Wars, genocide, reparations, religion, etc (split from recruiting forum)

[dalton_vol]

No that was as much of a rallying cry for the South as slavery was for the north. It was about culture and economics more than anything else. South Carolina wasn't the first state to secede, it was Massachusetts. When the economics of doing so stared them in the face, they thought better of it. The north would have been seriously economically damaged had the South been allowed to break away. The north would have been put on equal footing with other foreign nations in bidding for the exports of the South, namely cotton. This would have really hammered the northern economy. So the war was largely about money.
The war was also a clash on cultures and ideas on governance. The northern tendency was for a top down brand of governing, stronger central governments like Europe. (there was much European immigration to the north in the 17th century) The Southern idea tended to be more bottom up, much more self governing like the original colonies. The South was not going to willingly submit to a northern brand of governance. Sherman himself said the important thing was not conquering the South but destroying the Southern way of life, and he wasn't talking about slavery.

Right, it was about the fed vs states. The southern states were aligned with the founders in terms of limited government than Lincoln.

 

[dalton_vol]

Slavery was abhorrent and evil and needed to end, but the North did not go to war to end slavery. Yes, the South wanted to protect slavery, and yes, they feared the election of Lincoln would lead to a federal ending of slavery, which is why they seceded, but the North went to war to end secession, not slavery. They had no noble purpose other than bringing the South back into the fold, which, at the time, was very arguably un-Constitutional.

Not all of the south wanted to protect slaver, just as all the north wanted it abolished. You're right, it was unconstitutional of what Lincoln did.

 

[Christian Lowe]

Not all of the south wanted to protect slaver, just as all the north wanted it abolished. You're right, it was unconstitutional of what Lincoln did.

At the height of slavery, 1% of southerners owned them though the NAACP will tell you 50% did or something insane like that. Believing the institution of slavery was rallying southerners who would never have them to die makes no sense on its face.

 

[rikberry31]

LOL, I cannot let this go. The War of Northern Aggression? I love how everyone claims how wrong slavery is and still states that it was granted with an illegal invasion. How else was it going to be abolished? It eventually would have, but how much longer would it have endured? Way too long, IMO.

First off if abolishing slavery was so important to the north why didn't they abolish it in the north? Long after the war slavery was legal in the north, New Jersey was the last state to outlaw slavery.
Second slavery was already well on its way to being dead and was probably prolonged by the north trying to dictate its end to the South. Slavery was replaced by sharecropping which was much more economically advantageous to the landowners. Lincoln didn't free the slaves, he just made them free.
Slavery was an excuse the north used to seize power and dictate strong federal government to the South. The South was a loose cannon and the north was having none of it. Similar to the way other excuses (covid, systemic racism, gun violence, hate speech, saving democracy, etc.) are used today to take control and people's rights.

 

[LouderVol]

A “state’s right” to keep people in bondage.

It was really all about wealth, as with most wars. It was the industrialization of the north that lead to their freeing of slaves, not some moral movement. That same industrialization was prohibited from reaching the south. If the south had been allowed to industrialized at the same pace as the north, there may not have been a civil war. even if all the issues couldn't have been addressed, there were several artificial drivers, largely coming from the north, that kept the south from developing.

Industrialization, especially in the 1800s, required large capital investments and generally a geographic driver. generally access to water. either for internal trade allowing many pieces to come together from disparate parts, powering mills through water wheels, or outside trade ultimately selling. Due to weather agriculture in the north was never going to compete with agriculture in the south, and they had to change sooner to industrialization.

The north also typically had a shorter route to a coast, and also generally went to the Atlantic coast where most of the trade partners were in Europe. The south had several states with Atlantic access, but about half of the trade still had to go south once you got over the Continental divide, even Georgia with an Atlantic coast, about half the state drains to the southern Gulf not the Atlantic. so trade was physically restricted.

