Started By
Message

re: Obscure/Interesting/Quirky "American" Facts 1865-1880

Posted on 8/21/14 at 2:36 pm to
Posted by Tiger1242
Member since Jul 2011
32020 posts
Posted on 8/21/14 at 2:36 pm to
quote:

Well - ultimately the average southerner (and even above average, Robert E. Lee, for example) did not fight to preserve the institution of slavery - perhaps it was a (not the) catalyst from the southern perspective - keeping in mind that the average southerner, although benefitting from the institution indirectly, did not have direct benefits from or contact with slavery (and perhaps that's why it persisted as a practice for so long) on a daily or weekly basis.

And the average German infantry wasn't fighting for a pure German race and world domination, the average soldier under Caesar wasn't fighting for his political gain, the average soldier in the Persian army wasn't fighting for Persian glory over Greece, and the average man under Alexander wasn't fighting for Macedonian domination and eternal glory for Alexander.

Soldiers fight because they're told to fight, and because they're paid to fight (in some cases). Just because not everyone is doing it for a reason doesn't mean it wasn't a part of it.

I'm not claiming slavery was 100% the cause of the war, but it was certainly a driving factor
This post was edited on 8/21/14 at 2:37 pm
Posted by Ace Midnight
Between sanity and madness
Member since Dec 2006
89750 posts
Posted on 8/22/14 at 7:33 am to
quote:

I'm not claiming slavery was 100% the cause of the war, but it was certainly a driving factor


Where did I suggest slavery wasn't a catalyst? I said a significant plurality of northerners, particularly those remote from the "border" were idealistic abolitionists. I also said it was a catalyst from the southern perspective, but not the catalyst.

Going back to my Robert E. Lee example - as the most prominent military leader of the south, perhaps the war (with all due deference to U.S. Grant) and there is NO QUESTION he would have led the Union Army if Virginia had not seceded.

Would he have been fighting to end slavery? No. Of course not. If Virginia hadn't seceded, the war would have been over in 18 months and the Emancipation Proclamation wouldn't have been issued and XIII, XIV and XV Amendments would never have been ratified.

Going back to Lincoln - the de facto leader of the abolition movement - he was quoted frequently that he was willing to accept the continuation of slavery in order to preserve the Union. So, was he lying? Honest Abe Lincoln? Or was he conceding that preservation of the Union was more important - at least at that moment in history - than rapid abolition?

Now, was the secession movement driven by the fear of the abolition agenda on the part of Southerners? Certainly.

Again - as I said - far more complicated than people want to suggest. Thomas Jefferson - a Virginia slaveholder until the day he died - wanted to skewer slavery in the DOI.

It's a shame that calmer heads did not prevail. If there had been a calm, orderly transition to Emancipation, without all the bloodshed, perhaps we wouldn't be dealing with many of the negative after effects today.

[sarcasm] But, yeah - it was all about slavery. That's easy, simple bumper sticker language. [/sarcasm]
This post was edited on 8/22/14 at 7:35 am
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram