The Terrible History Thread

[Louis XXIV]

Originally Posted by Masada

If we had talked about 'black slaves' rather than 'slavery' that counter-stoke might have some merit. Since we didn't, it doesn't.

The other point that needs to be stressed is the whole institution was predicated on the idea that it was fine to own slaves, so long as those slaves were black. Consider what Chief Justice Taney said in Dred Scott: [blacks were] beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect. The racism literally drips out of that statement and the system continued to survive because most Southerners, and some Northerners, believed that was indeed the case.

Chief Justice Taney was influenced by Calhoun, who was a big proponent of scientific racism. His work does an amazing job of not only attacking abolitionists, but discrediting even people like Thomas Jefferson (all men are not born free and equal, they are born infants and have to grow to become men. Since blacks are of a "lesser race" they can never reach this point). There's quite honestly a clear line between Calhoun and Hitler. Taney was never quite as bad because he didn't have the intellectual capacity to go that far. But he did buy the notion that Southern slavery was justified because it was African slavery (contradicting the English tradition of slavery only existing because of positive law and had nothing to do with race).

As far as northerners fighting to end slavery. There's no question that Lincoln was careful at first to say it wasn't about slavery. However, there's no way to ignore the impact the Emancipation Proclamation had on making the war about the moral issue of slavery. This was seen in Europe, it was seen in the draft riots in New York (where people openly said they didn't want to fight a war for blacks). Lincoln was a political pragmatist who avoided saying things that the majority of Americans disagreed with and only acted when he had political support. So while I agree that preservation of the Union was always the primary goal, I do think he began to see this as an opportunity to end slavery.

[Domen]

Originally Posted by Dachs

Why do you think that they fought a civil war, the end result of which was the abolition of slavery in the United States, then?

ONE of MANY end results was the abolition of slavery in the United States.

[Oda Nobunaga]

There's no doubt whatsoever that slavery was fundamentally racist. It's a good, and desirable thing that people perceive slavery as all about racism these days, because if peopel are going to remember one thing about that, then the racism is the most fundamental thing to remember.

BUT, that means you have to qualify when saying something was "about slavery", unless you want to imply that racism is the most fundamental issue to to remember about that thing.

Which, in the case of the civil war, would be misleading. They were fighting to preserve a racist institution; yes. Definitely, absolutely, clearly. They were not fighting to preserve an institution BECAUSE it was racist. (They were fighting to preserve it because it was a socio-economic institution that was itself fundaamental to their social and economic statuts).

Or, in other words, while racism was fundamental to the institution of slavery, it was incidental to the civil war.

[JEELEN]

Originally Posted by Masada

The South seceded to prevent the abolition of slavery... so the war wasn't about slavery?

Indeed. The Union declared war - not because of abolition, but because of secession.

[Dachs]

Originally Posted by Domen

ONE of MANY end results was the abolition of slavery in the United States.

You're making it sound like slavery had barely anything to do with anything, and was sort of a side issue that was dealt with on the way to the ultimate end goal of the war, whatever it was. Whereas I, even when I lived in Louisiana and Alabama, was always taught that slavery was, if not the primary cause of the war, at least the second-most important thing behind particularism (a particularism that had its roots in slaveholding, of course).

Originally Posted by JEELEN

Indeed. The Union declared war - not because of abolition, but because of secession.

The Union never "declared war" on anything.

Insurrectionists occupied Federal installations, seized control of Federal territory, and fired on Federal troops in support of a secessionist cause that would not have existed without the rallying cry of slaveholding.

---

I have to admit that a collection of Poles, Dutch, and Quebecois Canadians is one of the weirdest groups of people to assert that the American Civil War wasn't chiefly about slavery. It's like meeting a Holocaust denier from Mozambique.

[say1988]

Of course slavery was the cause of the war, without it you would not have had the South motivated to secede and the whole situation would not ahve existed. I have never argued otherwise, just that ending slavery wasn't the primary motivating factor for the Union. Confederate actions to defend slavery were what motivated the Union, but ending slavery itself was only secondary (at best early on).

[Dachs]

Originally Posted by say1988

I have never argued otherwise, just that ending slavery wasn't the primary motivating factor for the Union. Confederate actions to defend slavery were what motivated the Union, but ending slavery itself was only secondary (at best early on).

