Posted on 05/03/2019 7:54:25 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
Conventional wisdom of the moment tells us that the great war of 1861—1865 was “about” slavery or was “caused by” slavery. I submit that this is not a historical judgment but a political slogan. What a war is about has many answers according to the varied perspectives of different participants and of those who come after. To limit so vast an event as that war to one cause is to show contempt for the complexities of history as a quest for the understanding of human action.
Two generations ago, most perceptive historians, much more learned than the current crop, said that the war was “about” economics and was “caused by” economic rivalry. The war has not changed one bit since then. The perspective has changed. It can change again as long as people have the freedom to think about the past. History is not a mathematical calculation or scientific experiment but a vast drama of which there is always more to be learned.
I was much struck by Barbara Marthal’s insistence in her Stone Mountain talk on the importance of stories in understanding history. I entirely concur. History is the experience of human beings. History is a story and a story is somebody’s story. It tells us about who people are. History is not a political ideological slogan like “about slavery.” Ideological slogans are accusations and instruments of conflict and domination. Stories are instruments of understanding and peace.
Let’s consider the war and slavery. Again and again I encounter people who say that the South Carolina secession ordinance mentions the defense of slavery and that one fact proves beyond argument that the war was caused by slavery. The first States to secede did mention a threat to slavery as a motive for secession. They also mentioned decades of economic exploitation.
(Excerpt) Read more at abbevilleinstitute.org ...
“and none of them in the context he suggests.”
Read Jeff Davis’ own words.........
Claim any context you want.
Construe it any way you want.
Explain Jeff Davis statement about secession any way you want.
There’s the ultimate test of reality — whether those who would “exercise the right” can actually make it stick.
They aren't. Slavery is compatible (even required) with Islam, but it is quite contrary to Christian principles.
They are pointing out that the "Southern Slave holding States" are being oppressed. Is that untrue or something?
Because as I understand it, that is in fact true, and is descriptive of what was actually occurring.
Are you saying they would have been okay with free states being oppressed? Because I think the answer to that is "No." They would have objected just as strenuously if Pennsylvania was under the heel of a dictator government.
So by identifying the states as "slave holding" they aren't really saying anything about leaving for the reason of slavery. They are saying they are leaving for the reason of oppression.
Get the difference?
That little phrase — “Masters, give up threatening” — was intended to put all domestic servant arrangements on a voluntary basis. It wasn’t to be a one-sided thing, not in Christendom.
There wasn’t any “except for Southrons” clause in there.
Incidentally it was Arab traders who went and grabbed the slaves, gleaning them from prisoners taken in inter-tribal wars in Africa, by tribes who were all the more happy to pursue the wars when they were rewarded by goodies from Arabs. Talk about wicked and inhuman plans.
And today we’re plagued more and more by Islamists. Maybe we deserved it. Kiss up to the serpent, get bitten.
History of war is normally written by the winning side. The guy that loses doesn’t have many left to write it and no one believes then anyway.
Lincoln was the first to massively expand Federal power, followed by Teddy, Wilson, FDR, Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama.
Why? What were those slaves going to do to earn profit in the territories? It certainly wasn't going to be earned by growing cotton or tobacco.
Lincoln could say this because if slavery was confined to the south, it would die. Like communism, it had to expand to survive.
Why would it die? Was it going to get outvoted? Takes 3/4ths of the states to pass an amendment.
With 16 slave states in the Union, it takes 48 states to vote in an amendment over their objection. This would require a Union of 64 states which we still don't have.
So how was it going to die if it didn't expand?
I've heard this said all my life, but when I look at the facts, they seem to contradict this claim.
If Lincoln's efforts to pass the Corwin amendment had been successful, slavery would have continued indefinitely so long as a single state wanted it.
Well, in this case, the discernible facts back up their fears.
You also miss another more salient point. It doesn't matter what *I* believe. What mattered is what the people of those Northern states believed, and I dare say quite a lot of them may have been frighted by the possibilities outlined in those two and other newspaper editorials.
“I dare say quite a lot of them may have been frighted by the possibilities outlined in those two and other newspaper editorials.”
Your opinion again.
Parse it back far enough and you can blame it on Eve in the garden.
Would North Carolina have come to the defense of Pennsylvania if Lincoln was raising an army to subjugate them?
What do you think?
“They are pointing out that the “Southern Slave holding States” are being oppressed. Is that untrue or something? “
Then “slaveholding” was pertinent to the “oppression”. In which case slavery WAS pertinent.
“Would North Carolina have come to the defense of Pennsylvania if Lincoln was raising an army to subjugate them?”
Had I been a Pennsylvanian feeling oppressed, I sure would not have counted on it!
Why can’t you just admit the obvious: The South WANTED slavery. And they resented being told it was wrong, and they realized they were losing political power since slavery was not being allowed to expand into new states.
Let me flip your question: Would North Carolina have supported Utah’s “state right” to legalize polygamy? Would they have sent troops to help Utah fight for their “right” to have multiple wives? The only “state right” that united the Confederacy was the right to own slaves and to take them with you anywhere you traveled in the USA.
They were not subtle about it. Go read the speeches made, or why the politicians boasted they voted for leaving the Union. You will find “slavery” comes up again and again and again...
Why did the south want to secede?
Yes, slavery is evil.
I am glad you relinqish your Social Security benefits which takes the direct labor of another,
self righteous hypocrite.
I'm thinking it is more like people want to see the side they associate with as "good" and the side which "their side" was fighting against as "bad."
I don't sympathize with Slave holders, but I also don't sympathize with dictatorial government invading states to reassert control from Washington DC.
I believe the Declaration of Independence established both the principle and the precedent, and the same standard should be applied thereafter.
“I don’t sympathize with Slave holders, but I also don’t sympathize with dictatorial government invading states to reassert control from Washington DC.”
Who fired first?
Are you always this clueless ?!?
OK, how else are we to construe that?
We all know that the war was about the democrats desire to spread slavery to every corner of the Union.
So move on along little democrat.
Yes.
Freedom of association also requires freedom of disassociation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.