"the central cause of the (Civil) war was our national disagreement about race and slavery"

[Still a Democrat]

There remains enormous denial over the fact that the central cause of the war was our national disagreement about race and slavery, not states' rights or anything else.

When the war started, leaders of the Southern rebellion were entirely straightforward about this. On March 21, 1861, Alexander Stephens, the Confederacy's vice president, gave what came to be known as the "Cornerstone speech" in which he declared that the "proper status of the Negro in our form of civilization" was "the immediate cause of the late rupture."

Thomas Jefferson, Stephens said, had been wrong in believing "that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature."

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea," Stephens insisted. "Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical and moral truth."

Our greatest contemporary historian of the Civil War, James McPherson, has noted that Confederate President Jefferson Davis, a major slaveholder, "justified secession in 1861 as an act of self-defense against the incoming Lincoln administration." Abraham Lincoln's policy of excluding slavery from the territories, Davis said, would make "property in slaves so insecure as to be comparatively worthless . . . thereby annihilating in effect property worth thousands of millions of dollars."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/26/AR2010122602227.html

[mix]

1. k&r nt

[hobbit709]

2. That was the only "States Rights" issue that they cared about.

[Creative]

3. Your hypothesis is inaccurate.

Proof lies in the fact that the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the Confederate States. It did not apply to slaves in the North or the border states fighting on the Union side. Furthermore, it did it affect slaves in southern areas already under Union control.

To the knowing observer of history, it is abundantly clear that the cause of this war was economics.

[Cassandra]

4. Without slavery...

the South didn't have much of an economy.

[Creative]

10. That is true; however, slavery was not the issue.

Lincoln himself owned slaves as did Grant. The issue was money and politics. The South by-passed the North and sold its agriculture products directly to Europe at a lower cost.

[hlthe2b]

12. His wife's family owned slaves. Lincoln did not.

[JVS]

17. Lincoln didn't own slaves.

Q: Your title question—"Did Lincoln own slaves?"—is clearly absurd. Why did you choose it?

A: Because it's still frequently asked. Usually, it's raised as a way of attacking Lincoln, sort of like a historical push-poll.

Q: What motivates those attacks?

A: Some critics look at his careful and politically practical approach to ending slavery and mistake it for reluctance to help African-Americans. Others overlook slavery altogether and romanticize the Confederacy as a libertarian paradise crushed by the tyrant Lincoln.

But since even Lincoln's most extreme opponents can't deny that the end of slavery was a good thing, they have to try to disassociate Lincoln from emancipation, and that leads to the absurdity of implying that Lincoln must have been a slave owner.


http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/02/lincoln.html

[cali]

27. read some history and educate yourself.

I hate revisionist shit.

[Creative]

33. For your educational benefit: From the 4th Lincoln-Douglas debate, September 18th, 1858.

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

~Abraham Lincoln

[Marr]

78. He was addressing a crowd as a politician.

If you want a more accurate view of Lincoln's views on the subject, you should read some of his private letters. I believe he went into it at length in letters to Joshua Speed. He did not use the kind of qualifications seen in that public address.

[Creative]

107. You are correct, "he was addressing a crowd as a politician."

However, I am not so much interested in what he wrote, or what he said; rather, I prefer to judge him based on his actions.

[EstimatedProphet]

98. And yet nowhere in that speech does Lincoln ctate owning slaves, or that he is pro-slavery

So exactly why do you think it applies?

[The Magistrate]

5. Simple-Minded Nonesense, Sir

The Emancvipation Proclamation was a war measure, aimed at persons waging treasonous war against the Union, using war powers to confiscate property from rebels.

[Creative]

8. Thank you for making my point.

As you stated, the North also viewed slaves as property.

[cali]

14. codswallop

Vermont, for instance, had outlawed slavery in its constitution before it even joined the Union- and Vermont lost more soldiers per capita than any other state.

[Creative]

23. .

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

15. yeah, that's why the underground railroad was such a huge undertaking

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. slave economy nt

[unc70]

74. New England had a "slave trade" economy

High percentage of New England wealth was derived from the slave trade. The slave trade was centered in Newport RI and continued illegally until 1860. Read about the DeWolf family, "Inheriting the Trade" and similar works. Abolistionist US Senators still actively involved with and profiting from the slave trade!

Remember that many of the "non-slave" states were actually "white-only" states. Free blacks had many more rights in places like NC than in IL or OH.

That race-based slavery began in MA, not in some state in the South.

And remember that the last slaves were not freed in places like NJ until 1868!

See http://www.slavenorth.com and lots of other recent scholarly work.

The Civil War was a mess, a disaster for everyone involved, and caused in part by the fanactics on all sides getting elected in a splintered election. When firebrands like Yancey became the symbol of slave owners, although he was raised in an abolisionist family in NY and graduated from Williams College.

It is best to start with the assumption that everything you think you know about the Civil War and its causes might well be wrong or at least simplistic.

Was it triggered by the Panic of 1857? By the arrival of Egyptian cotton? By the failed railroad and land speculation? By the famines in Ireland and Germany?

[Warren Stupidity]

76. No. New England had some wealthy families involved in the trade.

That is not a slave economy. New England and the Mid Atlantic states were in the beginnings of the industrial revolution, unlike the southern states which remained slave based plantation economies, and remained agrarian until very recently.

[NWHarkness]

13. Economics and slavery were THE SAME ISSUE

The South's economy was built on slavery. To state that the cause of the war was economics, while holding the basis of the economy separate, is mere sophistry. It's like saying the proximate cause of World War 2 was the German occupation of Poland, not the invasion. The one is clearly predicated on the other.

I can't believe this debate is even necessary here.

[mix]

18. well argued

:thumbsup:

[JVS]

19. Agreed. The level of confederate sympathizer talking points cropping up here is egregious.

[hootinholler]

46. Indeed

I have been taken aback by comments in replies. Specifically, the claim that Lee ruined the south when he ordered Pickett to charge. I never got an answer to my question of how Lee ruined the south.

-Hoot

[coalition_unwilling]

169. Actually, it's probably closer to the truth (if such exists) to say that

Lee ruined the South when he failed to heed Longstreet's advice that he try a flanking march around Meade's Army of the Potomac. But, as Alan Nolan argues in "Lee Considered" (a revisionist account that seeks to correct much of the hagiography around Robert E. Lee), Lee had his war on and would not be deterred by appeals to higher strategic concerns. Lee was bound and determined to have a decisive battle at Gettysburg and nothing Longstreet could say would talk him out of it. That was well before Pickett's Charge (on the 3rd day).

On edit: what I mean is that the South could never hope to win a war of attrition where its manpower losses matched those of the far superior Union. The only hope the South had was in superior maneuver, i.e., staying alive to fight another day. That is what makes Lee's obstinance at Gettysburg so perplexing and what undermines somewhat claims to his strategic genius.

[hootinholler]

195. The point is Lee or no one else ruined the south...

As long as slavery was embraced, the south was doomed and would have fallen eventually.

The notion that *anyone* ruined the south by *any* act lends credibility that slavery is an acceptable thing, like tolerating torture of prisoners is accepted by many today. Slavery ruined the south, and thus collectively the slave owners bear responsibility for its ruin, and a tremendous amount of damage that was done to the US as a whole.

The real question is without the war, how long would the institution of human chattel have held in the face of international pressure?

-Hoot

[coalition_unwilling]

206. Admirably expressed. Points well taken. I do think you would

enjoy Nolan's book. It's well written and argued.

