Meme About Slavery Not Being Primary Cause of Civil War

Discussion in 'History' started by DoctorJones24, Jun 6, 2009.

  1. NickyViola

    NickyViola Member+

    May 10, 2004
    Boston
    Club:
    ACF Fiorentina
    Even the way you describe it the cause of the war sounds like a struggle for power among the state and federal ruling classes. I think that many in this thread are confusing the cause of the war with the excuse for the war.
     
  2. That Phat Hat

    That Phat Hat Member+

    Nov 14, 2002
    Just Barely Outside the Beltway
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Japan
    But as mentioned previously, the South was perfectly fine with a strong federal government until they started losing their grip on power.

    Sure, political power was at stake, but think about why they were losing power - because Missouri Compromise notwithstanding, the balance of power as shifting more and more away from the slave states, while the Northeast had a rapidly growing economy that didn't rely on slave labor. Slavery was always the cause, even if it wasn't the immediate cause.
     
  3. NickyViola

    NickyViola Member+

    May 10, 2004
    Boston
    Club:
    ACF Fiorentina
    Again. I read what you (this time) wrote and it is clear to me that it was about power.
     
  4. That Phat Hat

    That Phat Hat Member+

    Nov 14, 2002
    Just Barely Outside the Beltway
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Japan
    Right, power issues that arose because of slavery. If all states in the Union were free (or slave) states, then there would be no War Between the States.
     
  5. NickyViola

    NickyViola Member+

    May 10, 2004
    Boston
    Club:
    ACF Fiorentina
    Of course there would have. Someone would have wanted to be king eventually.
     
  6. topcatcole

    topcatcole BigSoccer Supporter

    Apr 26, 2003
    Washington DC
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    America in the 19th century was extremely racist. Lincoln did not make slavery an issue early in the war because he knew that politically it would not garner much support. It was only after he had convinced most people that "preserving the Union" was the reason for the war that he made slavery an issue-and then largely for a foreign audience. Lincoln was a very shrewd politician in this way. Politics is why, for example, the Emancipation Proclamation only ended slavery in areas then "in rebellion"; other slaves were not freed until the 13th Amendment went into effect in December of 1865.

    True, they were not the cause of any economic problems, but the continuing threat of tariffs that would have limited Southern markets were an aspect of the distrust of the national government.

    Because the threatened tariffs were directed at crops like cotton that were not yet widely grown in the West, this is not really the case.

    This is not accurate. The southern states had always pushed for less federal control. If you look at the Federalist Papers and the anti-Federalist Papers you will see that they are very regional with the Federalists being mostly northern. This is due to the makeup of the influential classes of the time. In the South, these were primarily wealthy agrarians who had large farms that were largely self-sufficient and they did not need or want help from the national government. In the North they were much more likely to be traders and they wanted a strong national government to protect trade routes.
    In fact, we still see this divide in the US today. Rural areas, like the South was at the time, are overwhelmingly for less federal control. Urban areas are overwhelmingly for a stronger central government.
     
  7. That Phat Hat

    That Phat Hat Member+

    Nov 14, 2002
    Just Barely Outside the Beltway
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Japan
    Really? I know we're working with a very limited sample of 200+ years of the republic, but we've never had a civil war when slavery wasn't an issue, but we did get one when slavery was at the crux of multiple conflicts.

    Consider that disagreement over slavery threatened to tear the union apart before there was a United States, there wasn't a civil war after the northern and southern colonies reached a compromise, and then we've had zero, that's right, ZERO civil wars since the ratification of the 13th Amendment, there's simply nothing to support your assertion that this country would have gone to a civil war over any issue other than slavery.
     
  8. NickyViola

    NickyViola Member+

    May 10, 2004
    Boston
    Club:
    ACF Fiorentina
    History has seen many civil wars and slavery has pretty much always existed but you want me to believe that slavery was the cause to this one? That makes no sense using your "logic" above.

    The structure of the original US setup made a civil war inevitable. There were a bunch of pretty equal states and one feeble central government. Eventually somebody would try to make the feeble federal government the top dog. No state could have done that as one versus the rest would have failed. It hasn't happened since because we no longer have that situation.
     
