- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Was the Civil War Fought Because of Slavery? It Depends on Which Side You View
Posted on 5/7/26 at 7:38 am to NC_Tigah
Posted on 5/7/26 at 7:38 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Again, the piece was responsive to popular, accepted, public teachings.
What relevance do these "popular, accepted, public teachings" have in a discussion where literally nobody is making that argument?
To whom, in this thread, is that clarification being pointed as a direct response to their arguments in this thread?
quote:
It is neither "strawman fallacy," nor a direct retort to specific posts here. It is simply a fairly accurate recounting of history, and fair critique of history's modern misreadings.
Now you're trying to argue its irrelevancy to avoid having it labeled a straw man.
Also, you're ignoring how the morality strawman had already become the developing pivot. Which you should know, considering you responded to that post.
1
Posted on 5/7/26 at 7:42 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I argue slavery was the primary reason.
So the primary reason the North/ Lincoln went to war was to free the slaves?
Posted on 5/7/26 at 7:50 am to RobbBobb
There is no would of, could of, should have been in history. Those are toys to play with by those after the history has happened.
It's nothing but fantasy to say slavery would have just ended...poof later on. The Plantation cast had their fortunes in slaves. The evidence is right there in that they split up the young US rather than consider and debate any other course.
It's nothing but fantasy to say slavery would have just ended...poof later on. The Plantation cast had their fortunes in slaves. The evidence is right there in that they split up the young US rather than consider and debate any other course.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 7:51 am to Cuz413
quote:
So the primary reason the North/ Lincoln went to war was to free the slaves?
Not what I said
Posted on 5/7/26 at 7:54 am to goatmilker
quote:
It's nothing but fantasy to say slavery would have just ended
So you believe that even with modern machinery available today, if the South was left unto themselves, they would still have slaves and not tractors and other machinery?
Posted on 5/7/26 at 7:59 am to Cuz413
quote:
So you believe that even with modern machinery available today, if the South was left unto themselves, they would still have slaves and not tractors and other machinery?
It's a "why not both?" scenario.
Just look at what the South did to subjugate black people when slavery was made illegal. It was 100+ years of depriving them of rights and segregation.
You think if slavery was still legal they would have just given up entirely? They would continue to do everything they could to keep black people as non-citizens and depriving them of any political power. We literally saw them do this for a century after slavery was made illegal.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 8:12 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Then your argument is a fool's errand. You seek a nuanced respite between positions that the Civil War would not have occurred w/o slavery vs slavery was sole cause. Macht nichts. Either is simpleton.
I argue slavery was the primary reason.
In fact, there was but one overarching and/or sole cause for war. It was the same cause that led to the American Revolution. That cause was a perceived unfairness in representation.
In a situation where two regions have disparate self-interests -- England & the Colonies, the North & South -- animus can be dealt with if representational balance is a given. If not, remedy or resolution is pursued outside of diplomacy
Lincoln's election represented such an imbalance, in that regard, that proceeding in union was no longer deemed feasible by the South. There was no inherent threat to slavery per se in the 1860 result. A threat to slavery was not the cause of succession.
Had Lincoln not been elected, and instead a more moderate result in transpired, there would have been no succession. Hence, no Civil War. Yet, the issue of slavery would've been unchanged. So to contend, as you do, that the Civil War was about slavery, in its entirety, solely, primarily, or whatever term you would like to choose, negates the actual underlying cause. That cause was an intolerable disparity in representation of two polar political standpoints, aka states' rights.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 8:20 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
In a situation where two regions have disparate self-interests -- England & the Colonies, the North & South -- animus can be dealt with if representational balance is a given.
The South, with the 3/5 Clause, was over-represented in DC.
Our institutions gave the South a structural advantage in representation.
quote:
Yet, the issue of slavery would've been unchanged.
Slavery had been driving major political and social conflict for decades by that point, increasing with every year. By remaining "unchanged" you leave a trajectory that would lead to war.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 8:20 am to Narax
You can't "suspect" that the hotel/hospital is being used as an artillery observation post and then fire at it. You've got to have some evidence.
Was this building a known CSA barracks that was once a hotel/hospital? If not, Doubleday's was a war crime, by today's standards and probably back in 1860.
It's an interesting conversation.
I've been doing some Civil War reading recently and learned that it was not uncommon for both sides to burn a civilian building like a house or barn if they suspected that it might be usable as an enemy sniper position.
Was this building a known CSA barracks that was once a hotel/hospital? If not, Doubleday's was a war crime, by today's standards and probably back in 1860.
It's an interesting conversation.
I've been doing some Civil War reading recently and learned that it was not uncommon for both sides to burn a civilian building like a house or barn if they suspected that it might be usable as an enemy sniper position.
This post was edited on 5/7/26 at 8:51 am
Posted on 5/7/26 at 8:24 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
It was 100+ years of depriving them of rights and segregation.
The North did this during and after they sold their slaves prior to the war.