Even without the war, I believe we would have seen more John Brown and Nat Turner type acts of resistance. Abolitionism was still a minority position among Northerners in 1860 but John Brown's raid at Harper's Ferry, his trial, conviction and subsequent execution crystallized the matter for Northerners in a way that town meetings could not and made it far more difficult for Northerners to remain fence sitters about the peculiar instiution and its morality or lack thereof.

On edit: humorous little side-note. Turns out that most of these Confederate apologists were already on my Ignore list, so I'm only able to see "Ignored" every other post and to extrapolate what its contents are from what comes after it.

[Paladin]

217. Try Not To Let It Ruin Your Day. (n/t)

[Kweli4Real]

207. And Some Would Argue That DU ...

like the rest of America, isn't populated with racists ... Oh, I'm sorry, racialist apologists.

Well, I guess he/she may have been a troll bent on shaking things up ... but somehow I doubt it.

[JVS]

209. Ah. Creative is gone.

[Creative]

29. The civil war would have happened with or without the institution of slavery.

There were many, many reasons. The *simple* answer is slavery, but if you do the research, you find there was so much more to this war.

[Warren Stupidity]

32. What a banal assertion.

The simple and overwhelmingly important answer is slavery, the rest is generally apologia to get past the moral dilemma of defense of slavery or ideological layering-on to make some other point.

Your assertion cannot be seriously discussed, as it is essentially an alternate universe conjecture whereby one may invent any facts of your choosing to defend or oppose your imagined world.

[Creative]

34. It is you that is living in an "alternate universe, for you are unable to acknowledge the

historical facts of reality.

Property was confiscated from pro-slavery whites; slaves, rather than being freed, originally became the property of the U.S. government <...> To remedy this bizarre situation, General Hunter, Union military commander of Georgia, South Carolina and Florida, issued an order on May 9, 1862 freeing all slaves in areas under his command. Upon hearing of General Hunter's action one week later, President Lincoln immediately revoked the order, thus returning the slaves to their former status as property of the federal government.

http://books.google.com/books?id=ta2kvLpA3BoC&dq=Linfield,+Freedom+under+Fire&pg=PP1&ots=Qqsc31s8UH&sig=_QtjaLeeqJMp1hS8DsG-F6DA4TM&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Warren Stupidity]

37. I attacked your assertion, not you.

Try to stay civil, pun intended.

The politics of emancipation were 'difficult'. You seem to be focusing on details about how the war progressed, which is not particularly relevant to why the war started.

[Creative]

38. I think the guy who started this war probably knows more than you or I about why it was fought.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it"

[Warren Stupidity]

40. I give up.

I really do not care to have another discussion with an apologist for the south, not even on the 150th anniversary.

You win, not about slavery. Of course.

[Creative]

41. It's not a matter of winning or losing, or being an apologist for the South.

Rather, it is simply a matter of acknowledging the historical facts of reality.

[JVS]

47. How about acknowledging post 7 where Alexander Stephens said it was about slavery

[Creative]

52. How about acknowledging where Lincoln said it was not.

[JVS]

54. Since Stephens was one of the guys who started the war, he knows better than Lincoln why it happened

[Creative]

60. .

[Creative]

63. Actually, I believe it was the North which invaded the South.

[JVS]

69. It was Southern troops who attacked federal soldiers at Sumter.

[mix]

50. Lincoln started the Civil War?

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

[Creative]

61. A blockade is an act of war.

[NoGOPZone]

66. As is the bombardment of a federal fort. nt

[JVS]

70. And the bombardment happened before the blockade.

[mix]

77. Fort Sumter was attacked on April 12th, 1861.

The blockade was proclaimed on April 19th, 1861.

[DeltaLitProf]

216. That man was also capable of . . .

. . . saying what he needed to say (before all the states had seceded) in order to make Southern moderates within state legislatures think before they voted for secession.

[NWHarkness]

36. Name a reason

Name a reason for the war that is not inextricably tied into the issue of slavery. Trade policy? Tariffs? Western expansion? Foreign policy? Every policy dispute of the era is grounded in the slavery question.

[Creative]

39. Here is one of the many...taxes.

In 1861, the reason Lincoln gave for his naval blockade of the Southern ports was that "the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed" in the states that had seceded.

[NWHarkness]

42. Not Applicable

I asked you to name a reason for the war that could be separated from the slavery issue. You responded with a comment about a strategic decision made after the war had already begun.

I take it that you do not have an actual, germane response.

[Creative]

44. It most certainly is applicable, as was the suspension of habeas corpus.

In fact, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas did not secede until after Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and then sent federal marshals to arrest the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court after the court declared this action unconstitutional.

[NWHarkness]

49. Again, not applicable

You keep pointing to things that happened DURING the war as CAUSES of the war.

You have no tenable argument to make.

[Creative]

51. But those states were not at war until that happened; thus, that was a REASON for the war.

Clearly, your knowledge is very limited with respect to this issue.

[NWHarkness]

53. That makes no sense at all

By your reasoning the First World War did not begin until 1917, because not all belligerents were involved before then.

If you wish to defend your pro-confederate stance by dismissing all counter arguments, so be it.

I will not engage you further, as you are not making any serious argument, but merely tossing one red herring after another into the discussion.

[NoGOPZone]

67. The alleged Taney Arrest Warrant is not an accepted historical fact.

Ironic that you would treat it as such in light of your post #43, where you request "acknowledging the historical facts of reality".

[Creative]

96. The warrant was issued and it was documented by the Federal Marshal

for the District of Columbia, who issued it. It is true that the warrant was never served, but the fact that it was issued, is a historical fact of reality.

[NoGOPZone]

101. Several of Lincoln's biographers regard the story as false.

I'm sure they would be both surprised and interested to know that documentation exists.

[Creative]

105. However, Lincoln's first biographer, the federal marshal who issued the warrant

would not be surprised.

[NoGOPZone]

118. You've cleverly avoided the documentation issue

and are evidently willing to take Lamon at his word over any other scholarship. Perhaps this is because of your characterization of him as Lincoln's first biographer, a claim which itself is unproven, or perhaps because he tells you what you want to hear.

[Creative]

125. Lamon was one of Lincoln's closest friends and confidants. In my view, that validates his statement.

[NoGOPZone]

126. Yes, in your view. So now I'm back to my original statement

It's not an acknowledged fact. Several historians regard it as untrue.

[Creative]

127. Yes, "several historians" who never met Lincoln.

I'm sorry, but historical protocol establishes Lamon's statement as a historical fact of reality.

[NoGOPZone]

128. No, documentation would establish his statement as historical fact

and no documentation was ever produced. It's absurd to claim Lamon's veracity is established simply because he met Lincoln.

[Creative]

189. He didn't simply meet Lincoln, they were extremely close. And the fact remains

that many historians take him at his word.

[NoGOPZone]

193. His closeness to Lincoln does not establish his veracity

and the alleged arrest warrant remains a fringe theory among historians.

[JVS]

55. The reason for the naval blockade was that it was considered a less violent means of subduing...

insurrection than invasion of the South. Your fragmentary quotation of Lincoln proves nothing.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaconda_Plan

[Creative]

64. Surly, you must be aware of the fact that a naval blockade constitutes an act of war.

Not only was Lincoln the first Republican president, he was also the first Republican president to start a war.

[JVS]

80. See responses to 64. I can't believe how far you go to try to justify those treasonous dogs.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

201. That's like saying, if I say Nazis are "genocidal bastards"...

...then I have hatred for Germans.

"Pro-slavery, separatist, Confederate-apologist Southern person" and "Southern person" are NOT the same thing.

[mix]

86. The "War of Northern Aggression" then?

So according to this fairy tale Lincoln started the war?

The historical record says otherwise. The order of events says otherwise. Scholars say otherwise.

Coarse and crass revisionism.

[Creative]

93. Up until that time, most people believed that there was absolutely nothing in the Constitution

or any other legal document which precludes any state or group of states from seceding from the United States.

Military force was applied to persevere what was originally a voluntary union. Thus, it is clear which side was the aggressor.

[mix]

115. Misleading and mistaken revisionism.

"...a more perfect Union..."

Secession and war were the unconstitutional choices of the slaveowners and poor whites, who were bound to each by a belief in white supremacy.

[Creative]

192. It is not revisionist to state what many believed at the time. Moreover, this issue was never

settled by the courts. Perhaps Lincoln did not press the matter because of the courts decision on his suspension of Habeas Corpus.

In any case, the Southern States thought they did have the right and the North disagreed. That is what the Civil War was all about.

Since the North won, they must have been right. After all, might makes right.

:sarcasm:

[TexasObserver]

157. No, And don't call me "surly"!

Firing on the fort was an act of war, which preceded the blockade by a week.

Please, stop using the boilerplate "why things are really the way the fans of the Confederacy say they are" talking points. We've heard every one of them ad nauseam for decades. Do you really think we haven't heard this many, many times before from people who still wave the Confederate flag and sing Dixie with a tear in their eye?

[martymar64]

200. Bombing a fort is also an act of war

Maybe you should read or re-read Shelby Foote's first book. It clearly places a Confederate politician firing the first shot into Ft Sumter, well before the blockade.

[fishwax]

88. That's like saying the Super Bowl would happen with or without the institution of football

The south wouldn't have been the south without the institution of slavery.

[Creative]

97. 74% of Southerns did not own slaves; thus, it is clear that there was more going on in

the South than slavery.

[EstimatedProphet]

100. 80% of the people in this country holds 20% of the wealth

Therefore, clearly, the poor have the larger numbers in our country and the focus is on them.

[fishwax]

119. So? What percent of Americans owned stock in 1929?

Just as the health (and then the crash) of the stock market affected those who didn't own stock in 1929, so the fortunes of those southerners who didn't own slaves were tied with those who did. The fact that a large share of southerners didn't have an ownership stake in slavery means nothing.

[Creative]

123. By the same token, did not poor northerners benefit from slave ownership in the North?

Did not the rich slave traders in the North benefit as well?

[EstimatedProphet]

134. So you think it wasn't about slavery for the south because the north got benefits too?

Really?

[fishwax]

136. they weren't as reliant on it, clearly

[Creative]

139. I understand, slavery is okay with you as long as some people aren't "as reliant on it" as others.

[fishwax]

153. lol -- that's simply an absurd response, since I never said anything remotely like that

:crazy:

[mix]

120. Yet slaveowners and poor whites enjoyed the privilege of their whiteness in the South.

This bound them together in defense of their slave-based "way of life," regardless of what class owned slaves.

[lumberjack_jeff]

43. Sorta.

Most writers of the time didn't express their support for slavery based on antipathy toward blacks. This perceived pitiable inferiority was used as a rationalization for slavery.

Their line in the sand was legislative actions which depreciated the value of their property.

Slaves were mostly valuable assets to the owners. It wasn't the cultural/social/racial issues which were most important to them.

Had the federal government offered to buy the freedom of the slaves would that have deterred secession? If so, then the issue was economics.

[Creative]

108. Compensated Emancipation was used to free the slaves in the District of Columbia.

If the tragic cost of the Civil War had been known before it began, I believe something like that would have been instituted nationwide.

For whatever the cost may have been, it would surely have been far less than the costs of this war.

[H2O Man]

145. Exactly.

Very well said.

[unblock]

24. the timing of secession is suspicious.

promptly on election of lincoln, who was taken to be an abolitionist (accurately enough, though he hadn't campaigned on ending slavery).

what exactly was the economic rationale behind secession, if not to preserve slavery?

[Creative]

30. If slavery was THAT big an issue, why did the political party which based their campaign

on the issue in 1852 receive less than 200,000 votes?

[unblock]

31. oh please. 1852?

presidential elections are about more than just a single issue.

no matter how important any one issue was, why would anyone expect a third-party such as the free soil party get anything beyond typical third-party votes?

the time had not arrived for the abolitionists in 1852.

and i'm not saying that slavery was always the only issue in the civil war, but as others have pointed out, slavery and economics are intimately intertwined.

[TexasObserver]

158. Historically, 3rd parties are harbingers for major party issues.

Again, this is something you'd know if you'd studied History, instead of Confederate dogma.

[demwing]

57. In the South of the time, slavery WAS economics

their economic system was BASED on slavery. Attempts to clean up that dirty little fact always fail. You can polish a turd, but it still smells like shit.

[Creative]

94. I am not trying to sanitize the institution of slavery, I am simply making the point

that slavery did not cause the war.

[demwing]

99. I do understand you are not defending slavery, please try to understand

that you come across as playing a game of words in order to get to the "root cause."

So let's play that out a bit. You say the war was about economics, but slavery was an economic issue for America. However, it was also a complete human rights failure.

Saying the war was caused by economics, not slavery, is actually a fair statement, if it were said in the spirit of condemnation of an economic system that relied of human slavery for its success.

So what's the root cause for your statement?

Are you stating that the Civil War was not caused by slavery in an effort to diminish the impact of slavery? Or are you making the argument as a means by which to condemn the economic model of human sufferring?

[Creative]

104. The point I am trying to make is that although slavery was an outdated leftover institution from

the Middle Ages (feudalism), it was not the reason that this war was fought. Furthermore, I am astonished by the ignorance that many have with respect to something that resulted in the death of 618,000 Americans.

Strong abolitionist forces had emerged that were pressing the moral arguments against slavery and it would not have survived the industrial revolution. Thus, America's worst tragedy was not necessary.

Americans on both sides, former slaves and their descendants suffered terribly for almost 150 years as a result of the hostilities of this war. Can anyone demonstrate that America is better off because of it?

[EstimatedProphet]

114. This is a lot like saying that the Titanic sank because it filled with water

and not because it hit an iceberg.

[salin]

142. are you suggestion that seccession should have been allowed?

or that slavery (though you assert it wasn't a major cause of the war) should have been able to just die out as an institution on its own? Trying to understand where you are going with your line of discourse - but the logical conclusions are elusive.

[TexasObserver]

160. You seem to be an advocate of calling it The Northern War of Aggression.

Just as WWII has its Holocaust Deniers, our Civil War has its deniers.

You seem to choose to believe the sources you select because you like what they say and the conclusions they draw.

[Creative]

171. Yes, I choose to acknowledge things like the Lincoln-Douglas debates, the Emancipation Proclamation,

etc., as well as the documented actions and statements of others during that time, as historical facts of reality.

[TexasObserver]

212. Something tells me you're also reading the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion"

While listening to Rush Limbaugh and watching Glenn Beck.


The Confederacy is dead and buried. May it remain there.

[demwing]

218. So I give you a WIDE open door to condemn slavery

and you use the opportunity to call it "an outdated leftover institution from the Middle Ages" -- hardly tough word.

Then you go on to condemn the Civil Way as America's worst tragedy. You can't debate that the Civil War claimed more American lives than any other war, but was it our worst tragedy?

