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.
However, there will always be the 'all about slavery' bandwagon people that will never admit this. Ironically, most of those people are from the North.
Here is the problem. When you use the article "an" you grammatically place slavery as just one of many issues all of which have equal standing and therein lies our objection. Because, no one, that I know, would argue that slavery was the only issue for any particular combatant. In point of fact, I have argued that when you have 500,000 individuals fighting on one side alone, you are likely to have 499,999 different reasons. But the individual opinions of combatants isn't what we base historical analysis on. We base history our analysis on the those who make and carry out policy and from that standpoint, slaver was THE issue. We reject the analysis that that slavery was simply just one of many reason, it was THE reason. Change the 'an' to a 'the' and we can have a different discussion.
I appreciate the point you're making. And I agree that each of the combatants have their own reasons for engaging in battle. I disagree with you that those rationales are not what we base historical analysis on. Because of course we take into consideration those rationales. As well as taking into consideration the official, policy-maker rationales. And also looking at those issues from the perspective of that time and place. It makes no sense to look at a historical event ONLY from one standpoint, unless doing so serves a particular agenda. Looking at the Civil War and narrowing the cause down to one reason is about an agenda, an agenda that serves the victor, but doesn't serve history. We often say that we must look to history to learn from it, so as not to repeat the errors of the past. But if we look to history to learn from it, we are obligated to look at it in its entirety, not to look at fragments of it that serve an agenda. It's like looking at the Crusades from only the Catholic Church's perspective. That's a valid perspective, but an incomplete history. You don't look at the Children's Crusade solely from the Church's perspective, because you'll never understand it from that perspective. You'll never understand how and why children came to dominate that military venture. You'll never understand the role the plague had in that crusade. You'll never understand the political structure of Europe at that time, if you only read the Church's perspective. You'll never understand the tensions and alliances in the Middle East of the period, how some of those tensions and alliances still impact us today. History isn't served by looking at it from one perspective. And for the most part, we don't even look at it wholly from one perspective, because we too often apply our modern sensibilities and expectations to time periods when such sensibilities and expectations don't apply.
I think the US Civil was mostly about money. Who had it, who was going to get more and how were they going to get it. The Emancipation Proclamation was less about ending slavery than about destroying the Plantation system's financial base by removing the capital value of human beings.
As I personally abhor slavery in all of its forms I believe the EP was one of the most important documents in our history.
Did some research of my own. Apparently, it turns out some of the factors made the nice expensive fabric for the White people who could afford it, including the slave master. Then, there was the coarse-fibered, cheap fabric for the slaves and free Black persons who could not afford nice clothes. Of course slaves didn't get as nice of clothes as the slave master.
I think the US Civil was mostly about money. Who had it, who was going to get more and how were they going to get it. The Emancipation Proclamation was less about ending slavery than about destroying the Plantation system's financial base by removing the capital value of human beings.
As I personally abhor slavery in all of its forms I believe the EP was one of the most important documents in our history.
Well, you have a point there. Money was a factor. I would say that it slavery played a big part in secession because of money. It was just about slavery for the sake of slavery, but money was a big issue.
No one says slavery wasn't an issue. Some of us simply point out that slavery wasn't the ONLY issue. To which many of you take umbrage.
Actually, plenty of people in this thread has stated that secession had nothing to do with slavery. Were there other issues? Of course, and they were mentioned - like with a bad divorce, every single grievance was aired. But slavery was what got things rolling.
There may have been some architects behind the secession who thought in terms of agrarian vs. industrialized - a conflict they were of course doomed to lose, no matter what - but their documents, their declarations, the entire debate about new territories being slavery states or not - the banner they waved for their supporters to follow was emblazoned with the word "Slavery".
Slavery was important enough that the Confederate constitution protected the institution (interestingly, secession wasn't mentioned). Doing away with slavery wasn't on the agenda at any point in time. When slaves were made to fight on the Confederate side (for a promise of manumission), enraged letters filled the newspapers about how this was an abandonment of key principles in the struggle.
(Some of the less enthusiastic states may have had other reasons - let's not overlook the important principle of "being on the winning side when this is over", which may or may not be the noblest of ideals, but that's the sort of decisions politicians are sometimes faced with.)
And I have no doubt that the leaders on both sides would have acted differently, had they been able to predict the bloodiness of the conflict.
"...the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right."
vice president of the confederate states Alexander H. Stephens' Cornerstone Speech, Savannah Georgia March 21, 1861.
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.
Would have never guessed.
