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

[phands]

I'm sure the board racist can educate us all as to why this disgusting vermin is right....

The owner of a “Muslim-free” gun shop was stumped into silence in a new documentary about Trayvon Martin when he was asked to name one cause for the Civil War besides slavery.

Andy Hallinan, owner of Florida Gun Supply, was interviewed in an episode of the docuseries “Rest In Power,” where he insisted the Confederate flag was not a racist symbol.




“The majority of people believe that it is a symbol of heritage, that it is a symbol of our history, that people think is associated with the South, and the South was fighting for slavery — that’s a common misconception about what actually took place,” Hallinan says.


Hallinan was banned from YouTube over his anti-Muslim views, and Martin’s acquitted killer George Zimmerman auctioned a Confederate flag painting to help pay the gun shop owner’s legal bills after he was sued for religious discrimination by the Council on American-Islamic Relations.


“When you study the history, that was one thing that the war was about,” Hallinan says. “People don’t go to war for one issue.”


The interviewer asks Hallinan to name three other issues that contributed to the Civil War.


“I’m not a historian,” Hallinan says. “I mean, you’re putting me on the spot for something I — you know.”


Hallinan sits in silence for a moment, and the interviewer asks him to identify just two other causes for the Civil War.


“In general, the war was about tyranny,” Hallinan says, and the interviewer asks him to define that term. “Tyranny is any time a government overreaches, and they control a life too much.”


That’s when the interviewer twists the knife.


“Like slavery?” he says, and Hallinan opens his mouth but sits in stunned silence.

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/09/wa...-asked-name-reason-civil-war-besides-slavery/

 

[Tom Sawyer]

To be fair to this guy, all the best historians and researchers who've been trying to justify the Civil War over the past century and a bit haven't been able to come up with a second reason either, so you can't fault this guy for not doing better.

When a group of people names themselves the Slaveholding States and explicitly declares that they're going to war specifically due of the issue of slavery, it makes it difficult for others to argue about how trivial the issue of slavery was as compared to all the other really important issues which led to the war that the people who started the war never bothered to ever mention.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The only other reason I can think of is ironically Freedom (self-rule). I'm sure a lot of southerners saw the Civil War as a second War of Independence. The southern states didn't want to be in union with the northern, and the northern forced them to stay. Absent the slave issue it looks more like Quebec, had Quebec voted to separate (they didn't).

 

[Worldtraveller]

The only other reason I can think of is ironically Freedom (self-rule). I'm sure a lot of southerners saw the Civil War as a second War of Independence. The southern states didn't want to be in union with the northern, and the northern forced them to stay. Absent the slave issue it looks more like Quebec, had Quebec voted to separate (they didn't).

"Absent the slave issue"? Almost every one of the states specifically mentions being able to keep slaves as one of the main reasons to go to war, in the various articles of confederation. So if Quebec was voting to separate because they wanted to keep slaves, you might have a point.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Our "mini Civil War" in Kansas in the 1850s is a good illustration of how the slavery issue brought out a murderous hatred in the country. We were already slaughtering ourselves in Bloody Kansas 6 or 7 years before Ft. Sumter.

 

[Derec]

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The only other reason I can think of is ironically Freedom (self-rule). I'm sure a lot of southerners saw the Civil War as a second War of Independence. The southern states didn't want to be in union with the northern, and the northern forced them to stay. Absent the slave issue it looks more like Quebec, had Quebec voted to separate (they didn't).

"Absent the slave issue"? Almost every one of the states specifically mentions being able to keep slaves as one of the main reasons to go to war, in the various articles of confederation. So if Quebec was voting to separate because they wanted to keep slaves, you might have a point.

A parallel would be that the Francophones for a French Quebec declared independence from Canada for the specific reason of having a separate French country where speaking French would be the main pillar of that new nation and then their descendants went around claiming that the independence movement was unrelated to speaking French.

The Slaveholding States were really fucking clear about how they were doing this for the sake of slavery. One can retcon a whole host of potential reasons into their decision after the fact, but that's irrelevant to the actual stated reasons that the Slaveholding States were giving for their decision.

 

[Sarpedon]

In Jefferson Davis' words to "free ourselves from the tyranny of the majority."

(of course, the issue in question was the majority opposition to slavery) Ol' Jeff, like his modern day namesake, was pretty good at cloaking his evil intentions behind a veneer of gentil rhetoric. He hardly ever used the word 'slave,' preferring to use euphemisms like 'servant' or 'our domestic institutions.' Other Confederate leaders weren't so circumspect.

The usual second reason was 'tariffs.' Oddly, when the south seceded, one of the few differences in their constitution was the prohibition of the federal government imposing a tax for 'internal improvements.' Which seems to be an absolutely bonkers thing to oppose.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

A parallel would be that the Francophones for a French Quebec declared independence from Canada for the specific reason of having a separate French country where speaking French would be the main pillar of that new nation and then their descendants went around claiming that the independence movement was unrelated to speaking French.

It would start with French for sure, but it would take on a whole added dimension of "Freedom" had the Quebec referendum said it wanted to go and the rest of Canada took up arms to prevent their independence. Same for Brexit, if the rest of Europe said fuck you to that and forced England to stay in the EU at gunpoint.

There is the question of why a people want independence, and there is the separate question of if it is or isn't kept from them by force.

For example, people of the USA benefit greatly from living in a powerful and rich country that is very much that way due to the exploitation of the third world. If that is justifiable is one question. If we should force the USA and it's citizens to join with Mexico and South America all as equal citizens is another. I would expect a Freedom and self rule and independence argument to be made.

It could though very easily be argued that people in first world countries oppose a one world government with equal status for all, for the sole reason to maintain their privilege at the expense of third worlders.

 

[Jarhyn]

A parallel would be that the Francophones for a French Quebec declared independence from Canada for the specific reason of having a separate French country where speaking French would be the main pillar of that new nation and then their descendants went around claiming that the independence movement was unrelated to speaking French.

It would start with French for sure, but it would take on a whole added dimension of "Freedom" had the Quebec referendum said it wanted to go and the rest of Canada took up arms to prevent their independence. Same for Brexit, if the rest of Europe said fuck you to that and forced England to stay in the EU at gunpoint.

There is the question of why a people want independence, and there is the separate question of if it is or isn't kept from them by force.

For example, people of the USA benefit greatly from living in a powerful and rich country that is very much that way due to the exploitation of the third world. If that is justifiable is one question. If we should force the USA and it's citizens to join with Mexico and South America all as equal citizens is another. I would expect a Freedom and self rule and independence argument to be made.

It could though very easily be argued that people in first world countries oppose a one world government with equal status for all, for the sole reason to maintain their privilege at the expense of third worlders.

This is disengenuous at best. There isn't a real difference when the question comes down to "they want independence from oversight on human rights abuses. There is an ethical obligation present to suppress such abuse where possible. If you said you wanted to leave the jail so you could go murder some folks, the parole board would be fully expected and obligated to deny you parole. The point stands that you want 'freedom' to do something that doesn't even qualify under any coherent philosophical concept of such.

 

[ronburgundy]

The only other reason I can think of is ironically Freedom (self-rule). I'm sure a lot of southerners saw the Civil War as a second War of Independence. The southern states didn't want to be in union with the northern, and the northern forced them to stay. .

You need put that cart back behind the horse. The only reason the south waned to leave the Union was to protect slavery, because they knew Lincoln was going to abolish it. Which is why they declared their secession just weeks after Lincoln won the election.
The only "Freedom" they were being denied sufficient to motivate going to war was the freedom to rob other people of their freedom and put them into slavery. In fact, the Confederacy was itself a union of states, proving there was no principled opposition to the benefits of such a union. The only difference was the Confederacy was a union committed to preserving slavery, while the majority of the US union had turned against it and elected a president who vowed to eradicate it.

Southern apologists that claim "freedom" was a reason are akin to Christians who claim they are upset about being "persecuted" for not being able to persecute people for being gay.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

This is disengenuous at best.

It is an attempt at answering the challenge in the OP of what other than slavery was the Civil War about. The only answer I can come up with is that there was a Freedom dimension to it.

There isn't a real difference when the question comes down to "they want independence from oversight on human rights abuses. There is an ethical obligation present to suppress such abuse where possible. If you said you wanted to leave the jail so you could go murder some folks, the parole board would be fully expected and obligated to deny you parole. The point stands that you want 'freedom' to do something that doesn't even qualify under any coherent philosophical concept of such.

But we don't think of this both ways. You talk about a prisoner and a warden, but the whole point is to question the authority of the warden.

People laughed when I made the "Should we, the rest of the world, invade the USA" thread, but by the world police against ethical mistreatment standards, it would be justified.

People often make an argument about self-rule, independence, etc, and often that does fly in the face of what others consider to be fundamentally unacceptable or unfair behaviour.

Why SHOULDN'T we render all US citizens 100x less well off, so that people in the 3rd world countries can be 100x better off? Why shouldn't they all be equal citizens under one world government? The only answer I can think of is greed and maintenance of privilege, same reason the south wanted to maintain slavery, but you will see nothing but "Freedom!" arguments made.

 

[Jarhyn]

This is disengenuous at best.

It is an attempt at answering the challenge in the OP of what other than slavery was the Civil War about. The only answer I can come up with is that there was a Freedom dimension to it.

There isn't a real difference when the question comes down to "they want independence from oversight on human rights abuses. There is an ethical obligation present to suppress such abuse where possible. If you said you wanted to leave the jail so you could go murder some folks, the parole board would be fully expected and obligated to deny you parole. The point stands that you want 'freedom' to do something that doesn't even qualify under any coherent philosophical concept of such.

But we don't think of this both ways. You talk about a prisoner and a warden, but the whole point is to question the authority of the warden.

People laughed when I made the "Should we, the rest of the world, invade the USA" thread, but by the world police against ethical mistreatment standards, it would be justified.

People often make an argument about self-rule, independence, etc, and often that does fly in the face of what others consider to be fundamentally unacceptable or unfair behaviour.

Why SHOULDN'T we render all US citizens 100x less well off, so that people in the 3rd world countries can be 100x better off? Why shouldn't they all be equal citizens under one world government? The only answer I can think of is greed and maintenance of privilege, same reason the south wanted to maintain slavery, but you will see nothing but "Freedom!" arguments made.

First, ethics is a product of our context in the universe combined with the assumption that as both individuals and as a species, we wish to continue surviving, and to do so with as much symmetrical freedom of action as possible. So from that perspective, ending the asymmetrical relationship is an authority we all have, which we then delegate through government as a group. You may have made a joke, but I as an American 100% agree that if tomorrow the rest of the world waged a war against the US it would be ethically justified.

As to whether the US can make the rest of the world better off at its own expense, while we COULD do that in the short term, in the long term, we would just be doing so for no significant benefit to the world, because it isn't the zero-sum game you propose. In reality, we could all on this earth have a decent standard of living, if we spent our military budgets on education instead of fear. Further, while one world government seems a good idea, it's really not: a lot of the gridlock and failure of the US is directly attributable to its size and schisms of ideology. Some things are universally applicable, such as environmental responsibility, contraindications on rape/murder, etc, but many things that must be done in SOME particular way are ambiguous as to which of the many particular ways are in fact "best"; indeed, we are often better served by the existence of different local conventions which a global government would be a hinderance to.

As I have stated here and elsewhere, it is not freedom to enforce an asymmetrical relationship, and it is not an evil to end one.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

As I have stated here and elsewhere, it is not freedom to enforce an asymmetrical relationship, and it is not an evil to end one.

I take your points and thank you for your post. This line and this logic brings me to a new question. Are you in support in completely open borders? Should Jose be allowed to walk into the USA with his family and work a job that somebody is willing to hire him for? Should he then get all of the societal benefits that you have enjoyed since birth? Or, should you "build a wall" to keep him out? Screen him based on what he can contribute to "your community" maybe? Keeping a strong border between yourselves in the USA, and those living in the 3rd world seems a lot to me like enforcing an asymmetrical relationship.

 

[Jarhyn]

As I have stated here and elsewhere, it is not freedom to enforce an asymmetrical relationship, and it is not an evil to end one.

I take your points and thank you for your post. This line and this logic brings me to a new question. Are you in support in completely open borders? Should Jose be allowed to walk into the USA with his family and work a job that somebody is willing to hire him for? Should he then get all of the societal benefits that you have enjoyed since birth? Or, should you "build a wall" to keep him out? Screen him based on what he can contribute to "your community" maybe? Keeping a strong border between yourselves in the USA, and those living in the 3rd world seems a lot to me like enforcing an asymmetrical relationship.

While I'm pretty open about this, I am in fact a fan of completely open borders, with caveats regarding human trafficking concerns, smuggling, and fugitive control. Jose and his family should 100% be able to access quality education and employment opportunities, and his participation in our economy (and the taxes paid), and the education of his children will have a global benefit; that rising tide of average education will raise all ships, especially as improving education decreases the birth rate below replacement. If we cannot confirm that Jose has an identity at all, it becomes a matter of ascertaining who he is. I am not even going to say we should be turning away folks with minor criminal histories; personally, I would draw the line at violent or organized crime. I would also expect that some kind of interim or "trial" citizenship is warranted: get a job within a year, have housing lined up or secured within a month. These are all we can ask of anyone, to seek a job and be at least as stable as anyone else tends to be.

It is, indeed, ridiculously asymmetrical to think that Jose does not deserve to be a citizen, have social safety support, and does not deserve education for him and his family merely because he does not have some arbitrary amount of money, job, and/or friends, when we have tens of thousands here who have a blank check on all the benefits without any of those expectations.

Edit: even so, this is becoming not-germane to the thread. I will not engage you further on the topic here. If you wish to continue about the subject of open borders with me, please start a new thread, and I will participate in it as I see fit (largely dependent on you and others not invoking some manner of Gish gallop, loaded assertions/questions, begged questions, or other dishonest debating techniques).

 

[ronburgundy]

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.

Right. This is not "another reason" besides slavery. It just reinforces that slavery was THE reason, by offering an explanation for why they wanted to protect slavery. I don't think anyone doubts that profit-motive was a major factor behind slavery. Profit motive is the most common motive behind all forms of inhumanity, and a large % of profits are acquired via inhumane acts.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The situation was sufficiently complex that all the issues involved influence the other issues involved. Therefore even when discussing the other issues, slavery is a part of those other issues. One may therefore conclude that those other issues were just slavery under another name, but that would be false.

Slavery was the bellwether issue, the one that other issues wound up congealing around.

 

[ronburgundy]

The situation was sufficiently complex that all the issues involved influence the other issues involved. Therefore even when discussing the other issues, slavery is a part of those other issues. One may therefore conclude that those other issues were just slavery under another name, but that would be false.

Slavery was the bellwether issue, the one that other issues wound up congealing around.

Or put more accurately, other "issues" were invented as bullshit excuses to engage in treason and kill fellow citizens in order to protect the institution of slavery.
Had those other issues not existed, but Lincoln still sought to end slavery, then the Civil War would still have happened. Had Lincoln not committed to end slavery but those other issues still existed, the Civil War would not have happened. That makes slavery the only meaningful cause of the Civil War.