I think a god case could be made that our involvement and complicity in the slave trade was our worst tragedy. MILLIONS of lives were lost just in the passage over the Atlantic, more in the collection of slaves, and more during their torture and abuse while enslaved in America.

Read:

"The slave trade is sometimes called the Maafa by African and African-American scholars, meaning "holocaust" or "great disaster" in Swahili. Some scholars, such as Marimba Ani and Maulana Karenga use the terms African Holocaust or Holocaust of Enslavement"

and here:

"Most historians now agree that at least 12 million slaves left the continent between the 15th and 19th century, but 10 to 20% died on board ships. Thus a figure of 11 million enslaved people transported to the Americas is the nearest demonstrable figure historians can produce. Besides the slaves who died on the Middle Passage itself, even more slaves probably died in the slave raids in Africa. The death toll from slavery in the western hemisphere over the 370-year period of its existence must be reckoned at 10 million or so."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade

[EstimatedProphet]

102. Which is an attempt to sanitize the institution of slavery

[Better Believe It]

58. It was economics. The outmoded slave labor versus the new capitalist system based on wage labor

Capitalism won. The slavocracy lost.

The civil war was all about slavery and the emergency of a new and more progressive economic system based upon wage labor.

[Creative]

65. I agree with much of what you say, for Capitalism cannot work with slave labor.

The point I am making is that the Civil War was not waged over the institution of slavery.

[Warren Stupidity]

106. There is nothing that precludes the use of slave labor in a capitalist system.

In fact our modern capitalist system has a long history of exploitation of involuntary labor. Of course you can use narrower and narrower definitions of 'slave' until only plantation workers suffice. You should go for it.

[Creative]

110. I prefer to use the dictionary to define words. You see, unlike opioniions,

which we are all entitled to hold, words have factual definintions.

Slave -- 1. a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.

As I previously stated, Capitalism cannot function with slave labor. Furthermore, the rise of Capitalism pretty much ended slavery and serfdom for the entire western world.

[EstimatedProphet]

117. Do you have a reason for stating that?

Or is it just to hear yourself say it?

[Warren Stupidity]

149. great - I see your are taking my suggestion.

Now of course you would argue that a state cannot own slaves? That for example, the slave labor camps of stalinist russia and nazi germany were inhabited by free men and women? Or, just not that sort of slave is incompatible with capitalism, only the ones owned by individuals? Or that factories staffed by prisoners, effectively owned by the state for the period of their incarceration, are somehow outside the capitalist system that you claim has down away with slavery? Or rather that capitalism has only done away with some narrow definition of slavery, a definition constructed to avoid the obvious counter-factual reality, a definition, as predicted, that focuses on the 18th and 19th century plantation economies?

What you have neglected to do is provide any theory that forms the basis for your assertion that slavery is incompatible with capitalism.

By the way, we live in a global capitalist economy and slavery is alive and well.

[Creative]

161. I am not arguing that states cannot own slaves.

On the contrary, as I have previously pointed out, Lincoln revoked Gen. Hunter's order, which had freed slaves in Georgia, South Carolina, and Florida. This action returned slaves to their former status as property of the federal government.

The primary reason that slavery is incompatible with capitalism relates to the fact that capitalism is the only economic system that recognizes property rights. Thus, it is the only economic system that recognizes human rights.

[Warren Stupidity]

221. "capitalism is the only economic system that recognizes property rights"

Wow, and centuries of property rights recognizing pre-capitalist societies are just wiped off of the objectivist 'reality' of
our dear departed randian idiot.

It never did manage to defend his thesis that capitalism is incompatible with slavery.

[rhett o rick]

68. I agree. nm

[MannyGoldstein]

91. By what legal mechanism could Lincoln have banned slavery

in the states not in rebellion?

Remember, it was specifically protected in the Constitution.

[Creative]

95. That's simple, the North was already ignoring the Constitution with regard to fugitive slave laws.

[MannyGoldstein]

103. I don't think that's the case

Can you point to an established law of this sort that ignored the Constitution?

Even if it was the case, the President should not ignore the Constitution. The Civil War, on an important level, was about *not* taking shortcuts with the Constitution (i.e., seceding)

[Creative]

111. Okay, let my try to make my point more clearly.

In 1860, all across the North, states refused to honor warrants for return of slaves. This was in direct defiance of federal law and of the Constitution, which clearly mandates that each state must recognize Constitutional laws of all other states. Moreover, the federal government (Lincoln) refused to intervene on behalf of southern states.

A present day analogy would be if states with no death penalty refused to enforce fugitive warrants from states with the death penalty. Refusing to honor such warrants would create a Constitutional crisis similar to the one that arose in 1860. Would the question then be over the death penalty, or would the question be over obeying the Constitution and the law of the land?

Since it is clear that Lincoln had made the decision to ignore the Constitution, he could easily have freed all slaves.

[Art_from_Ark]

214. In 1860, Lincoln was not yet president

James Buchanan was president for the entire year.

[mix]

122. So slavery was at the heart of secession after all? nt

[Creative]

131. Nice try, but the point made was Lincoln choosing not to free ALL slaves being held in the US.

[mix]

132. again, slavery nt

[Creative]

135. Again, if slavery was the reason, why not free them all?

[mix]

138. That was eventually done.

Keeping the Union together was paramount and slavery was the issue that determined that union. The incremental elimination of slavery was more prudent. Lincoln also had to keep the border states loyal, despite being slave states. Their secession could have easily tipped things to the South's advantage and would have most likely resulted in international recognition of the Confederacy.

[Cosmocat]

112. Dude - economy and slavery were the SAME ISSUE ...

for the south ...

The sad mentality that comes in partnership with it aside, the southern economy was based on slave labor ...

[TexasObserver]

144. The hypothesis is correct, as anyone who has studied History knows.

The Civil War was over slavery. It started with the Constitution and its compromise on counting slaves, and continued unabated for the next 74 years, until the war began.

All my life, I've heard the unreconstructed claim that the civil war was about anything and everything other than slavery. It's a grand rationalization. There's a reason most of the tea baggers hate Obama. They're literally unreconstructed Rebels who never accepted that the Confederacy got its butt kicked, to the glory of the United States and compassion.

Anyone who has any doubts that the Civil War was about slavery should get a degree in American History from a decent university, and lose that incorrect notion.

[Creative]

150. Tell me then, how could the north fight for the emancipation of slaves in the South

when this peculiar institution still existed in the North?

[TexasObserver]

155. Have you considered taking reputable courses from a good university?

[Creative]

156. Clearly, you are the victim of a substandard educational process.

Slavery wasn't abolished until 1868, 3 years after the war. Thus, Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, and Delaware (Union States) still had slaves.

[TexasObserver]

165. Clearly you are a victim of a Confederate educational process.

"Confederate" has several meanings, but in this case, it's the one we use for something fraudulent or worthless, as in "that's not worth a Confederate dollar."

[Creative]

168. Well, at least my victim status did not lead me to the same conclusions that you revealed

in your previous post.

[Taverner]

167. BS, hands down it was about slavery and preserving the union

The two issues were so intertwined you cannot talk about one without talking about the other

[Creative]

170. Well then, perhaps you can explain to me how it could have been about slavery,

when this peculiar institution still existed in the North?

Moreover, if it mattered so much, why did Lincoln tell Davis that slavery would remain intact if the South would return to the union?

[Taverner]

174. Although there was slavery in the North, most Americans at the time thought there wasn't

Lincoln did that because, like our current POTUS, he wanted to appease. Of course, the CSA didn't JUST want to keep slavery, but wanted to become a "Tropical Empire" and run not just the CSA, but the Northern States, South America, Mexico, etc. Make no mistake, the CSA was a Fascist Empire that had expansionist dreams (and yes, just like the USA.)

