Racist insists slavery wasn’t the only reason for the Civil War — but hilariously fails to name others

[Tom Sawyer]

But that doesn’t disagree with the main point. Yes, they went to war over economics, but they were the economics of slavery. They weren’t the economics of something else.

If someone’s a human trafficker and you want him to stop enslaving women to be raped and get a job st Walmart instead and he says that he won’t because he’d have less money for his wife and kids, then he’s still defending human trafficking, not promoting family values.

 

[Jobar]

When I was a boy going to public schools in Georgia, we were taught that the war was fought over 'State's Rights'.

In high school it occurred to me to ask which particular rights those were. And, you know, only one or two of my teachers were willing to give me the obvious answer- the right to own slaves.

It's true that the South's economy was mainly based on agriculture, and in the days before efficient steam and internal combustion engines, agriculture on a large scale was powered by muscle- and though horses and mules had more powerful muscles than did humans, they cost correspondingly more to feed and maintain. So since the dawn of civilization and large scale agriculture, slaves or serfs (same thing, pretty much) were required to keep everyone fed and clothed.

Perhaps if the South had played its cards better, avoided secession, and fought politically to maintain their 'peculiar institution' for another decade or three, slavery would have become uneconomical anyway- when machines became sufficiently advanced to take over most of the labor needed to feed large populations.

I've often wondered if that would have been better for all concerned; whites, blacks, and the nation as a whole. There still would have been a great deal of suffering and injustice; but we got that anyway, and on top of that a war that still is being fought, in some ways.

 

[Jarhyn]

Actually, there is another reason (not that it's a proper reason for war):

The north was already ahead economically. Removing slavery would harm the southern economy and thus put them even farther behind.

So....they went to war over slavery, that's what you're saying.

I'm saying they went to war over economics. What the North wanted would put a big dent in their economy. Think of what we see today with people like the branch dildonians--they object with a certain amount of violence to the government protecting the environment. I'm saying that the South was doing the same thing, but about protecting the blacks.

As others have pointed out, the economic issue they went to war over was explicitly slavery. It's just trying to hide the S word behind a different term and hoping people do not notice. Slavery is the causal agent of economic impacts. If someone asks what disease is killing you (Spanish Flu), responding with "chills, fever, and nausea" isn't an answer; those are symptoms, not the disease, effects rather than causes.

You can say it was "economics" or "freedom", but again, those are effects. For them to qualify as answers to the question of why the civil war happened, you need to provide the causes of those effects: slavery

 

[couch_sloth]

...

Perhaps if the South had played its cards better, avoided secession, and fought politically to maintain their 'peculiar institution' for another decade or three, slavery would have become uneconomical anyway- when machines became sufficiently advanced to take over most of the labor needed to feed large populations. ...

There is the theory that the invention and improvement of the cotton gin caused the Civil War. e. g. It made slavery much more economically viable.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Other Anglosphere countries ended slavery without a war. The US was different.

When two issues influence each other, it isn't fair to say that one of the issues is the only issue and the other one isn't an issue. The inter-regional economic stresses made war an inevitability long before slavery became the preeminent issue.

At least we haven't descended to the usual depth of "since you say there are other issues therefore you think slavery wasn't an issue at all."

 

[J842P]

Other Anglosphere countries ended slavery without a war. The US was different.

When two issues influence each other, it isn't fair to say that one of the issues is the only issue and the other one isn't an issue. The inter-regional economic stresses made war an inevitability long before slavery became the preeminent issue.

At least we haven't descended to the usual depth of "since you say there are other issues therefore you think slavery wasn't an issue at all."

Slavery *was always the prominent issue*. Unless by "long before" you mean "by 1618".

The tension between "free" and "slave" states was a major component of Federal politics for essentially the entirety of US history.

The preservation of slavery was the major motivating factor behind the succession of the Southern States, and the ultimate cause of the war.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Actually, there is another reason (not that it's a proper reason for war):

The north was already ahead economically. Removing slavery would harm the southern economy and thus put them even farther behind.

So....they went to war over slavery, that's what you're saying.

I'm saying they went to war over economics.

And you were quite clear that the economic reason was that they would suffer, economically, without slavery. So they went to war to preserve their slave economy. So, yeah, it was about economy. But it was still and entirely about slavery.

