, and little of it (Comparatively) got out.

Look up the historys of the founding fathers some time. See how many gave up EVERYTHING (And they WERE rich... before that)

Same in the War of Northern Aggression.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29 View Post
One must understand the disconnection between the goals of the two sides; that while the rebels were fighting to preserve slavery the Federals were not fighting to destroy it but to preserve the Union (which was being sundered because the rebels were trying to protect slavery). Once this concept is understood things fall into place.
I think it's ironically funny that Lincoln is held up as this paragon of virtue who tried so hard to uphold the Conn and Union when he did more than ANYONE to trample and destroy the constitution!

The Draft, Fiat currency, Lock you up with no trial, trample the first amendment, trample states rights etc...

But the winner writes the history books...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2011, 10:22 AM
 
14,780 posts, read 43,469,826 times
Reputation: 14621
Can we just get a couple stickies in the History forum so we can stop answering everyone of these threads?

1. Debate the causes of the Civil War.

2. The Global Zionist Conspiracy/neo-Nazi rantings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2011, 10:34 AM
 
Location: Wheaton, Illinois
10,261 posts, read 21,645,257 times
Reputation: 10453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname View Post

But the winner writes the history books...

A trite and untruthful statement; a lie in other words. There is no shortage of books written from the rebel viewpoint. Despite your assertions of Lincoln's having trampled on the Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2011, 10:52 AM
 
5,730 posts, read 10,086,669 times
Reputation: 8050
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29 View Post
A trite and untruthful statement; a lie in other words. There is no shortage of books written from the rebel viewpoint. Despite your assertions of Lincoln's having trampled on the Constitution.
The Winner Writes the History Books « Mama Afrika's World

I didn't come up with the Statement.
The actual root of it IIRC is a Nepolionic quote, I'll try to see if I can dig it out later.

And no, it is NOT a lie about the Rebel viewpoint, and THAT has NOTHING to do with the FACT that Lincoln Trampled the Conn.

Go, check the FACTS I typed about conscription and the rest...
If you want to take the risk of becoming educated!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2011, 01:10 PM
 
Location: Aloverton
6,560 posts, read 14,394,270 times
Reputation: 10164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname View Post
Same in the War of Northern Aggression.
Here we go with the neo-Confederate baloney again. When someone tries to call it this, evidently figuring that South Cackalacky firing on Fort Sumter was the Union's fault ("because it provoked us!"), I know their views lack balance. When they start lecturing 'read your history' in a condescending manner, even more so.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2011, 03:19 PM
 
Location: FROM Dixie, but IN SoCal
3,484 posts, read 6,482,602 times
Reputation: 3792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname View Post
You DO understand that the south was predominantly Democrat's back then... right?
Actually, no. The South was predominantly Republican before the Civil War. They became "Dixie-crats" rather than Republicans, entirely because of the Civil War. Why? Because it was largely promulgated and pursued by the Republican Party (including Lincoln).

Anyone who has trouble with this needs simply to look at the party affiliations of those who pushed the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments (the "Reconstruction Amendments") from concept into law.

Now, since it seems that all is forgiven, the South is again almost totally Republican.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2011, 03:39 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 23,967,234 times
Reputation: 21237
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nighteyes View Post
Actually, no. The South was predominantly Republican before the Civil War. .
Ugh, do you mean Democrats? The GOP didn't even exist in the South until after the war.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2011, 03:57 PM
 
Location: FROM Dixie, but IN SoCal
3,484 posts, read 6,482,602 times
Reputation: 3792
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Ugh, do you mean Democrats? The GOP didn't even exist in the South until after the war.
Please reconsult your sources.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:39 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top