Dumb Civil War Discourse

[wvkeeper(HN)]

I find both Democrats and Republicans completely ignorant of anything that happened more than five minutes ago, but the Haley talk the last day or so has brought out the dumbest on both sides. One of the worst arguments is this idea that "Republicans freed the slaves and Democrats seceded".



It has the same ring of truth as saying John Denver and Charles Lindbergh were both pilots.

 

[i am herdman]

The "civil war" was caused by a host of reasons, mainly economic, tariffs, etc. The slavery vs non slavery being the sole cause and effect of the civil war is just an easy out and an easy answer to a complex situation.

It really wasn't even a civil war. A block of states decided to leave the union. But, nobody wants to have the real discussion. When you did deeper into the answer can't be a few words in a 10 second sentence.

 

[HerdandHokies]

“It wasn’t even a civil war” might be one of the more nutso takes I’ve seen on here, since blocking EG anyway.

 

[i am herdman]

“It wasn’t even a civil war” might be one of the more nutso takes I’ve seen on here, since blocking EG anyway.

South Carolina actually went through a process and informed the union Federal Govt that is wished to leave the union. It wasn't like an ethnic group or a political party or race riots started and there was unrest. Subsequent states followed and they wanted to leave and start their own Republic.


Civil War is mislabeled. The way it is taught in modern classrooms is not a complete picture. It is almost dumb. Oh yehh there was slavery and the northern states went on some crusade to free slaves. THat is basically what they teach.

It was truely a war between states. it was like the Serbs were fighting the Muslims.

Nobody has the balls to say it because they have sugar coated the history and made it a part of the modern stir the race bait. Why not look at it objectively. Will they teach about Northern Tariffs on Southern Produced goods and rice?

The Southern States became essentially became a seperate country.

 

[HerdandHokies]

The south fought the civil war to preserve slavery. The north fought it to preserve the union, and probably wouldn’t/couldn’t have banned slavery anyway in the short term.

But the south tried to leave due to slavery. It is that simple.

 

[i am herdman]

The south fought the civil war to preserve slavery. The north fought it to preserve the union, and probably wouldn’t/couldn’t have banned slavery anyway in the short term.

But the south tried to leave due to slavery. It is that simple.

partly but it was not that simple. Dig a little deeper. Go back in time and look at the totality of the economics. You likely won't but maybe you should. Most wars are usually not "that simple". Dig into rice tariffs, tariffs of southern goods going to Europe and how the North was exploiting that in congress to pay for their states.

 

[GeauxHerd]

Why are people asking about a topic from the 1860s at a political rally in 2023? Maybe someone should ask Joe Biden about the Klans presence at the 1924 Democrat convention in NYC.

 

[i am herdman]

Why are people asking about a topic from the 1860s at a political rally in 2023? Maybe someone should ask Joe Biden about the Klans presence at the 1924 Democrat convention in NYC.

exactly.

 

[herdfan429]

Nikki Haley is terrible on the fly.

 

[30CAT]

Why are people asking about a topic from the 1860s at a political rally in 2023? Maybe someone should ask Joe Biden about the Klans presence at the 1924 Democrat convention in NYC.

To distract from the disaster that Pedo-Joe is.

 

[GeauxHerd]

Do distract from the disaster that Pedo-Joe is.

Joe Biden was at the 1924 democrat convention with korn pop in chains

 

[big_country90]

 

[wvkeeper(HN)]

The "Civil War" was not a civil war for the simple reason that the South had no interest in overthrowing or overtaking the government in Washington, D.C.

There were slaves in New Jersey until the 13th Amendment.

There were more free blacks in the South during the war than there were up North.

Illinois' had a law on the books, moved by Lincoln's law partner, that banned blacks from owning property in the state.

Jim Crow laws started in Massachusetts.

The Corwin Amendment in 1861 would have established slavery in perpetuity and it was introduced by an Ohio congressman.

There are a lot of complexities to the situation.

Also, don't come in here with the Cornerstone Speech.