What the North wanted would put a big dent in their economy.

They did not go to war in an effort to increase the industrialization of the South, or because the North blocked them from international markets. They went to war over their slavery.
As you said...

I'm saying that the South was doing the same thing, but about protecting the blacks.

i read an entry in a Southern woman's diary, when she had walked thru a Confederate army post, early in the war.
The troops assured her that she could sleep safely, secure in the knowledge that they were "gonna keep Lincoln from coming down here and taking our niggers."

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Other Anglosphere countries ended slavery without a war. The US was different.

When two issues influence each other, it isn't fair to say that one of the issues is the only issue and the other one isn't an issue. The inter-regional economic stresses made war an inevitability long before slavery became the preeminent issue.

At least we haven't descended to the usual depth of "since you say there are other issues therefore you think slavery wasn't an issue at all."

Slavery *was always the prominent issue*. Unless by "long before" you mean "by 1618".

The tension between "free" and "slave" states was a major component of Federal politics for essentially the entirety of US history.

The preservation of slavery was the major motivating factor behind the succession of the Southern States, and the ultimate cause of the war.

How did the British Empire end slavery without a similar war then?

Economics was the ultimate cause of the war, as it is the hidden ultimate cause of many things.

 

[Sarpedon]

Considering that after the war, the south managed to continue producing cotton with badly paid workers instead of slaves, the argument that slavery was 'necessary' falls through.

 

[Arctish]

Other Anglosphere countries ended slavery without a war. The US was different.

When two issues influence each other, it isn't fair to say that one of the issues is the only issue and the other one isn't an issue. The inter-regional economic stresses made war an inevitability long before slavery became the preeminent issue.

At least we haven't descended to the usual depth of "since you say there are other issues therefore you think slavery wasn't an issue at all."

Slavery *was always the prominent issue*. Unless by "long before" you mean "by 1618".

The tension between "free" and "slave" states was a major component of Federal politics for essentially the entirety of US history.

The preservation of slavery was the major motivating factor behind the succession of the Southern States, and the ultimate cause of the war.

How did the British Empire end slavery without a similar war then?

By making damn sure none of their colonies or vassal states seceded over it.

They learned their lesson with the American Revolution.

Economics was the ultimate cause of the war, as it is the hidden ultimate cause of many things.

Economics as in protecting the source of their wealth and power, i.e. slavery.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

The Cornerstone Speech

Alexander Stephans
Vice President of the Confederate States of America

Delivered: Savannah GA. March 21, 1861

(This is an exert, the "cornerstone" of the speech. A link to the full speech will be at the end)

Cornerstone Speech
Savannah; Georgia, March 21, 1861

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. [Applause.] 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."

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/

 

[Arctish]

Economics was the ultimate cause of the war, as it is the hidden ultimate cause of many things.

What exactly was it that a Republican President was going to do, or not do, that caused the Slaveholding States to declare that if a Republican was elected President they would secede?

You say the cause of the Civil War was economics. What economic factor other than the profits from slave labor motivated the Slaveholding States to go to such an extreme? Why didn't the same factors motivate other states to secede, too?

 

[blastula]

Slavery was the south's cause, but it wasn't the north's at first.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Economics as in protecting the source of their wealth and power, i.e. slavery.

Slavery was part of the economics issue, but economics was the parent issue and slavery was the child issue. Yes, many politicians (who are not economists) made all sorts of stupid speeches.

If a person is going to quote a politician as if that person was brilliant, I don't want to see any further criticism of Trump from that person. After all, getting elected means you are now brilliant. By the way, Lincoln did promise to not interfere with slavery and even supported a constitutional amendment to protect it. Then war broke out.

Economics is too subtle for most people, and politicians aren't even less subtle.

What economic factor other than slavery made the difference? That's easy. Most Southerners didn't own slaves. Even then the South was more agrarian and the North more industrial. The industrial states and the agrarian states had different interests. The reason why the Democratic Party had an easier time dealing with these differences than the Whig Party has a lot to do with the platforms of each, and the economic implications of those platforms.

The North was industrial, and the South agrarian. Therefore if the South wanted manufactured goods, they either had to buy them from the North or buy them from England. If the South wanted to sell raw materials, they either had to sell them to the North or to England. It was in their own best interest to see where they could get the best prices.