  9. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 16, 1999
    Big City Blinking
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Yes, the structure of the original U.S. and the compromises that were made regarding slavery as an important part of that structure made the war inevitable.
     
  10. nicephoras

    nicephoras A very stable genius

    Fucklechester Rangers
    Jul 22, 2001
    Eastern Seaboard of Yo! Semite
    I'll respond to this thread in its entirety when I've had some sleep, but I'd just like to modify this. I mostly agree with what Yossarian says, but the Civil War was not inevitable - that's a tautology. The economic circumstances of the 1860s, however, particularly the economic viability of slavery, together with the rapidly changing demographics of the United States, made the Civil War much more likely. Had the demographics changed 20 or 30 years later or had the South not discovered ways of making plantation slave farming highly lucrative, the Civil War as we know it would not have and could not have occurred. In fact, during the 1810s there were many reasons to believe it would not, as slavery simply wasn't economically attractive enough given all of its drawbacks - there were many indications in the Southern states that slavery was dying out. However, the opening up of land due to the Louisiana Purchase (plantation farming, especially cotton and tobacco were murder on the soil if conducted for prolonged stretches, so new land was always needed), advances in agriculture and the fact that India had not yet entered the cotton market in force made the Civil War far more probable.
    There's really a very simple test as to what was the cause of the Civil War. If slavery were dying out and slaves weren't worth much, would the South have gone to war? No, of course not - they'd have taken some token compensation from the North for the slaves and would have shrugged and moved on. As the South's leaders continuously poitned out, to them, the war was all about slavery. That people still debate this point at all continues to mystify me since the people who started the war have told us why they did so!

    Oh, and Nicky, your argument that Civil Wars are just disputes amongst the ruling classes (which isn't really true, but anyway) completely misses the point. The question isn't what a civil war is, its what caused this particular war. Since only one thing has caused a civil war in the history of the United States, its pretty clear that civil wars are not "inherent" to the US system, but rather occur due to certain reasons. In this case, that reason was slavery, and that it was the ruling classes that had an argument about slavery doesn't change the underlying reason for why they had the argument.
    Ultimately (and not surprisingly) you're arguing that 2+2=4 after being asked what color the sky is. Even if your equation is right, 4 is still not a color. (Unless you're stoned, of course, which I'm not remotely ruling out. It would explain a lot.)
     
  11. NickyViola

    NickyViola Member+

    May 10, 2004
    Boston
    Club:
    ACF Fiorentina
    Actually, since there has only ever been one "US system" and that one experienced a civil war, I'm pretty sure that history bears me out.

    Now you go get some sleep, kiddo, and we'll explore this more when you're a bit more coherent.
     
  12. nicephoras

    nicephoras A very stable genius

    Fucklechester Rangers
    Jul 22, 2001
    Eastern Seaboard of Yo! Semite
    That's downright retarded. A civil war happened in the US - ergo it must inevitably have happened. That means ANYTHING that happens is inherent to any system. Which is exactly what a tautology is and why historians are so careful to avoid them. To put it another way - a meteor hit earth. There has only been one planet exactly like earth, so it must be inevitable that a meteor would have hit it because it did hit it. Which sounds retarded - because it is.

    Part of the problem with history is that any rank amateur of middling intelligence thinks that its really simple. Like any other discipline its a bit harder than it looks.
     
  13. NickyViola

    NickyViola Member+

    May 10, 2004
    Boston
    Club:
    ACF Fiorentina
    You think Earth is not susceptible to being hit by meteorites?
     
  14. Mountainia

    Mountainia Member

    Jun 19, 2002
    Section 207, Row 7
    Club:
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I don't see your statement as being incorrect. Slavery was the basis of the Southern economic system; the source of their wealth and thus power. It's existence in the South and not the North caused the division between the two sections.

    And not for love of the slaves, either. Northern (and Southern) poor whites were competing for land, farming products, and labor with the wealthy slave owners. That, in turn, caused the battles over the existence of slavery in the territories and newly admitted states. War was already raging in Kansas before the South seceded.