 

[KyMUfan]

The south fought the civil war to preserve slavery. The north fought it to preserve the union, and probably wouldn’t/couldn’t have banned slavery anyway in the short term.

But the south tried to leave due to slavery. It is that simple.

You really seem obsessed with that overly simplistic narrative.

There was no one single cause for the war for either side. However like most wars economics played a major part with the Morrill Tariff sparking a tinder box.

At the time slavery was as much of a economic issue as it was a moral issue. You had abolitionists making it a moral issue (somewhat like the pro-lifers of today) though they comprised a very small % of the northern states. Again it was economic.

However it is fashionable today for the narrative to be the war was about slavery with Lincoln and the North being great emancipators (as taught in schools) which you seem to buy into.

This was simply not the case and nowhere was that more evident than New York City. The city was prospering from the illegal slave trade and later had a race-based draft riot.

Lastly what was the North's primary motivation to preserve the Union? Hmmm... Could it have been the financial aspects of the Morrill Tariff???

 

[wvkeeper(HN)]

 

[KyMUfan]

“It wasn’t even a civil war” might be one of the more nutso takes I’ve seen on here, since blocking EG anyway.

This...

The "Civil War" was not a civil war for the simple reason that the South had no interest in overthrowing or overtaking the government in Washington, D.C.

It was a successionist movement, not to conquer or overthrow but to peaceably co-exist. In that way it was similar to the American Revolution - don't tax us and leave us the ______ alone!

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

One of the worst arguments is this idea that "Republicans freed the slaves and Democrats seceded".

Conservatives seceded. Lincoln was a progressive. Next question.

 

[HerdandHokies]

This...



It was a successionist movement, not to conquer or overthrow but to peaceably co-exist. In that way it was similar to the American Revolution - don't tax us and leave us the ______ alone!

The American Revolution was a civil war. That’s just the definition of the word. Herdman is inventing a more strict definition.

You really seem obsessed with that overly simplistic narrative.

There was no one single cause for the war for either side. However like most wars economics played a major part with the Morrill Tariff sparking a tinder box.

At the time slavery was as much of a economic issue as it was a moral issue. You had abolitionists making it a moral issue (somewhat like the pro-lifers of today) though they comprised a very small % of the northern states. Again it was economic.

However it is fashionable today for the narrative to be the war was about slavery with Lincoln and the North being great emancipators (as taught in schools) which you seem to buy into.

This was simply not the case and nowhere was that more evident than New York City. The city was prospering from the illegal slave trade and later had a race-based draft riot.

Lastly what was the North's primary motivation to preserve the Union? Hmmm... Could it have been the financial aspects of the Morrill Tariff???

No, like I said pretty clearly, for the North the point of the war was to preserve the union, not to end slavery. The North overall probably wanted to end slavery but I don’t think they ever would've marched an army into the South to do so, or at least not in the short term.

The Morrill Tariff wouldn’t have passed had the Senators from the southern states not resigned after their states seceded so I’m not sure how that could be a cause for secession. It was a result of it.

 

[KyMUfan]

The American Revolution was a civil war. That’s just the definition of the word. Herdman is inventing a more strict definition.

So are you agreeing with me the War Between the State was the second round of the American Revolution?

Why was WV allowed to secede from VA but VA was not able to secede from the US?

No, like I said pretty clearly, for the North the point of the war was to preserve the union, not to end slavery. The North overall probably wanted to end slavery but I don’t think they ever would've marched an army into the South to do so, or at least not in the short term.

Nice assumption there when nothing contemporary suggests that. The abolitionist movement was considered a fringe at the time but had vocal support, much like some current fringe groups.

The Morrill Tariff wouldn’t have passed had the Senators from the southern states not resigned after their states seceded so I’m not sure how that could be a cause for secession. It was a result of it.

I said it was a tinder box for war, not secession. It passed before the first shots were fired.

 

[wvkeeper(HN)]

Conservatives seceded. Lincoln was a progressive. Next question.

Yes.

However the Confederate constitution had some proto-state socialism in it.