I've said this forever: States Rights and Slavery are the same issue. It's States Rights about Slavery. Slavery was the cultural touchstone of the time, the Industrial Revolution's economic consequences around slavery fed into the problem. It was an issue during the founding of the constitution, and it only got worse as industrialization made slavery as an economic activity preposterously stupid. It's all kind of jumbled up into one massive morass. It's like saying: "Our modern cultural divisions are about the Left's over-financialization of the global economy. That has nothing to do with Cultural Marxism!" That's just wrong. It's not one or the other. Fabian Socialists are using the financialization of the economy as a mechanism to control it in order to enact Socialism. It's the same issue. On a similar point, yes: it's about taxes, tariffs, industrialization, federal centralization, Hamiltonian v. Jeffersonian philosophy, which inform States Rights... which falls into the power of Slaveocratic rule by the plantation south, the mass immigration they initiated, the protectionism they gave themselves, and the broader abolitionist movement that would have destroyed their economic order. It's the same issue..
And as we know, if you are using your rights for a bad thing then your rights should be stripped away by any means necessary. War, suffering, precedence that will cause problems for centuries are all justified if you did a naughty with the rights allowed to you. Alternative measures and long term planning be damned, just stomp right in and force them to play by your rules for how you think rights should be used.
After all, why would anyone use the First Amendment to say nigger or other hate speech? Those rights shouldn't be allowed to be used that way either!
Shocking, but not really. But then, when you come into a conversation so assured of how right you are you just copypasta yourself, its to be expected to be closed minded.
I'm sorry man, I just don't know how your comment follows from mine. I feel like you must have misunderstood something. You're being sarcastic about the 1st Amendment, but I don't know why.
Even this comment is a bit confusing. Are you saying I'm closed-minded, or your closed minded? "It's expected" doesn't clarify whom you're talking about. I'm seeing one of two possible statements: "If you do X, you should expect others to be closed minded" or "If you do X, I expect you to be closed minded".
I grant you that I'm being a little lazy by carbon-copying my own post, but I literally just wrote the parent comment for way too long, and it already contained everything I already said. I was going to end up adding the same words and ideas but in a different order.
And yeah, I am pretty sure I'm right about my interpretation, that's why I have it.
Who said Lincoln cared about the slaves beyond hoping for slave revolts? The Baptist Church didn't split over tariffs. It split over Slavery. There was a moral argument about slavery that had been ongoing since the very beginning of the country and earlier.
Secession was partly about slavery. The war was not.
Although the South stupidly shot first after being incited into it, the war was pressed by the North for Lincoln's reasons. Since secession is the right of a free people, the war and it's causes can only be laid at the feet of the federal government. The confederacy's motivations aren't needed.
I think you missed my point but I don't know how better to explain it than the middle sentence I already wrote. Sure if you are analyzing things from a war historian's perspective then it's important to know the full context and what motivated both sides leading up to it for 100 years. If one is simply asking "was the civil war fought over slavery?" then conflating that with secession muddies the waters and causes us to talk past each other. As Lincoln's war, it's only necessary to look at his political concerns and writings to answer the question.
I don't disagree so long as we are contextualizing the question.
"Was slavery the central issue to Lincoln's War?" No. Hell no. Obviously. No argument exists to say that slavery was the primary motivator in Lincoln's decision making regarding a military response to secession. In fact, propaganda efforts on both sides were made to specifically identify it as a "White Man's War", that blacks shouldn't even be involved in.
But, objectively, was slavery the central issue to the American Civil War? I would say yes. If the issue of slavery was already settled, would the American Civil War have even happened? No, I don't think so. Best you might get was a small scale conflict, but the issue of slavery was broiling the culture to a fever pitch, and had been doing so for decades. Economics, taxes, tariffs, central government control, all of these played a part and could certainly caused a secession crisis, but in both previous crises, neither resulted in the death of 2% of the population of the US.
So yeah, if we're speaking clearly about what our context is, then our statements make sense.