Literally nobody in this thread has argued against that. There's no point in trying to make the claim.

[Eran of Arcadia]

Someone implied it though.

[Oda Nobunaga]

Just to clarify, Dachs, I am NOT saying the south's secession was not about slavery. It was, all the way, about slavery.

Slavery was fundamental to the war. Racism was fundamental to slavery. But it was other fundamental aspects of slavery (that it was the lynchpin of a social-economic system on which the plantation aristocracy rested their power and status) that led the south to war, not the racist ones.

My objection to "The war was about slavery" is solely because those other aspects of slavery tend to be (rightly) forgotten about in popular discourse, so when you say "The war was about slavery", it will come off as "the war was about racism". (This is less applicable when all you're talking with are other people versed in history who know the difference; but most people aren't versed in history).

Hence why I think it's a statement that should be made carefully, preferably with useful qualifiers or explanations, rather than just stated as a blunt fact.

Of course, that's generally just a good policy when dealing with history - short, blunt statements about historical events make for two things: great soundbites, and even greater misunderstandings.

Really you could probably add the overwhelming majority of one-sentence, qualifier-free statement about history to this thread.

[Domen]

There's no doubt whatsoever that slavery was fundamentally racist.

Slavery was not always and not everywhere racist. Slavery without racism also existed.

A prisoner of war or an insolvent debtor, etc., was becoming a slave in such system. And his skin colour was of no or little importance.

But American version of / justification for slavery was indeed based on racism - here I agree.

[Oda Nobunaga]

Domen - true, but as you said, irrelevant to the specific institution of slavery we're talking about here.

[Masada]

Originally Posted by JEELEN

Indeed. The Union declared war - not because of abolition, but because of secession.

Originally Posted by say1988

For the South it definitely was. The North, however did not go to war to end slavery but simply to prevent secession.

A secession motivated... to protect slavery.

[Kraznaya]

A secession that would not have happened if the North had committed to preserving slavery.

[Oda Nobunaga]

No, but the north would have gone to war if an hypotethical secession had been about anything else.

Which goes right back to what I said above. A simple one-sentence, no-qualifier soundbite is almost always terrible history. Not because it's completely false, but because it will almost always be misleading.

[Leoreth]

Originally Posted by Oda Nobunaga

They were fighting to preserve a racist institution; yes. Definitely, absolutely, clearly. They were not fighting to preserve an institution BECAUSE it was racist. (They were fighting to preserve it because it was a socio-economic institution that was itself fundaamental to their social and economic statuts).

When is anyone ever racist for the sake of racism? People are racist because of the benefits they get by being racist.

[Dachs]

Originally Posted by Leoreth

When is anyone ever racist for the sake of racism? People are racist because of the benefits they get by being racist.

That's a little too materialist to be convincing. Plenty of people exhibit racism despite the lack of any real benefit accruing to them from it.

[GhostWriter16]

Well, the way Dom worded it implied that the North was the aggressor, something only Confederate apologists take seriously.

The North WAS the aggressor. Whether it was justified or not (And I'd say the argument in favor of it being justified pre-1863 is nationalist bullcrap, IMO) they DID invade the Southern country. Yes, the South shot first, because the Union was occupying government land. The North's response to wipe out the CSA WAS aggresssion.

[Oda Nobunaga]

Definitely.

That said, the southerners, at least taken as a group (there may or may not have been individuals who were not, it's beside the point) were racist. More so than most, in what was already a severly racist century overall.

However, that doesn't make the war a war about racial issues or racism - these were incidental to the civil war.

GhostWriter - that's bollocks. The federal forces occupied federal property.

A secession is a messy issue. And while I'm of the opinion that the South had a right to secede (I hope no one is truly surprised at a Quebecer being pro-regional right of secession?), whatever the joke that was the late 19th century SCOTUS said on the matter. But the decision to secede, taken by a democratically elected body (or even better, by a referendum) does not translate into immediate independence. It translates into negotiating a transition. If the negotiation fails and turn to armed conflict, whichever side takes the plunge into shooting at the other becomes the aggressor.

[_random_]

In what world does violent insurrection not constitute an act of aggression?

[taillesskangaru]

Domination's Second Law: As a history thread grows longer, the probability of a discussion involving the American Civil War or the Confederacy approaches 1.