The South was more integrated than the North before the war.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 8:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So the primary reason the North/ Lincoln went to war was to free the slaves?
Not what I said
I am asking you for this answer.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 8:46 am to Cuz413
quote:
The North did this during and after they sold their slaves prior to the war.
The whataboutism is noted as such. The relevance to my comment and substance are also noted as lacking.
You seem to be thinking of this in terms of teams, like you are in the "South" in-group and you need to show how bad the "North" out-group is. Has no relevance or substance.
quote:
The South was more integrated than the North before the war.
In terms of free black people? I'd like to see this evidence
Posted on 5/7/26 at 8:46 am to Cuz413
quote:
I am asking you for this answer.
The North went to war because the South tried to secede.
The secession variable is much more directly related to the slavery issue (and related conflict) than the North's response.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 8:50 am to Cuz413
quote:
So you believe that even with modern machinery available today, if the South was left unto themselves, they would still have slaves and not tractors and other machinery?
Why would they not employ slaves to utilize that machinery if it meant keeping costs low?
Posted on 5/7/26 at 9:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:You probably are unfamiliar with the malignantly retributional nature of reconstruction.
Just look at what the South did to subjugate black people when slavery was made illegal.
Blacks got caught in the middle .... until their Northern allies ripped the carpet from underneath them a decade later. Those 10-12 yrs of absurd stupidity did more to damage southern race relations than is likely conceivable in today's terms.
Unfortunately, racism was hardly unique to the ex-Confederacy though. Tulsa in the 1920's bears witness. Further, long after segregation and Jim Crow were dead and buried in the South, redlining, segregation, and mistreatment persisted in the Northeast, Midwest, and in CA. MA beaches were segregated well into the 1970s. Detroit area schools were de facto segregated into the 1990s ... at least.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 9:03 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Aside from having absolutely zilch to do with my post, that is a flatly stupid contention.
The South, with the 3/5 Clause, was over-represented in DC.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 9:03 am to deltaland
quote:
It was economic. The northern states were heavily populated and industrialized and thus had a majority of congressional representation and they used that power to bully the south and its agrarian economy to the benefit of the north’s industry. They imposed tariffs on imports to protect industry which led to retaliation by the UK who imported southern tobacco and cotton. The south wanted to trade directly with the UK and the north wouldn’t allow it. And pressure to end slavery added fuel to that fire because having to pay wages was uneconomical due to ag exports cratering or having to pay high tariffs to the UK on ag exports. It backed the south into a corner
And that's why SC was on the verge of seceding in the early 1830's over the Tariffs of Abomination.
The tariffs caused an economic boom in the North and a great depression in the South. It was the economic dagger that killed the sense of national brotherhood and lead to the rise of regional animosity.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 9:14 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Why?
Slavery had been driving major political and social conflict for decades by that point, increasing with every year.
quote:No. By remaining "unchanged," the situation would have remained unchanged.
By remaining "unchanged" you leave a trajectory that would lead to war.
Slavery was not the nidus.
Lincoln's election was.
Why?
Was Lincoln going to abolish slavery?
Nope.
Was Lincoln going to elevate the interests of "free states" over "slave states"?
Yes. That was the national expectation.
This post was edited on 5/7/26 at 11:21 am
Posted on 5/7/26 at 9:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Correct.
The North went to war because the South tried to secede.
The issue you continue to misrepresent is rationale for secession.
That rationale was clearly NOT the imminent abolition of slavery.
It was an imbalance in Federal representation of the Southern region d/t increased Northern population.
Posted on 5/7/26 at 9:53 am to Auburn1968
quote:
And that's why SC was on the verge of seceding in the early 1830's over the Tariffs of Abomination.
The tariffs caused an economic boom in the North and a great depression in the South. It was the economic dagger that killed the sense of national brotherhood and lead to the rise of regional animosity.
Well ... that's very true but there's more to it that the author didn't have the space to include. Not the least of which ....
South Carolina paid for the Erie Canal.
Revisionist Historians have taught us to believe that the canal was funded by private investment and bonds.
In fact, the truth of the matter is that, the bonds were bought en masse with funds/tariff money collected from outgoing and incoming trade on goods to and from the Port of Charleston ... which was the most profitable port in the country at the time.
Clinton's Big Ditch, as it was known, was a double insult to South Carolinians, Chalestonians, because not only was it funded by SC but ... the westward connection gave New York City a strong advantage over all other US ports and brought major growth to canal cities such as Albany, Utica, Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo while stunting traffic and growth in Charleston, Bull's Bay, and Beaufort, SC. Not to mention the Port of Savannah, GA which was serviced by both sides of the river, particularly the SC side who staged and loaded kep crops from there such as tea, indigo, cotton, rice, and tobacco.
The north was fine with collecting tariff revenues from those outgoing crops ... they couldn't have cared less about the slaves involved in cultivating and harvesting those crops.
Page 18 of 22
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News