The Confederacy was more than just the name of the traitorous South - it is a mindset that exists in every Southern Republican or Conservative, that one day, Dixie will rise and take over the world, establishing their Supply Side Christianity, legal racism and oligarchical structure everywhere.

Just ask on Stormfront what they want to do, after they make their country all white...

[Creative]

178. Unlike others, you are at least willing to acknowledge the fact that slavery did indeed exist

in the North. However, you lost me when you drove off into the realm of a "Tropical Empire." Furthermore, you have clearly exhibited your anti-Southern bigotry during the course of making the jump from the first Republican president to "Supply Side Christianity."

I googled "Stormfront" and then visited their website, and while that is clearly some bizarre $#!t, it is just as bizarre for you to suggest that was the mindset of Southerners prior to and during the Civil War, or even modern day Republicans.

Whatever it is you are on (PCP?), please stop taking it, for you are losing your mind!

Don't misunderstand, I don't have much use for Republicans (too much homophobia), but I am not worried about them taking over the world.

[Taverner]

181. Well yeah, and indentured servitude was going on too

A form of slavery, albeit temporary

Point is, if you said that back in 1865 to the average Northerner, it would be a surprise to them.

And on the books, it was not legal (indentured servitude was, however)

Reason I pointed to Stormfront is its a well known NeoNazi site, carrying on the goal the CSA did. Granted, I don't think they are that much of a threat today, but again who knows what goes on in the mind of Mitch McConnell. These folks are still pissed the North won the battle of Gettysburg, and they love to have antebellum balls, re-enactments and what not - so I'm sure if given the chance, they'd love to go back to the "good ol days."

And as for the "Tropical Empire" - it's all there, in the Congress of Virginia. These were the plans, after they won the civil war. You can talk around it, but the CSA was just as expansionist as their Northern neighbor. Check out the minutes of the CSA Congress if you don't believe me.

[Taverner]

182. Oh and for what I'm smoking - I don't consider Howard Zinn a drug

Although the GOP probably does

[sudopod]

191. Here is a link to the Confederate Constitution

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp

Do a search for "slave" and see the obvious truth.

It was about slavery.

[Creative]

196. Here is a link to the US Constitution. If it was about slavery, you would not find these words:

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html

[tsuki]

198. Propaganda for the masses. WMD, anyone? It was an economic

war, fought for profits, as it was in the beginning, is now, and shall ever be.

[martymar64]

199. According to the South Carolina Declaration of Secession, it was exactly about slavery

Don't believe me? Read the document yourself. I did.

[DeltaLitProf]

215. Sorry, but no

The terms of the Emancipation Proclamation suggest Lincoln still wished to keep the border states from joining the Confederate side. Besides this, in no way does the action of one president in the middle of the war decide the ultimate reasons for the war as determined later by historians.

[JVS]

7. The vice-president of the Confederacy said this.

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

As I have stated, the truth of this principle may be slow in development, as all truths are and ever have been, in the various branches of science. It was so with the principles announced by Galileo it was so with Adam Smith and his principles of political economy. It was so with Harvey, and his theory of the circulation of the blood. It is stated that not a single one of the medical profession, living at the time of the announcement of the truths made by him, admitted them. Now, they are universally acknowledged. May we not, therefore, look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgment of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system. The architect, in the construction of buildings, lays the foundation with the proper material-the granite; then comes the brick or the marble. The substratum of our society is made of the material fitted by nature for it, and by experience we know that it is best, not only for the superior, but for the inferior race, that it should be so. It is, indeed, in conformity with the ordinance of the Creator. It is not for us to inquire into the wisdom of His ordinances, or to question them. For His own purposes, He has made one race to differ from another, as He has made "one star to differ from another star in glory." The great objects of humanity are best attained when there is conformity to His laws and decrees, in the formation of governments as well as in all things else. Our confederacy is founded upon principles in strict conformity with these laws. This stone which was rejected by the first builders "is become the chief of the corner" the real "corner-stone" in our new edifice. I have been asked, what of the future? It has been apprehended by some that we would have arrayed against us the civilized world. I care not who or how many they may be against us, when we stand upon the eternal principles of truth, if we are true to ourselves and the principles for which we contend, we are obliged to, and must triumph.

Thousands of people who begin to understand these truths are not yet completely out of the shell; they do not see them in their length and breadth. We hear much of the civilization and Christianization of the barbarous tribes of Africa. In my judgment, those ends will never be attained, but by first teaching them the lesson taught to Adam, that "in the sweat of his brow he should eat his bread," and teaching them to work, and feed, and clothe themselves.

Alexander H. Stephens
March 21, 1861
Savannah, Georgia
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76

[Taverner]

179. Pretty much proof positive that the war was about slavery

[JVS]

9. For the North it was about preserving the Union, for the South it was about maintaining slavery.

[cali]

21. er, it was also very, very much about abolition for much of the North.

[JVS]

25. "for much of the north" better reflects the various perspectives, but I'd say that the official...

government line in the USA for the early part of the war was that it was about preserving the union and only later did emancipation get added to the government's reasons for the war.

[Better Believe It]

59. Preserving a union with capitalism as the national economic system!

It would have been impossible for American capitalism to grow and prosper on the scale achieved if slavery had someone been maintained in much of the nation.

Capitalism won.

Does anyone really believe that slavery could have endured for much longer any more than we could have remained a British colony for another century or more?

A civil war and its eventual outcome was assured. With compromises it might have been delayed few more years or perhaps even a few decades, but an economic system based on slave labor in this nation could not continue into the 20th century.

The Civil War proved that.

[JVS]

71. If so, then Marx found Capitalism winning over a chattel slave system is nothing lamentable.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm

[coalition_unwilling]

73. This is a beautiful document you have linked to. Brought tears to

my eyes. Thanks for it.

On a humorous note, are we now allowed to tell Repukes that Karl Marx was a Repuke supporter? :)

[coalition_unwilling]

72. You are committing the 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc' fallacy that

because history happened the way it did, it had to happen that way ("A civil war and its eventual outcome was assured.")

The plain fact is that, had Lee's battle orders not been found and delivered to McClellan before the Battle of Antietam (revealing that Lee had divided his Army of Northern Virginia), Lee might have consolidated his forces in Maryland in 1862 and successfully invested Washington, D.C. before the hapless McClellan got off his duff, thereby forcing the North to sue for peace and grant the South independence.

Likewise, as James McPherson has pointed out, had Lee been decisively defeated during the 7 Days Campaign (before the Emancipation Proclamation), a defeated South would have re-entered the Union with slavery preserved within the South's boundaries.

[Art_from_Ark]

82. Why was a civil war over slavery assured?

Especially considering that the United States was the only nation on earth that had to resort to war on itself to end the "peculiar institution"

[gkhouston]

121. It wasn't. If the sides had been more evenly matched in terms of factories and

foundries, the war might have gone very differently. I can't think of any reason why slaves couldn't have been trained to do industrial work; it just that the South was still primarily given over to agriculture at the start of the war.

[mix]

124. King Cotton.

Though agrarian, the Southern slave economy boomed in the years between independence and civil war, pushing the slave population from around 300,000 in the 1780s to 4 million on the eve of the Civil War.

King Cotton is a great example of how capitalism can accommodate slave labor along side wage labor. Cotton was the essential raw material for the quintessentially capitalist commodity of the time: textiles produced in British factories for the world market.