The North and England were in competition for Southern business. There was one difference between the two of them, and that was that only one of them could use politics to distort economics - protective tariffs. When such tariffs pass, it means the agrarian South pays and the industrial North benefits. Inter-regional economic conflict. Then to make the situation worse, the Whig Party (and the Republican Party) wanted to use those funds raised to pay for all the roads, railroads, canals, and bridges that benefit only the North.

This conflict was compounded, but not caused, by slavery. Slavery makes it harder for a pre-industrial society to modernize, thereby holding back the South. Idiot politicians may have talked about defending slavery, but they were politicians and so even less aware of economic forces than the average unaware person.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Slavery was the south's cause, but it wasn't the north's at first.

But the South is the one that started the war, so that's no more relevant than a rape victim's motivation for being raped.

- - - Updated - - -

...

This conflict was compounded, but not caused, by slavery.

The people who caused the conflict clearly and specifically disagreed with you.

 

[laughing dog]

The people who caused the conflict clearly and specifically disagreed with you.

Yeah, but they didn't have the deep understanding of the subtly of economics as people today have and they didn't have anyone around who did understand the subtle of economics to explain to them what they actually thought.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The people who caused the conflict clearly and specifically disagreed with you.

Who caused the conflict? The people who wanted self-rule, or the people who killed them to put them down and bring them in line?

 

[J842P]

Other Anglosphere countries ended slavery without a war. The US was different.

When two issues influence each other, it isn't fair to say that one of the issues is the only issue and the other one isn't an issue. The inter-regional economic stresses made war an inevitability long before slavery became the preeminent issue.

At least we haven't descended to the usual depth of "since you say there are other issues therefore you think slavery wasn't an issue at all."

Slavery *was always the prominent issue*. Unless by "long before" you mean "by 1618".

The tension between "free" and "slave" states was a major component of Federal politics for essentially the entirety of US history.

The preservation of slavery was the major motivating factor behind the succession of the Southern States, and the ultimate cause of the war.

How did the British Empire end slavery without a similar war then?

Economics was the ultimate cause of the war, as it is the hidden ultimate cause of many things.

Yes, *the economics of slavery*, and the Southern desire to maintain the *economic system of slavery*.

You can keep playing this game, you know. The ultimate cause is actually greed, not economics qua economics. The human spirit made the war inevitable. But this tells us nothing, and is almost as meaningless as "the war was over economics".

If you actually analyze the couple hundred years preceding the war, and years leading up to it, and what the people who decided to secede said about the matter themselves, the answer is quite clear that the most specific ultimate cause was slavery. More precisely, the Southern fear that the North was going to ultimately remove slavery. To be exact, the North did not fight the war to end slavery (not initially at least), but the South fought it to preserve it. Most in the North, while generally against slavery, were incrementalists regarding the issue. And it was this very same incremental removal of the institution that the Southerners feared.

And there are many countries, including the UK, that have similar regional tensions based on economics. And they managed not to descend into war. Your claim that the economy made the war "inevitable" is suspect at best, and certainly couched in anything resembling a coherent argument.

 

[J842P]

The people who caused the conflict clearly and specifically disagreed with you.

Who caused the conflict? The people who wanted self-rule, or the people who killed them to put them down and bring them in line?

The proximal cause was when the South attacked a federal fort. The ultimate cause was the South seceding to preserve the institution of slavery.

The initial response of the Union, even after secession, was to simply not recognize the Confederates. Lincoln had no intention of invading the South, and in a lot of way, the Northerners stuck their head in the sand until the South attacked Fort Sumter.


What's fascinating to me is that the Confederate apologists sound so similar to the Islam apologists on the left. No no, don't listen to what the people say when they tell you "we are doing this because of Islam", they don't know what they are talking about. We know better than them about their own thoughts and motivations.

Incredible.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What's fascinating to me is that the Confederate apologists sound so similar to the Islam apologists on the left.

They can be doing it because they want to keep slavery, and for that reason wish independence and be denied it. It is still a case of forcing them away from having self-rule. I am surprised that nobody here has pointed out that the south was obviously doing much worse regarding the self-determination of those they held in slavery.