Through a number of tariffs, including but not limited to, The Tariffs of 1828, 1857, the Morrill Bill/Tariff, foreign trade was directly restricted. the tariffs were designed to protect the manufacturing industry, not the agriculture side. typically there were higher export tariffs on raw goods, cotton, wool, tobacco leaves, food, than there was on finished goods like clothes, refined tobacco products, or packaged foods. This cut back on how much foreign trade the south could do, and we decreased market access they were forced to sell their goods to the north at discounted prices. the north then turned that raw good into a refined product, and was able to sell it at a much higher profit margin than the south could. Prices for everything in the south was higher than it was in the north due to this.

There were also the emergence of several strong monopolies operating out of the north that colluded to shut down competition in the south with various price gouging and other methods. the Sherman anti-trust act wasn't passed until 1890. had it come about half a century earlier there may not have been a civil war. They often conspired with various lenders, and other related industries like rail roads to avoid expanding into the south. There were a couple big names who had some hands in this, JP Morgan was really starting to get his feet wet when the Civil War kicked off. Carnegie as well already had investments in steel, rail, and the like by 1860. definitely not the giants they later were, but they were already practicing what made them rich. and they were working with the existing monopolies, and a key part of all of that was geographic centrality.

So a combination of geographic benefits, and federal level laws artificially drove industrialization in the north, while denying the south direct profits that would have spurred industrialization. because of the larger tariffs on unrefined goods shipping companies were more focused in the north, again feeding the localization of industry. and then the monopolies ensured that industrialization stayed in their control. Over time the south began to see all these laws passed as directly isolating them, while solely benefitting the north and Washington.

If slavery wasn't a money making industry no one would have cared and it would have dried up on its own even in the south. saying the civil war was about slavery is the same as saying it was about state's rights. they are both partially correct, but doesn't get to the drivers of why those things are important. it wasn't a moral crusade to free the south of federal overreach, nor a northern one to end slavery in the US. it was all about wealth and the control it provides.

 

[rikberry31]

I hate that argument. My family has been here since the 1740’s and I’m “lucky I’m allowed to live here” because I’m critical of the government and direction of my country. Yet it’s the same people that say **** like that who argue that immigration crackdowns are racist and they have as much a right to be here as anyone else. It’s asinine.

Amen.

 

[LouderVol]

First off if abolishing slavery was so important to the north why didn't they abolish it in the north? Long after the war slavery was legal in the north, New Jersey was the last state to outlaw slavery.
Second slavery was already well on its way to being dead and was probably prolonged by the north trying to dictate its end to the South. Slavery was replaced by sharecropping which was much more economically advantageous to the landowners. Lincoln didn't free the slaves, he just made them free.
Slavery was an excuse the north used to seize power and dictate strong federal government to the South. The South was a loose cannon and the north was having none of it. Similar to the way other excuses (covid, systemic racism, gun violence, hate speech, saving democracy, etc.) are used today to take control and people's rights.

New Jersey outlawed slavery Jan 23rd 1866. it wasn't that long after. granted they had all been freed in the south first.

 

[Christian Lowe]

Another thing people fail to mention is the south could’ve easily won the civil war early on if they had interest in doing anything other than protecting their own newfound nation. They initially had the union on its heels and pushed them out of the south. After that, they thought it was essentially over and stopped pursuing, not wanting Union territory or more bloodshed.

The Union licked its wounds, stocked up, and took it back to the south in a way the southerners never thought they would do to their own. A lot of these higher ranks served together, went to West Point together, etc. What Sherman did was unthinkable to the southern leadership and they never prepared for it. They just wanted them out of the south. The union wanted total domination. That’s the truth of why they lost, not lacking industrial capabilities.

 

[rikberry31]

New Jersey outlawed slavery Jan 23rd 1866. it wasn't that long after. granted they had all been freed in the south first.

