151–160 of 278 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? I thought that happened way after WWI. The UK economy back then had a gazillion of colonies to sustain it.
No OP's correct, the US surpassed the UK both in population and in GDP sometime around the middle of the 19th century.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Markets and tariffs were the reason the south seceded. No, they weren't. > Lincoln didn't say "end slavery and we shall have the greatest nation on earth". The South didn't revolt over something Lincoln said, they revolted over the failure to secure their desire for expansion of slavery into the territories, which they read (probably accurately) as foreshadowing eventual abolition of slavery if they remained in the…
> The South didn't revolt over something Lincoln said, they revolted over the failure to secure their desire for expansion of slavery into the territories There was no such desire on the South's part, although the claim that there was was common in abolitionist propaganda of the time. The South already knew that none of the territories being added to the Union at that time were suitable for the kind of economy based…
Ironic considering the modern lost cause argument of the war being over "states' rights". There was one right they were primarily concerned with - owning people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Should I believe you or lincoln? Both. The rebellion was about slavery for the rebels and preserving the Union for the Union. GP addressed the former, Lincoln spoke for the latter.
Quoted post unavailable.
"In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: “No person held to service or labor 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 labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”"
South Carolina didn't secede because the North wanted to abolish slavery. They seceded because the North refused to return slaves to the South.
Many Northerners took a long time to follow this truth to its logical conclusion: either the North would have to accede to Southern demands and honor their claims to other human beings as property, or they would have to abolish slavery entirely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, we went to great lengths to avoid confronting actual primary sources. It's not enough to just teach alternative history, you also have to teach learned helplessness, that only certain authorities are trustworthy, and to promote a general climate of proud ignorance (looking up things in books is for losers and caring about education is for suckers).
> we went to great lengths to avoid confronting actual primary sources So you're saying you looked up the primary source documents for Southern secession and you still believe slavery wasn't a cause?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Markets and tariffs were the reason the south seceded. No, it was slavery. > Tarrifs were the reason for the civil war. No Southern secession, and the Northern response to prevent it, was the proximate reason for the Civil War. The South seceded due to slavery. Yes the North didn't go into the war to free slaves. They did it to keep the country together. But as the war progressed its position on abolition hardened…
You and dragonwriter keep repeating the false statement. > The South seceded due to slavery. No. They left after the north raised the tariff. They justified the secession on states' rights ( one of the notable being slavery ). The south didn't secede after the north freed the slaves, threatened to free the slaves, etc. They left after they lost a decades long tariff battle to the north. The fight in the first part of…
But all your questions have answers if you actually looked shit up instead of being suckered into being a mouthpiece for historical revisionism to deflect attention from the sins of the past.
West Virginia split because they didn't want to secede. Did they want to stay because of economic reasons? It doesn't really matter to this question, the war was started by states secession, so the reason for the first move is what matters.
Maryland and Delaware were further north and less dominated by slave-holders than the states that did secede. Anti-slavery sentiment in the pre-war US was very geographically distributed, after all. It was actively debated and voted on, but it didn't carry the day.
Especially Delaware: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Delaware#Delaware_i...
"Slavery had been a divisive issue in Delaware for decades before the American Civil War began. Opposition to slavery in Delaware, imported from Quaker-dominated Pennsylvania, led many slaveowners to free their slaves; half of the state's black population was free by 1810, and more than 90% were free by 1860."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right now, Russophobia is kind of healthy thinking. Their current mix of tsarism and return to kinda communist thinking except the communist ideology is sucky and dangerous.
[flagged]
Not good for the people of Russia, but nothing good can come while Putin is still in power.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How do you explain the South's century of aggressive open racism after the civil war in your "it was just economic" theory? It was about slavery, racism was DEEPLY involved in US slavery, and racism and racists didn't just go away after the civil war. Sometimes it's as simple as people say it is, over and over and over in their defense of slavery and their post-Civil-War racist laws and propaganda. You don't need to…
> How do you explain the South's century of aggressive open racism after the civil war in your "it was just economic" theory? "Is your assertion that racist white northerners fought a war against racist white southerners to free black people?". What about racist white northerners and racist white southerners confused you? > You don't need to try to save their reputations. Let them be remembered as the assholes they w…
The ones that seceded said it was about slavery. Many times. You don't believe them. Why? Why do you care enough to claim that you know their motives better than everyone else?
West Virginia split because they didn't want to go along with Virginia's secession. That's something that happened after the cause, not something that can tell you the cause, though! Maryland and Delaware were less dominated by the slave-holding interests. Its not that interesting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The civil war was not reframed after the fact to be about slavery, quite the opposite in fact. Should I believe you or lincoln? '...My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery...' https://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greele... If the civil war was about freeing slaves, why did lincoln wait so long to end slavery? Why didn't he do it imm…
How do you explain the South's century of aggressive open racism after the civil war in your "it was just economic" theory? It was about slavery, racism was DEEPLY involved in US slavery, and racism and racists didn't just go away after the civil war. Sometimes it's as simple as people say it is, over and over and over in their defense of slavery and their post-Civil-War racist laws and propaganda. You don't need to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Markets and tariffs were the reason the south seceded. No, it was slavery. > Tarrifs were the reason for the civil war. No Southern secession, and the Northern response to prevent it, was the proximate reason for the Civil War. The South seceded due to slavery. Yes the North didn't go into the war to free slaves. They did it to keep the country together. But as the war progressed its position on abolition hardened…
You and dragonwriter keep repeating the false statement. > The South seceded due to slavery. No. They left after the north raised the tariff. They justified the secession on states' rights ( one of the notable being slavery ). The south didn't secede after the north freed the slaves, threatened to free the slaves, etc. They left after they lost a decades long tariff battle to the north. The fight in the first part of…
Have you looked at a map to see where they are? They would've been curbstomped fairly quickly if they tried. And although slavery was legal in Delaware, 91% of the Black population there was free at the start of the ACW.[1]
> The south didn't secede after the north freed the slaves, threatened to free the slaves,
The South seceded because they feared the North would free the slaves.
> Why did west virginia secede from virginia?
Because they disagreed with Virginia's secession from the United States.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> we went to great lengths to avoid confronting actual primary sources So you're saying you looked up the primary source documents for Southern secession and you still believe slavery wasn't a cause?
I think you're picking a fight here that's not there: its relatively uncontroversial that there's been an aggressive campaign since the civil war to minimise slavery as a factor, particularly in the South - you will easily find "war of northern aggression" types because that is what they are taught.