- Messages
- 235
- Reactions
- 475
No, not quite."Economic reasons". Well ffs, everything can be distilled down to that.. nazi's, the crucifiction of Jesus, etc. etc.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No, not quite."Economic reasons". Well ffs, everything can be distilled down to that.. nazi's, the crucifiction of Jesus, etc. etc.
Elaborate, yo.No, not quite.
Good point often missed in arguments (yes we still argue the War Against The Union!) re: State vs Federal sovereignty. Whether or not the issues of sovereignty would have been worked out peacefully in the absence of slavery is anyone's guess. Without the driving issue of HUMAN CHATTEL SERVITUDE there would have been no abolitionists, no Bleeding Kansas, no John Brown & associates... John Brown was correct when he said that the "sins of this guilty land can only be washed out by blood"...Excellent post!The Civil War was about taxes...
...it was also about slavery...and westward expansion...and states rights...and federalism...and endless list of other issues.
It is a common error of our books and media to remember history through a simplified and myopic lens.
Lincoln didn't mention slavery in his early speeches because he knew that any reference would drive a further wedge into an already fractured country.
Lincoln said "If I find a venomous snake lying on the open praire, I seize the first stick and kill him at once. But if that snake is in bed with my children, I must be more cautious. I shall, in striking the snake, also strike the children, or arouse the reptile to bite the children."
Lincoln's primary goal was to preserve the Union, even at the abhorrent cost of slavery.
But slavery was a driving issue and the country had already been simmering in war well before any shots were fired at Fort Sumter.... the dead of "Bleeding Kansas" and Harper's Ferry can attribute to the price being paid.
Yet there were many people in the North that were plenty racist and supported slavery; and many people (although a lesser number) in the South that neither owned nor supported slavery.
Mary Todd Lincoln's brothers fought for the Confederacy.
General Pickett, of Gettysburg, did not like slavery and owned none, but felt his loyalty belonged to his home State.
It is my belief that the war was inevitable. From the founding of our nation grew two narratives:
One of a unified body of states governed by federal authority.
The other of independent states with a federal body acting as an intermediary.
This is why much of the Confederate Officer's and politicians speak of their primary loyalty being to their State. Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, etc.
The country was divided for countless economic and ethical reasons. But the primary cause of the civil war is a disagreement over the very nature and foundation of our Union.
The Southern states largely believed themselves sovereign; no other body had jurisdiction to regulate commerce, which at the time very much meant slavery.
The State and the Federal government cannot both have supreme authority. As Lincoln said "A house divided against itself cannot stand"
So yes, the Civil War was partially about taxes, along with numerous other economic and political issues. But slavery was the driving economic force in the South and the war most certainly was fueled by this injustice.
But the one common denominator in the Civil War was both sides had their own narrative on the principles in which this country was founded. Those narratives were in conflict and the divide only grew until brothers fought brothers.
I hope we never see anything like it again.
Sometimes it can be a race war. Eliminate the race then take the land/resources etc.. Native Americans? There's a lot more than just that one example. And then you can still say, in a 'round about way, it's about economics I guess. Humans are like a virus, they move in, possibly compete with the current land holders, use all the resources and then move to another area to use those resources. Matrix anyone?Elaborate, yo.
Because theys takin all the money/opportunity, same thing.Sometimes it can be a race war. Eliminate the race then take the land/resources etc.. Native Americans? There's a lot more than just that one example. And then you can still say, in a 'round about way, it's about economics I guess. Humans are like a virus, they move in, possibly compete with the current land holders, use all the resources and then move to another area to use those resources. Matrix anyone?
"In the simplest of terms," his is a description for simpletons. Anti-slavery is mentioned as a symptom, not a cause. Proudly. Openly. Repeatedly.
For an expert, his reading comprehension is lacking, but his bias is pretty apparent.
If you don't have time to read it all, Virginia's is pretty short; it is on the end.
For an expert,
but did they cling to slavery due to the over-taxation.
Oppression of any group is ultimately economic, whether it be based on food sources, land grabs or finances. If your only 'wealth' is your blood and life, are you willing to spend it?
Looking at family records they were small farm owners and horse breeders....with no records of owning any slaves.
I'm feeling pretty oppressed here in Oregon. It's bad enough to have ideology I oppose in control of the state government, but they are up to their old tricks of passing "Emergency" bills, using "Gut and stuff" tactics, passing bills out of committee w/o public hearings, making sure that the minority party gets no input, etc. They are determined to force "safe storage" on us, and Cap and Trade is heading us for another walkout.