That's almost three years after they cheered vociferously for the Emancipation Proclamation, that seems a little hypocritical. They just finished four years of brutal war supposedly because the wanted to end slavery so badly and didn't even end it in their own state?
Fact is, just like a lot of wars, it cost much more than the instigators originally thought it would (original northern enlistments for the war were for six months) so it needed a noble justification.

 

[rikberry31]

Another thing people fail to mention is the south could’ve easily won the civil war early on if they had interest in doing anything other than protecting their own newfound nation. They initially had the union on its heels and pushed them out of the south. After that, they thought it was essentially over and stopped pursuing, not wanting Union territory or more bloodshed.

The Union licked its wounds, stocked up, and took it back to the south in a way the southerners never thought they would do to their own. A lot of these higher ranks served together, went to West Point together, etc. What Sherman did was unthinkable to the southern leadership and they never prepared for it. They just wanted them out of the south. The union wanted total domination. That’s the truth of why they lost, not lacking industrial capabilities.

I read in a book that I can't remember, I think it was a Shelby Foote book, a story about a Yankee and Confederate soldier talking about the war. The Yankee asks the Confederate, "Whadaya fightin' for?" and the Confederate says, "Cause you're down here."

 

[hog88]

Another thing people fail to mention is the south could’ve easily won the civil war early on if they had interest in doing anything other than protecting their own newfound nation. They initially had the union on its heels and pushed them out of the south. After that, they thought it was essentially over and stopped pursuing, not wanting Union territory or more bloodshed.

The Union licked its wounds, stocked up, and took it back to the south in a way the southerners never thought they would do to their own. A lot of these higher ranks served together, went to West Point together, etc. What Sherman did was unthinkable to the southern leadership and they never prepared for it. They just wanted them out of the south. The union wanted total domination. That’s the truth of why they lost, not lacking industrial capabilities.

I don't think the south could have ever "won" the war, they could have taken DC which would have ensured Lincoln being removed from office or at the very least not reelected. That alone would have at the best case won a truce for a few years but the Federalists in the north were not going to allow the CSA to exist. The north would have simply rearmed and remanned and invaded a second time.

 

[Weezer]

I agree with this to a degree. It was definitely also about preserving the Union. However, abolishing slavery was not an afterthought. It was a goal, if not the primary goal. The South viewed the abolishment of slavery as economic genocide and they were likely fairly right about that, but that does not mean that they should have fought to maintain that status quo.

Only it was not the primary goal of the North. They did not go to war with the South with the idea of "Hey, let's abolish slavery". It was a year and a half into the war when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, and that only freed slaves in state's that were in rebellion. It ignored slavery in the slave states that remained in the Union. Like Jack, you're trying to assign a nobility to the North that just isn't there. Slavery was absolutely an evil institution that was a blight on the face of this nation, but the North did not go to war with the idea of ending it.

 

[drvenner]

It was really all about wealth, as with most wars. It was the industrialization of the north that lead to their freeing of slaves, not some moral movement. That same industrialization was prohibited from reaching the south. If the south had been allowed to industrialized at the same pace as the north, there may not have been a civil war. even if all the issues couldn't have been addressed, there were several artificial drivers, largely coming from the north, that kept the south from developing.

Industrialization, especially in the 1800s, required large capital investments and generally a geographic driver. generally access to water. either for internal trade allowing many pieces to come together from disparate parts, powering mills through water wheels, or outside trade ultimately selling. Due to weather agriculture in the north was never going to compete with agriculture in the south, and they had to change sooner to industrialization.

The north also typically had a shorter route to a coast, and also generally went to the Atlantic coast where most of the trade partners were in Europe. The south had several states with Atlantic access, but about half of the trade still had to go south once you got over the Continental divide, even Georgia with an Atlantic coast, about half the state drains to the southern Gulf not the Atlantic. so trade was physically restricted.