    So power struggles among ruling classes is not inaccurate. Nor does it preclude something from causing the divisions, and in this case, war. That's the role slavery played.
     
  15. NickyViola

    NickyViola Member+

    May 10, 2004
    Boston
    Club:
    ACF Fiorentina
    I opine (and despite nicephoras' sleep-deprived nonsense about what-would-have-been being some kind of science, opinions are all that we have) that there would have been a similar war even if slavery were a non-issue. The American government was set-up almost with inducing a civil war in mind.
     
  16. nicephoras

    nicephoras A very stable genius

    Fucklechester Rangers
    Jul 22, 2001
    Eastern Seaboard of Yo! Semite
    Sure, but you're very obviously wrong. Not all opinions are alike - some are well informed, others are not. Yours, in this case, is not.
    And as far as my post, there's absolutely nothing in there that's incorrect. You just don't understand it.

    Wow, that went over your head. The point is that claiming something was inevitable because it happened is stoopid. (Its what you're doing.) Look up "tautology" in a dictionary.
     
  17. NickyViola

    NickyViola Member+

    May 10, 2004
    Boston
    Club:
    ACF Fiorentina
    Stupid is claiming that what is known to have happened was just some mistake of history. It did happen. And I think I have pretty succinctly explained why it happened.

    And I said "incoherent," not "incorrect." Go back to bed, cuz. It was a nightmare.
     
  18. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 16, 1999
    Big City Blinking
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    C'mon, Nice, you've read enough of my posts on this subject to know that my response was mostly being snarky.

    Plus, I forget to mention the invention of the cotton gin as another important mile-marker in our country's determinist map.

    ;)
     
  19. NickyViola

    NickyViola Member+

    May 10, 2004
    Boston
    Club:
    ACF Fiorentina
    He didn't realize my entire meteorite post was snarky. He's not the brightest even when rested...
     
  20. yossarian

    yossarian Moderator
    Staff Member

    Jun 16, 1999
    Big City Blinking
    Club:
    Arsenal FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Based on the fact that I know Nicephoras personally and his background, I completely disagree with your second sentence.
     
  21. NickyViola

    NickyViola Member+

    May 10, 2004
    Boston
    Club:
    ACF Fiorentina
    Smart people don't get as worked up about things as he does. He does seem to be well-read but that does not equal smart.
     
  22. That Phat Hat

    That Phat Hat Member+

    Nov 14, 2002
    Just Barely Outside the Beltway
    Club:
    Liverpool FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Japan
    I think the mistake you're making thinking like a movement conservative, and assuming everyone else does as well.* Political conflicts in representative/parliamentary governments rarely happen for the sake of power. There is almost always a practical consideration driving power moves (at least on a mass level - individuals, are of course, always power hungry). The economic and political conflicts of the mid-19th Century were both driven by slavery. Sure, there were other divisions then too, but none of those led to secession or war.

    *And even movement conservatism had to piggyback the backlash over the the Civil Rights Movement and economic downturns of the 70s and 80s to take hold.
     
  23. nicephoras

    nicephoras A very stable genius

    Fucklechester Rangers
    Jul 22, 2001
    Eastern Seaboard of Yo! Semite
    Actually, one of the things that most annoy smart people is stupidity.* And you really don't understand historical analysis - no one is claiming the Civil War was a "mistake of history" - it happened for certain reasons - slavery being far and away the biggest. That's the whole point of the thread. But the fact that it happened does not mean that it must have happened. That's a tautology.


    *Incidentally, did you really just relate intelligence to getting "worked up about things"? Since when are intelligent people supposed to be zen masters?
     
  24. NickyViola

    NickyViola Member+

    May 10, 2004
    Boston
    Club:
    ACF Fiorentina
    Absolutely. Why would an intelligent person get all excited about an American Civil War discussion on a soccer internet forum? He wouldn't.
     
  25. NickyViola

    NickyViola Member+

    May 10, 2004
    Boston
    Club:
    ACF Fiorentina
    Ok, I admit it. You have completely lost me. I mean, with me being easily the least conservative person on BigSoccer and all...
     

Share This Page