Eh. I'll copypasta what I already wrote:
I've said this forever: States Rights and Slavery are the same issue. It's States Rights about Slavery. Slavery was the cultural touchstone of the time, the Industrial Revolution's economic consequences around slavery fed into the problem. It was an issue during the founding of the constitution, and it only got worse as industrialization made slavery as an economic activity preposterously stupid. It's all kind of jumbled up into one massive morass. It's like saying: "Our modern cultural divisions are about the Left's over-financialization of the global economy. That has nothing to do with Cultural Marxism!" That's just wrong. It's not one or the other. Fabian Socialists are using the financialization of the economy as a mechanism to control it in order to enact Socialism. It's the same issue. On a similar point, yes: it's about taxes, tariffs, industrialization, federal centralization, Hamiltonian v. Jeffersonian philosophy, which inform States Rights... which falls into the power of Slaveocratic rule by the plantation south, the mass immigration they initiated, the protectionism they gave themselves, and the broader abolitionist movement that would have destroyed their economic order. It's the same issue..
And as we know, if you are using your rights for a bad thing then your rights should be stripped away by any means necessary. War, suffering, precedence that will cause problems for centuries are all justified if you did a naughty with the rights allowed to you. Alternative measures and long term planning be damned, just stomp right in and force them to play by your rules for how you think rights should be used.
After all, why would anyone use the First Amendment to say nigger or other hate speech? Those rights shouldn't be allowed to be used that way either!
I don't know what this has to do with my comment.
Shocking, but not really. But then, when you come into a conversation so assured of how right you are you just copypasta yourself, its to be expected to be closed minded.
How about you make an actual point or (gasp) respond to an actual point; rather than being a sarcastic, insulting blow-hard?
You might actually enlighten people in the audience.
I'm sorry man, I just don't know how your comment follows from mine. I feel like you must have misunderstood something. You're being sarcastic about the 1st Amendment, but I don't know why.
Even this comment is a bit confusing. Are you saying I'm closed-minded, or your closed minded? "It's expected" doesn't clarify whom you're talking about. I'm seeing one of two possible statements: "If you do X, you should expect others to be closed minded" or "If you do X, I expect you to be closed minded".
I grant you that I'm being a little lazy by carbon-copying my own post, but I literally just wrote the parent comment for way too long, and it already contained everything I already said. I was going to end up adding the same words and ideas but in a different order.
And yeah, I am pretty sure I'm right about my interpretation, that's why I have it.
If that's the case, why is there no evidence that lincoln gave a single solitary fuck about slaves?
Why did Europe succeed in buying out all its slave owners while in the US, massive war had to be fought?
Why is the taxation not mentioned?
Who said Lincoln cared about the slaves beyond hoping for slave revolts? The Baptist Church didn't split over tariffs. It split over Slavery. There was a moral argument about slavery that had been ongoing since the very beginning of the country and earlier.
Secession was partly about slavery. The war was not.
Although the South stupidly shot first after being incited into it, the war was pressed by the North for Lincoln's reasons. Since secession is the right of a free people, the war and it's causes can only be laid at the feet of the federal government. The confederacy's motivations aren't needed.
Didn't John Brown slaughter a while confederate town before the war started
There is no difference. The war was about secession, about state's rights, and about slavery.
wut?
All belligerent's motivations are needed in all conflicts.
I think you missed my point but I don't know how better to explain it than the middle sentence I already wrote. Sure if you are analyzing things from a war historian's perspective then it's important to know the full context and what motivated both sides leading up to it for 100 years. If one is simply asking "was the civil war fought over slavery?" then conflating that with secession muddies the waters and causes us to talk past each other. As Lincoln's war, it's only necessary to look at his political concerns and writings to answer the question.
I don't disagree so long as we are contextualizing the question.
"Was slavery the central issue to Lincoln's War?" No. Hell no. Obviously. No argument exists to say that slavery was the primary motivator in Lincoln's decision making regarding a military response to secession. In fact, propaganda efforts on both sides were made to specifically identify it as a "White Man's War", that blacks shouldn't even be involved in.
But, objectively, was slavery the central issue to the American Civil War? I would say yes. If the issue of slavery was already settled, would the American Civil War have even happened? No, I don't think so. Best you might get was a small scale conflict, but the issue of slavery was broiling the culture to a fever pitch, and had been doing so for decades. Economics, taxes, tariffs, central government control, all of these played a part and could certainly caused a secession crisis, but in both previous crises, neither resulted in the death of 2% of the population of the US.
So yeah, if we're speaking clearly about what our context is, then our statements make sense.