Yet as you say when it came to war, the South was not ideally suited. The industrial base of the North gave the Federals a decisive edge.

But if the British and French had recognized the Confederacy and agreed to challenge the Federal blockade to get armaments to the South, then perhaps things would have been different. If the South's brilliant generals had had access to the proper war materials, the Confederacy would have probably gained its independence.

[Taverner]

183. The South also wanted a "Tropical Empire"

They wanted to be free to continue the policies of Andrew Jackson - expand the CSA to all points South for the White Christian Race.

Take a look at some of the minutes from the CSA Congress. They felt they were fight a Holy War for the White Race - not too different than the NAZIs really.

[sharesunited]

11. And the 2nd Amendment gave the Rebels mistaken encouragement.

Right to bear arms my ass.

[loudsue]

16. So many of the history books written by southerners in the south say that slavery

was not the cause for the civil war. Southerners have been raised, for the most part, to believe that the civil war was because of unfair and unequal commercial benefits, and that "yankees" were just unfair greedy bastards. It's the same propaganda that goes on today with the right wing, making them believe history is different than what it was.

It's the very same shit. They make stuff up to suit themselves!

That said, there have always been enlightened people in the south, as for instance with the underground railroad, and the people who helped slaves escape. But this (the southern) region is still ripe with people who make a whole culture out of the slave-owner mind set. People are supposed to be bent to their will, and the truth should be bent to their liking.

[eleny]

26. "People are supposed to be bent to their will, and the truth should be bent to their liking. "

That is so well said!

[loudsue]

35. Thanks!

:hi:

[LuvNewcastle]

22. During the civil rights movement,

segregationists claimed that state's rights was the issue, too. But southern governors weren't standing in the doorways of all-white schools in order to exercise their state's rights. They were trying to preserve the southern "way of life," a way of life that was all about keeping the races separated and keeping the whites on top. People need to remember that in many parts of the south, black people were the majority. White people were scared of the potential political power of blacks. They were afraid that black people would exercise their power as ruthlessly as white people had exercised theirs.

[ladjf]

45. I believe we are dealing with a "primal directive" to dominate, a

directive that if not controlled, will inevitably lead to chaos and death. nt

[MadMaddie]

56. Bingo! It has always been about power

Even today what we are seeing done to the Hispanic population is the same strategic methods used back in the day by Southern Whites. They are fearful of losing what they perceive is rightly theirs.

[Taverner]

185. Very true - the CSA created a culture that is still alive today

Slavery is part of it, but part of it is this mythic view of the "white race" being superior to all others. Manifest Destiny was never considered genocide in their minds, but "God's Will"

This is why so many folks down South love their "Antebellum Balls" and part of the reason they love Civil War Re-enactments.

Antebellum South takes on a mythic space in the Conservative South. As if the CSA was "God's Army" and that for White people to own Black people is a sacred right.

Not too different from Hitler's Volkisch movement, with the Teutonic Knights and whatnot.

[TBF]

48. Of course it was - they wanted free labor. nt

[Art_from_Ark]

75. And the North used *practically* free labor

in the form of children:

"The low value of child labor in agriculture may help explain why children were an important source of labor in many early industrial firms. In 1820 children aged 15 and under made up 23 percent of the manufacturing labor force of the industrializing Northeast. They were especially common in textiles, constituting 50 percent of the work force in cotton mills with 16 or more employees, as well as 41 percent of workers in wool mills, and 24 percent in paper mills"

http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/whaples.childlabor

[RegieRocker]

62. Thank God slavery was abolished! Now can we move on to focusing

on better wages, jobs, hours and rights for workers for all races? Or are we still thinking some races don't deserve our help? Does this keep us from being concerned about workers? How about Mexicans?
It's ok for them to be under paid and work extremely long hours? I've heard people say " who else are you going to get to do the jobs Americans don't want to do? " Isn't that statement a form of exploitation? Shouldn't the job pay enough and the working conditions be good.enough for all races to take the job? This country is land, water and trees. It's the people in it that make it a country. So for this country to be great it's people must be great. It's everyone for themselves, that pretty much sums it up.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

79. I rank such denial as only slightly less nauseating than Holocaust denial. -nt

[Kweli4Real]

210. Why "slightly less"? n/t

[ismnotwasm]

81. Yes

Those who say it was about 'economics' forget that it was economics built of human suffering. I personally believe it was a type of societal mental illness to pretend first that 'owning' people was right and proper, and second, to deny that people were human. It had to seriously and permanently fuck up some brain cells. Or, to turn to the bible, the supposed book of faith and redemption to justify slavery, which was also done. That had to fuck up the old 'peace and joy' part of the Christian faith, whether it was acknowledged or not.

We could say something like this; The Southern farmers often farmed like shit. They wanted new slave states to rest played out land or 'recover 'it. Cotton doesn't give back. Tobacco doesn't give back. Bad rotation, poor (or no) fertilizing, good soil get used up, crops fail or produce less of a profit. Profit drives economics. Do we leave out slave labor here? If so why? Why would we? What, exactly is the point?

Human beings as slaves were alive and suffering 'economics' and a nasty evil period of history that is. For the rest of the deniers, I'd say look at aftermath of slavery. We still haven't completely recovered from slavery and what it did to society. The mental illness hasn't cleared and it manifests as racism among other ills. The history of American slavery in particular is pretty ugly.

[Art_from_Ark]

84. The South was more interested in gaining new states

to balance out the Northern states. The gentleman's agreement of admitting one new slave state for every new free state was essentially ended in the 1850s when California (1850), Minnesota (1858) and Oregon (1859) were all admitted as free states to the Union without corresponding slave states (the last of which, Florida and Texas, were admitted in 1845).

[ismnotwasm]

147. Oh, I've no doubt.

I was just using an example, because from what I understand, poor farming practices and played out soil DID have a bit to do with it, it just isn't the whole picture.

[bullwinkle428]

83. DU needs to come up with another "bingo card" for slavery apologists,

the way it has on some other subjects!

"Slavery had NOTHING to do with the war"

"Slavery was well on its way out, long before the war started"

"ZOMG...the North had WAY more slaves"

"Lots of slaves willingly fought for the South"

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

85. Four squares down, 20 to go. Let me try to help.

"The war was over states rights"

"The Confederate flag is about heritage"

"Anti-Southern bigotry"

"The Northern invaders committed atrocities"

"Lincoln was a racist"

OK, 15 to go.

[coalition_unwilling]

87. The one that absolutely enrages me is the trope that Lincoln

was a racist (usually relying on the single quote about preserving the Union being worth retaining slavery). Sadly, this meme has even made its way into certain circles of African Americans. I try to explain whenever I encounter it the sin of 'presentism' (judging figures of the past by the moral standards of today) and that 'racism' was not a cognitive category back in the mid-19th century. Could one be a 'racist' if 'racism' was not a cognitive category? I suppose that obscure ontological\epistemological argument may be debatable one way or the other and that thus Lincoln could be a racist without being aware that he was a racist or that racism even existed. But against that must be set the entirety of Lincoln's life and career.

If he were such a racist, then why did the Southern and border state press constantly portray Lincoln as either a) a n****r-lover or b) a negro himself? People who want to say Lincoln was a 'racist' have not spent much time at all amongst the primary or secondary sources of the time.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

90. Come to the brainstorm!

By the way, I did this BEFORE reading that post. Great minds etc.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x79745

[Kweli4Real]

211. I have to disagree ...

To consider one race inferior, or superior, on the basis of race makes one a racist ... especially when one is (or in this case, was) in the position benefit from, exert control over, or perpetuate another's inferior status.

