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 ...
If it wasn't, it would have been sooner or later.
But if it exists in any state, it is still slavery in the United States. One state abolishing it isn't enough. If the Corwin amendment passed, every state would have to voluntarily abolish it.
Till then, it remained in the United States.
No one is excusing slavery but the fact that slavery was alive and well in the North makes Slavery as the only reason for the Civil War a little disingenuous.
I forget did the Confederacy or Union wipe out the Indians?
I would say that's a rather diplomatic way of putting "complete capitulation on the central moral claim of the war."
Supporting the Corwin amendment is so contrary to why they claimed to have fought the war, that it ought to convince people they have been buffaloed and conned as to the real purpose for fighting it.
I don't know? Did you know Harry Truman had no clue we were developing an atomic bomb?
It existed in the United States. Specifically in 15 states prior to secession, and 16 after West Virginia split.
Passing the Corwin amendment meant it would linger until the very last state voluntarily gave it up.
Now what was it again they claimed they were fighting over?
That's incorrect. I think Article IV, Section 2 effectively prevented any state from banning slavery. I think Dred Scott just made it clear this is what the US Constitution did since the beginning.
And George Washington kept running slaves through Pennsylvania long after it banned them.
What would that cargo have been? Railroad iron? Not worth it because of the tariffs. Cost more to ship it from Europe than it was to buy it from Pennsylvania.
Oh wait! I think I see what's going on here!
If the nation simply accepted the principle that it was founded on, no one would have to fight about it.
I find it ironic that the phrase "Four Score and Seven Years ago..." refers to 1776, and the Declaration of Independence.
How messed up is that! :)
Yes, Yes he is. He is impervious to any facts that run counter to his delusions. I’ve crossed swords with him on other threads. I usually just skip his stuff now, he won’t even look at any evidence contrary to his views so it’s no good to debate him.
I said on another thread that if you transport Diogenes Lamp back in time to the South Carolina secession convention he’d even fight with them saying “No, the real reason your succeeding is because the north is oppressing you economical.” Of course they’d laugh at him and run him out of town, but I don’t even think that would get through to him.
To believe the contrary is that this dire concern dropped into the public consciousness with nary a ripple stirred.
Of course a war did follow later, so I doubt the lack of a ripple actually occurred.
More like the public thought : "Bankruptcy! Loss of jobs! Economic Depression! Quick! Let's think of a rationalization we can use to prevent this, but that doesn't make it look like we are only concerned about our financial well being! "
Ok
Whatever evil the North was trying to purvey as you all see it, the south was prospering off of slavery.
Period.
I predict Yankeefa will be out in force over this one. They simply cannot abide any challenge to the Leftist PC Revisionist dogma they so love.
Oh wait! 200+ responses in less than 12 hours? Shocker!
Parse meanings far enough, and you can prove anything you want to your own satisfaction.
If they had said "free states", you would have still said it was about slavery.
They identified the states with which the Federal government was intending to go to war. It was identification It was an adjective to describe the Noun.
Their objection was that the Federal Government was going to war against some states, and whether they were slave or free would have made no difference to North Carolina.
They would have sided with whatever state was being attacked by the government.
The North was prospering more.
Who was servicing those goods produced at least in large part by slave labor? The banking, shipping, insurance, “factors” (ie warehousing and logistics). Where was the tax revenue collected on the goods exchanged for those cash crops being spent overwhelmingly? Oh that’s right, in the North.
It could have been any cargo a that a Charleston merchant wanted. What ever he was willing to pay for.
In addition to this article posted by the Abbeville Institute could have been added a whole slew of editorials in the leading Northern newspapers - which I’ve posted here before. They were abundantly clear that to them, it was all about money.
Executive Mansion,
Washington, August 22, 1862.
Hon. Horace Greeley:
Dear Sir.
I have just read yours of the 19th. addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements, or assumptions of fact, which I may know to be erroneous, I do not, now and here, controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here, argue against them. If there be perceptable in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.
As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.
Which they could have done under Corwin.
Without the Corwin amendment, eventually enough would have done so to ban it in the rest.
So in the space of a day, you've argued that there would never be enough states to pass an amendment abolishing slavery, and then you turn around and say there would have been, but the the Corwin Amendment would have stopped them.
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.