re: Was the Civil War Fought Because of Slavery? It Depends on Which Side You View

quote:

---

Always trying to whatabout to blame the North

---

Nah, but you are falling back once again on misplaced tu quoque

I'm simply familiar with the history.
It is what it is.

Regarding strategy, the South was turned into Lincoln's patsy when it fell into a war trap in 1861. The CSA was never going to win a Civil War, in part, due to the same reason they were losing political influence. The Northern population was simply too large, too industrial, too wealthy in totality, and their resultant ability to fund/supply/wage war too great.

Strategically, the South should have pursued secession through SCOTUS, while strengthening overseas alliances, and organizing its army (including awaiting VA secession and the assigning the commanders it afforded). If legal avenues failed, they should have left the North take first military action. If Lee was in command at that point (as likely would have been the case), there might possibly have been a chance to rout Union forces into panicked retreat, allowing Lee to overrun and capture DC. Perhaps Congress would have forced Lincoln to cut bait and call it a day underthose circumstances.

In that instance, frankly the only possibility for a CSA win, we'd have saved 600,000 lives. The obscenity of slavery would have continued decades, and the subsequent American century would very much have been in doubt. The butterfly effect could presumably be quite ugly. As I've said, IMO the actual outcome is preferable to that.

My reads on history, though, are based more on contemporary sources and less on hindsight. In that regard, an examination of reconstruction reveals an unrestrained radical Congress far more intent on crushing residual southern aristocracy and asserting Northern superiority, than it was in any constructive postwar purpose. Unionists took pleasure in elevating illiterate ex-slaves into positions of power over their ex-masters (further "moral" satisfaction emanated from the fact that those ex-masters imposed the illiteracy in the first place).

The problem being most southerners were not ex-masters. They were desperately impoverished. Where ex-slaves were put "in charge," in those daunting circumstances, at best they simply were not capable of doing much of anything. That incompetency given their lack of anything foundational is understandable. After years of misery, southern whites considered it unforgivable though. They organized against it and attempted to terrorize participants and enforcement alike.

Northerners had zero compassion for Southern Blacks left to fend for themselves in 1877 later. Reading some of the contemporary newspaper accounts from that period is literally nauseating. The whole situation was a festering chamberpot created out of disconnected Northern vindictiveness

You bizarrely label that "whataboutism." I call it a matter of facts.