Through a number of tariffs, including but not limited to, The Tariffs of 1828, 1857, the Morrill Bill/Tariff, foreign trade was directly restricted. the tariffs were designed to protect the manufacturing industry, not the agriculture side. typically there were higher export tariffs on raw goods, cotton, wool, tobacco leaves, food, than there was on finished goods like clothes, refined tobacco products, or packaged foods. This cut back on how much foreign trade the south could do, and we decreased market access they were forced to sell their goods to the north at discounted prices. the north then turned that raw good into a refined product, and was able to sell it at a much higher profit margin than the south could. Prices for everything in the south was higher than it was in the north due to this.

There were also the emergence of several strong monopolies operating out of the north that colluded to shut down competition in the south with various price gouging and other methods. the Sherman anti-trust act wasn't passed until 1890. had it come about half a century earlier there may not have been a civil war. They often conspired with various lenders, and other related industries like rail roads to avoid expanding into the south. There were a couple big names who had some hands in this, JP Morgan was really starting to get his feet wet when the Civil War kicked off. Carnegie as well already had investments in steel, rail, and the like by 1860. definitely not the giants they later were, but they were already practicing what made them rich. and they were working with the existing monopolies, and a key part of all of that was geographic centrality.

So a combination of geographic benefits, and federal level laws artificially drove industrialization in the north, while denying the south direct profits that would have spurred industrialization. because of the larger tariffs on unrefined goods shipping companies were more focused in the north, again feeding the localization of industry. and then the monopolies ensured that industrialization stayed in their control. Over time the south began to see all these laws passed as directly isolating them, while solely benefitting the north and Washington.

If slavery wasn't a money making industry no one would have cared and it would have dried up on its own even in the south. saying the civil war was about slavery is the same as saying it was about state's rights. they are both partially correct, but doesn't get to the drivers of why those things are important. it wasn't a moral crusade to free the south of federal overreach, nor a northern one to end slavery in the US. it was all about wealth and the control it provides.

excellent post

 

[drvenner]

Only it was not the primary goal of the North. They did not go to war with the South with the idea of "Hey, let's abolish slavery". It was a year and a half into the war when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, and that only freed slaves in state's that were in rebellion. It ignored slavery in the slave states that remained in the Union. Like Jack, you're trying to assign a nobility to the North that just isn't there. Slavery was absolutely an evil institution that was a blight on the face of this nation, but the North did not go to war with the idea of ending it.

Also a good post. I think there was some morality involved. There was also morality in the South. Plenty of folks there wanted to end it as well.

 

[hog88]

Also a good post. I think there was some morality involved. There was also morality in the South. Plenty of folks there wanted to end it as well.

I'd guess that 90% or more of the soldiers fighting for the CSA didn't give a hooties darn about slavery.

 

[EasternVol]

No that was as much of a rallying cry for the South as slavery was for the north. It was about culture and economics more than anything else. South Carolina wasn't the first state to secede, it was Massachusetts. When the economics of doing so stared them in the face, they thought better of it. The north would have been seriously economically damaged had the South been allowed to break away. The north would have been put on equal footing with other foreign nations in bidding for the exports of the South, namely cotton. This would have really hammered the northern economy. So the war was largely about money.
The war was also a clash on cultures and ideas on governance. The northern tendency was for a top down brand of governing, stronger central governments like Europe. (there was much European immigration to the north in the 17th century) The Southern idea tended to be more bottom up, much more self governing like the original colonies. The South was not going to willingly submit to a northern brand of governance. Sherman himself said the important thing was not conquering the South but destroying the Southern way of life, and he wasn't talking about slavery.

The north would also have been in a pickle with free access to the Gulf via the Mississippi blocked.

 

[Christian Lowe]

I don't think the south could have ever "won" the war, they could have taken DC which would have ensured Lincoln being removed from office or at the very least not reelected. That alone would have at the best case won a truce for a few years but the Federalists in the north were not going to allow the CSA to exist. The north would have simply rearmed and remanned and invaded a second time.