This is NOT subject to convention or "the morays of the day."

Lincoln, in fact, had no love for Black folks; but he had less love for the "peculiar institution." I guess would make him a moral racist, but a racist none the less.

[coalition_unwilling]

213. OK, using your definition of 'racist' (questionable on its surface but be that as it may),

what exactly did Lincoln do to 'benefit from, exert control over or perpetuate another's inferior status'?

He may have had no love for black folks but that hardly makes Lincoln a racist. I would argue that Lincoln simply did not view the world or his time through the lens of race. And isn't that what we're really talking about? Isn't racism more the classification of people according to a non-essential characteristic (skin pigmentation) than it is any of your criteria? As far as I know, Lincoln did not classify people as black or white (what I meant when i said the cognitive category didn't really operate back then), much less consider whites as 'superior' to blacks or blacks as 'inferior' to whites by mere virtue of their race.

When Richmond fell in the spring of 1865, freed slaves and free blacks within the city knelt at Lincoln's feet and greeted him as 'Father Abraham' - now why they would do that for a racist is beyond me. Lincoln didn't know he was a racist and the freed slaves must not have known he was a racist either. But we from our vantage point 150 years later claim to know what Lincoln and the freed slaves of Richmond didn't know? OK, but that's "present-ism" at its most pernicious, imho.

[Kweli4Real]

219. Oh, Come on ...

You really have to ask how a white person (any white person) in the 1800s benefited from, exerted control over or perpetuated the inferior status of Black people? Please ... if you are serious, then we have nothing more to talk about; your state of denial is far, far too thick for reason to win the day -- reason presupposes, some basis in acceptance of reality.

No, racism IS NOT more (or merely) the classification of people according to a non-essential characteristic (skin pigmentation); the practice of racism is ALL about benefitting from, exerting control over and/or perpetuating the inferior status of another race. It is not as you would suggest, merely an academic exercise.

Lincoln did not classify people as black or white (what I meant when i said the cognitive category didn't really operate back then), much less consider whites as 'superior' to blacks or blacks as 'inferior' to whites by mere virtue of their race.

How can you say this in the face of the Lincoln/Douglas debate? For your reference:

"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race ..." (Debate at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858)

Lastly, regarding your question/comments: Why would Black folks knell at Lincoln's feet in the of 1865? and "Lincoln didn't know he was a racist and the freed slaves must not have known he was a racist either." This is, at once, an exemplar of white supremacy/white priviledge, past and present. The past part is clear and needs no explanation; but I will address the present manifestation.

How can you honestly not see the actions of those Blacks for what it was -- "the enemy of my enemy is my friend", especially when the latter practices a far more virulent form of racism and posed an immediate threat.

I suppose, you never played "Mommy/Daddy" games; or in the school yard, allied yourself with someone that you knew did not have your interests at heart; but who was in the position to blunt the aims of someone with far greater malicious intent. Well this is a lesson that Black folks have learned well and continue to practice to this day.

(IMO and speaking for a very narrow segment of the Black community) Black folks' support for the Democrat party is less from any real affection for the party. Yes, the Black community benefits as the Democrats promote things that benefit the middle and working classes; but after nearly 50 year of practicing the franchise, they know that Democrats will do nothing for Black people exclusively, even where the problems are (nearly) exclusive to the Black community.

But, unlike Kansas, the Black community (by and large) recognizes that Democrats oppose Republicans; and the Republican agenda would bode far worse for the Black community.

Just to be clear, your assigning of affection (for Lincoln) to the activities of those Black people; while holding your own actions as merely self-preservation is an example white supremacy -- and your failure to recognize this for what is is is an example of white priviledge.

One final note:

Please understand that this response is not an attack on your person; but rather, on a world-view that makes discussions of Race in America so frustrating. I'm starting to believe that these discussions are like a fish trying to understand why a drowning man fights the water that the fish would notice only when on land.

[coalition_unwilling]

220. I had forgotten that passage from the 1858 debate and I think I may

need to modify my views somewhat. Thanks for bringing it to my attention again.

And it may be more appropriate to speak of "Lincoln" in the plural, a Lincoln whose views might change, evolve and grow, rather than a singular Lincoln who either was or was not racist.

In checking back on this, I came across this passage by Henry Louis Gates that I think bears reposting:

"So, was Lincoln a racist? He certainly embraced anti-black attitudes and phobias in his early years and throughout his debates with Douglas in the 1858 Senate race (the seat that would become Barack Obama’s), which he lost. By the end of the Civil War, Lincoln was on an upward arc, perhaps heading toward becoming the man he has since been mythologized as being: the Great Emancipator, the man who freed—and loved—the slaves. But his journey was certainly not complete on the day that he died. Abraham Lincoln wrestled with race until the end. And, as Du Bois pointed out, his struggle ultimately made him a more interesting and noble man than the mythical hero we have come to revere." (http://www.theroot.com/views/was-lincoln-racist?)

In the body of the article referenced above, Gates makes mention of the meetings between Lincoln and Frederick Douglass at the White House when the two met and interacted as, in Gates' words, "intellectual equals." Gates traces Lincoln's growth in part to his developing respect for and admiration of Douglass.

I would only remind you that the only reason I even mentioned this question of Lincoln's racims in the first place was that apologists for the South and for slavery will imply that the South's stances were not that wrong because, after all, "Lincoln was a racist." It sets my fucking teeth on edge, I must tell you.

[JVS]

89. How about

"Lincoln owned slaves" (even though he didn't)

"You'll never win votes in the South without understanding how traumatic reconstruction was for Southerners."

"They died for their homes."

"Lincoln was a Republican!!!"

"The North started the war"

[Rabrrrrrr]

109. And maybe we can add

"They were only trying to preserve a unique culture and its tradition"

"The North benefited more from slave-picked cotton than the south ever did!"

"The Northern textile factories demanded cheap cotton!"

"The South had a very minority voice in the writing of the Constitution and were pretty shouted down every time they tried to add something"

"The North sent missionaries to Hawaii where they almost destroyed the culture and society there - how is that any better?"

[TexasObserver]

164. BINGO!

[Kweli4Real]

208. Can't be BINGO already ...

I have 4 cards with:

"But Slavery wasn't about race because were Black people owned slaves."

[Name removed]

113. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mix]

116. you should get your facts and dates right first

Your views on the Civil War are far-right fringe fantasies and simply factually wrong.

For example your claim that Lincoln started the war.

There is not a single reputable scholar of the Civil War who supports your extremist and disingenuous take on this conflict.

[Creative]

129. Most reputable scholars agree that there was more to the Civil War than slavery.

Moreover, most agree that the term "Civil War" is not applicable.

For civil war is defined by two factions fighting to take over the same seat of government. In this case, the South made no attempt to conquer the North; rather, they were simply seeking independence.

[mix]

130. Agreed.

But you have wrongly dismissed slavery altogether with your claim that "economics" was the sole cause of the conflict.

Which scholar(s) are you citing regarding the applicability of the term "civil war."

Historically, civil wars have taken many forms. Your narrow definition is intended to glorify the unconstitutional secession of the Confederate states.

[Creative]

133. This is the legal definition of "civil war."

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Civil+War

Now, I will be most appreciative if you will provide a link to the Supreme Court decision which decided the unconstitutionality of secession.

[mix]

137. I do not consider your link an authoritative source.

"Civil war," according to every reputable scholar of the conflict, from Bruce Catton to Shelby Foote, is the "applicable" term.

