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.
The problem I have with the slavery argument is that, well into the 19th century, the Northern states were active participants in the slave trade (a fact that is nearly always ignored when discussing the North/South divide...) For men to go from slave trading/ownership to risking their lives to free Southern slaves in a matter of decades seems unlikely.
What unadulterated crap. The international slave trade was abolished in 1808. The Lost Cause crowd will tell any lie to rationalize the evil of slavery.
As usual... I will agree with the first part of the bolded and disagree with the second.
The South seceded over the slavery issue for sure, but it came to WAR over the North's refusal to allow secession... I think differentiating the two is vital in understanding the supposed "Causes of the Civil War"...
JMO
I do not agree that there is some critical distinction between:
"We are at war because you stole my car"
and
"We are at war because you wouldn't give me the car which I also owned"
In such a case, simply saying...."We are fighting because of the car" covers both sides rather than advancing one view over the other.
What unadulterated crap. The international slave trade was abolished in 1808. The Lost Cause crowd will tell any lie to rationalize the evil of slavery.
I don't know what the Lost Cause crowd is, and I doubt I would have anything in common with them. Pointing out that the horrors of slavery were present throughout early America does not rationalize them. I only mention it to show that it is unlikely that the equally flawed Northerners would do something as heroic as give their lives to free people they had never met and were also not treating as equals in their own states.
I will agree that for the South the slavery issue was the strongest driving force in the secession. But I think that secession & preservation of the union was the driving force for the North, *not* the freeing of slaves.
I will agree that for the South the slavery issue was the strongest driving force in the secession. But I think that secession & preservation of the union was the driving force for the North, *not* the freeing of slaves.
I would add preservation of the integrity of the election system to your above submissions.
This was what Lincoln had in mind with his "...government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth" line.
America was set up as the great experiment in democracy. It was scoffed at by European nations which likened it to mob rule and predicted its failure.
And of course it could only work if the population agreed to abide by the outcomes of the elections. If election results could be ignored and the losers were free to simply leave and set up their own government in response, then the experiment was a failure and the Europeans were right. Democracy was in danger or perishing from the earth.
In Northern minds, they were very much fighting for the validation of the experiment, to prove...as in Lincoln's words....that such a government can "long endure."
That is why the North could not simply let the South go.
It makes a tidy story to paint the good North/evil South divide, but the messy truth better serves us all. As we near the 150th anniversary of the secession, it is high time we take an honest look at our past and the intentions and motivations of both the rebels and union solders. This ugly stain on our history is not going away, but we have a chance to move past the stale old good vs. evil narrative and be honest with ourselves about our past.
It's a good time to seriously consider reparations from all of slavery's heirs, as well.
I don't know what the Lost Cause crowd is, and I doubt I would have anything in common with them. Pointing out that the horrors of slavery were present throughout early America does not rationalize them. I only mention it to show that it is unlikely that the equally flawed Northerners would do something as heroic as give their lives to free people they had never met and were also not treating as equals in their own states.
I will agree that for the South the slavery issue was the strongest driving force in the secession. But I think that secession & preservation of the union was the driving force for the North, *not* the freeing of slaves.
No one has ever argued that the North entered the war to free slaves. Lincoln's primary motivation was to preserve the Union. That is universally accepted.
It's just a flat lie to claim that the slave trade was a factor in the war or that there wasn't a very strong sentiment in the north to abolish slavery countrywide. The Northern states had acted unilaterally to abolish slavery at the state level well before the south seceded. There were as many reason for fighting the war as there were soldiers.
There was no external slave trade in 1861, it had not existed for decades. While some southerners argued it should begin again, this idea was never seriously considered. For one thing it would have annoyed the heck out of the British. For another, W Africa was not the same as when slaving was going on.
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.
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.