They needed us more than we needed them. It’s a common argument to this day from Yanks that the south couldn’t survive without federal money or California's economy or Wall Street or whatever.

The difference is we’re willing to do without, they are not. We’d figure it out, they were unwilling to adjust. Money is a lot less important down here to most people than it is to people everywhere else I’ve been in the country. Us separating would cause a lot of issues for them, even now with the globalist economies. And they’d never stand for that.

I feel eventually this quote will be proven true in this country if something doesn’t change in the federal power structure very soon. Hopefully not in my lifetime, but it’s becoming inevitable.

The most terrifying force of death, comes from the hands of "Men who wanted to be left Alone.”

 

[Weezer]

Also a good post. I think there was some morality involved. There was also morality in the South. Plenty of folks there wanted to end it as well.

The vast majority of abolitionists were still racist bastards. Anti-slavery did not mean pro-equality.

 

[Christian Lowe]

The vast majority of abolitionists were still racist bastards. Anti-slavery did not mean pro-equality.

The most racist people who have ever ruled this country have been the most “black/minority friendly.”


If you don’t research the result of their “helpful” policies for more than 30 seconds.

 

[Orangeburst]

Imagine being bound by a construct that is increasingly discarded, but used to prevent seceeding from the union that it formed. Sounds like authoritarianism.

 

[hog88]

They needed us more than we needed them. It’s a common argument to this day from Yanks that the south couldn’t survive without federal money or California's economy or Wall Street or whatever.

The difference is we’re willing to do without, they are not. We’d figure it out, they were unwilling to adjust. Money is a lot less important down here to most people than it is to people everywhere else I’ve been in the country. Us separating would cause a lot of issues for them, even now with the globalist economies. And they’d never stand for that.

I feel eventually this quote will be proven true in this country if something doesn’t change in the federal power structure very soon. Hopefully not in my lifetime, but it’s becoming inevitable.

The most terrifying force of death, comes from the hands of "Men who wanted to be left Alone.”

At that time we the south did not have the industrial might nor the manpower to "win" the war. Eventually the north would have reunited the union.

 

[Christian Lowe]

Imagine being bound by a construct that is increasingly discarded, but used to prevent seceeding from the union that it formed. Sounds like authoritarianism.

The people who run this country wipe their ass with the constitution if it doesn’t serve them. If it does serve them though, it’s back to being a sacred document.

We have a Supreme Court justice who literally said the first amendment preventing the government from exerting its interests is a “problem.”

Jackson Complains Constitution Is 'Hamstringing' Feds' Censorship

Free speech is on trial at the Supreme Court, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is no fan of the First Amendment.

thefederalist.com

 

[85SugarVol]

The good news is that All of the Lord's children regardless of the color of our skin can sit down at Wendy's together and enjoy a good ole "Dave's Double" together now. This long perplexing debate has been solved brethren.

Can I get that Dave’s Double blessed by the Right Reverend Donald J Trump!

 

[85SugarVol]

The people who run this country wipe their ass with the constitution if it doesn’t serve them. If it does serve them though, it’s back to being a sacred document.

We have a Supreme Court justice who literally said the first amendment preventing the government from exerting its interests is a “problem.”

Jackson Complains Constitution Is 'Hamstringing' Feds' Censorship

Free speech is on trial at the Supreme Court, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is no fan of the First Amendment.

thefederalist.com

There it is - the words/phrase that strike fear in any proponent of Freedom & Liberty.

“Emergency Powers”

In a different exchange, Jackson claimed that a “once-in-a-lifetime pandemic” or any other such declarations of emergency should allow government to escape its constitutional limits.

Emergency Powers is a euphemism for “we’re about to suspend your constitutionals rights, and eff you six ways from Sunday.”

 

[85SugarVol]

What's the use? I read their posts and there is no changing their indoctrinated minds.

Ideologically, he’s on par with Turbo.