The burden is on you to prove your claim that secession was constitutional and legal.

I profoundly disagree.

By mistakenly claiming the the blockade preceded southern aggression, you have already failed to prove that Lincoln started the war.

[Creative]

140. Well, that is the legal definition and you know what they say about leading a horse to water...

Actually, it was you who declared that secession was unconstitutional. Thus, the burden of proof lies with you in proving it.

[mix]

143. Article I, Section 8, spells out the power of Congress

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."

By seceding and then attacking the Federal government, southern states committed treason and violated the Constitution's prohibition against internal insurrectionary violence.

The Federal government was thus acting constitutionally when it went to war against the Confederacy to ensure "the execution of the Laws of the Union."

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

151. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mix]

154. Yours is simply a misreading of the Constitution.

There is no mechanism for secession in it. Even Jefferson was wrong on this one (Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of 1798).

Arguments such as yours must rely upon outside documents and speculation about the intent of its authors, not the Constitution itself.

[Creative]

172. Well, since the issue has not been decided by the courts, I will have to rely on

on my speculation regarding the intent of its authors.

After all, that is what the justices of the Supreme Court would do if the case ever came before them.

[mix]

190. It did come before the Supreme Court in 1868, Texas v. White.

The court ruled that states do not have the unilateral, constitutional right to secede.

[Creative]

197. I believe the war ended in 1864; prior to this decision.

Moreover, what would you have expected from a court installed by the advocates of "might makes right?"

[martymar64]

204. The war ended in April 1865, not 1864.

You really need to re-check your "facts".

[salin]

141. So what shall we call it... the failed war for independence?

who are these "most agree" to whom you refer?

I just checked out a series of dictionaries per the definition of "civil war" - all included factions fighting, none defined "to take over the same seat of government." Apparently it isn't as universally accepted as the full definition as you would assert.

Seriously, reading this thread you clearly have a bias - and that's okay. However, some of your assertions are just inviting mockery.

[Creative]

152. You can call it whatever you want, the point remains the same--slavery was an issue,

but is was not the cause.

[Mojeoux]

163. So it's Greed vs. Human Compassion Then and Now

Economics...."No fair, the South gets to produce goods without paying wages."

Compassion...."Those people are bought and sold like cattle, it's inhumane."

Economics (21st century)....."No fair, the Chinese get to produce goods for tiny wages and no O.S.H.A."

Compassion (21st century)...."Healthy working conditions and living wages are the rights of all human beings."

[EstimatedProphet]

175. I agree. You need to dig a little more beneath the surface.

[LynneSin]

146. I thought it was more about 'States Rights'

I mean 'States Rights' would allow states to decide the fate of slavery but overall I thought that was the central issue to the start of the civil war.

[Warren Stupidity]

159. See up thread, just as segregation was a 'state's rights' issue.

State's Rights was the justification for why the federal government could not interfere in segregation, but the intent was to continue Jim Crow laws in the south.

The Civil War started over the issue of expansion of slavery into new territories, and the fear that it might be abolished in the existing slave states. The only 'State's Rights' issue in the Civil War was the right to secession, and that is not an enumerated right of the states. But secession was an issue only because of slavery. The root cause was slavery and the various excuses for why it wasn't slavery are basically dishonest.

[JVS]

176. It also seems very odd that none of the Free States seemed to find a need to secede to protect...

their rights. If we're going to say that tariff policies that favored northern industrialists along the coast, then why were states every bit as agrarian as the South (for example, OH, IN, IL, MN, WI) not interested in secession?

Meanwhile the border slave states of DE, KY and MD were at risk of seceding. Evidently being able to own people makes you more sensitive to states' rights.

[Recursion]

162. The only "right" in question was the right to be a slave state

Though on the other hand, when the question was the right to nullify pro-slavery legislation, the South got oddly Unionist.

Was there northern hypocrisy on the questions of race and slavery? Certainly. But several Confederate state Constitutions explicitly list the preservation of slavery and white supremacy as the chief goals of their secession and confederation. I'll take their word for it.

[Creative]

166. You are correct, state's rights and trade (economics) were the primary reasons.

And although slavery was an issue, it did not cause the war.

Think about it, how could the North fight for the emancipation of slaves in the South when slavery still existed in the North?

[neverforget]

177. Slavery is economics as in FREE LABOR. Ever take a look at the CSA Constitution?

http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/csaconstitution/article.i.shtml

Section IX

1 The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

2 Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.

4 No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

[Creative]

180. I don't have to look at th CSA Constitution, for slavery was legal under the US Constitution

that time.

[neverforget]

184. Too inconvienent for ya that the Confederates enshrined slavery in their

Constitution?

[JVS]

186. And also enshrined protective barriers for the domestic "slave breeding" industry.

[Creative]

187. Inconvenient…? Actually, I find it disgusting; but no more disgusting

than the references to slavery in the US Constitution.

[neverforget]

188. I see it's not disgusting enough to defend the Confederacy though

At least the US freed the slaves after the war and eliminated the reference to slavery in the Constitution with the 13 and 14th Amendments unlike the Confederacy that was defending it.

[Creative]

194. You have purposefully misconstrued my position, for I have simply argued that

that slavery was not he cause of the war. Moreover, slavery continued until 1868, well after the war and Lincoln's death.

Who knows what would have occurred if he had not been assassinated. For clearly, he was willing to allow slavery to exist so long as the Union remained intact.

[neverforget]

203. How can you possibly say that Lincoln was willing to allow slavery to exist

and then issue the Emancipation Proclamation? And then after his re-election 1864, he pressed the Congress in January 1865 to pass the 13th Amendment and send it to the States for ratification which had been ratified by December 1865.

[Scruffy1]

173. This BS revisionism started with the neocons

Being old has some advantages. I remember when this historical revisionism really got the big public outing in the hoopla of the Centennial of the start of the Civil War. Growing up on the border between slavery and freedom I was well aware of local lore of the underground railroad and the plight of fugitive slaves. Missourians were still disliked 100 years later by quite a few, if not as individuals, at least as a group. The skirmishing over borders went on for several years before the actual war in both Southern Iowa and eastern Kansas. The First Iowa was already formed and did not wait for orders to attack Missouri. They just went. Those brave politicians in Missouri voted for succession than ran like hell when they heard the Iowans were coming. Kind of like the service avoiding warmongers of the Republican party today.

About 1961 the old memes about states rights and economic reasons gained wide popularity as Goldwater and his ilk planned for their coup of destroying America by recreating the Solid South as a way to gain control of the USA. Hell, its very efficient. You only needed to own about 35 or forty Senators to completely control the US. By whitewashing slavery and racism in about ten years they had achieved the greatest political coup of all time.
The whole aim was to give plutocracy a new package that was more appealing. Many "historians" jumped on this money making bonanza to spread this claptrap, completely ignoring the fact that slavery was all about plutocracy and was very good at keeping whites poor since they had to compete against nearly free labor-just like workers in America compete against cheap offshore labor today.

To me this revisionism was just part of cleaning up the image of the plutocracy that now rules America.

[rucky]

202. I fail to see what this has to do with Michael Vick. n/t

[MellowDem]

205. Is there really still major denial?

Outside of the small revisionist circles. Really, the vast majority of Americans probably don't even know the Union from the Confederacy, and that's the real problem.

[Warren Stupidity]

222. Major Denial is now Dearly Departed.

[neverforget]

223. Ah that's too bad. I was hoping for a response to #203. The historical

revisionism was strong with this one.