444
Haley declines to say slavery was cause of Civil War
(www.politico.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Dec 2023
444 points (96.6% liked)
politics
19239 readers
2624 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It kind of wasn't.
Southern states wanted the federal government to force northern states to return escaped slaves to the south.
The federal government sided with "state rights" and said the South had no control over the northern states, and the federal government couldn't force them either.
So the south started a civil war against state rights, and a couple years into it the Feds went ahead and outlawed slavery as an economic sanction against the South.
The cause wasn't as simple as "slavery" and it was pretty much the opposite of what modern day confederates pretend it was about
Not as simple as "slavery", but the war was caused by slavery. If there had been no slavery, there would have been no war. That's "cause", in my book.
The war was caused by the federal government refusing to force northern states to return escaped slaves to the south...
The southern states started a war over that
If it was just over if slavery was legal, then why was the Emancipation Proclamation smack in the middle of the civil war?
If the south wouldn't have started the civil war, it would have been years if not decades before the Feds outlawed slavery.
The south wanted a strong federal government, and got it. Just not the way they wanted it.
I don't really disagree with anything you said, I still say that it all boils down to "slavery" as the (root) cause.
Inaction isn't the "cause" of an event, so what was the action?
I'd say: Providing (to runaway former slaves) the same safety and protections everyone else was already getting from the state (ex. Wisconsin).
What "actions" do you think were the cause of the civil war?
And I say that's a reductionist view and makes it sound like the point of the civil war was the federal government outlawing slavery. Which likely wouldnt have happened for a long time if not for the civil war happening.
What caused the civil war was the Southern states seceding from the US.
The reason they started it was the federal government said while they wouldn't make slavery illegal federally, they also wouldn't force the non-slave states to treat escaped slaves as slaves once they made it to the North.
You keep saying that the war wasn't started over slavery because this that and the other, then immediately follow with cause being due to the south seceding, the reasoning for their secession was due to the fact that the federal government would not enforce southern slavery laws.
So, by your own reasoning slavery was SPECIFICALLY the reason the war was started. Details matter, but what you are dealing in is called pedantry which only succeeds in confusing the issue in favor of those who support slavery.
And I think people use this whole argument to confuse the issue.
While the federal government wasn't the "savior of the slaves" in the way that it is often explained in elementary school, that does describe well the dichotomy of morality that existed at that time between slavers and non.
Because Cassius Marcellus Clay publicly refused to accept Lincoln's appointment to Major General in the Union Army unless Lincoln agreed to emancipate the slaves. Lincoln had originally planned to do it after until pressured.
Dred Scott was still in effect in 1860. The federal government was not involved AT ALL in enforcement of slaver's 'property rights' in non-slave states, that enforcement was up to the states, and was generally done by bounty hunters. The election of Lincoln, with the almost certain consequence that Kansas would be admitted as a free state, was the proximate cause of South Carolina's secession. Slavery was obviously the critical factor, regardless of the enforcement or non-enforcement of Scott.
Would that have been an issue if slavery had been made illegal already like in most of the rest of the Western world?
Nope, but pre civil war the American federal government said it didn't have the power to force southern states to outlaw slavery.
If it wasn't for the civil war, it likely would have taken a lot longer.
A lot of shit has changed since then, USA used to be more like NATO with each state being closer to a sovereign country.
Ironically the south started the civil war because they wanted a stronger federal government, and that was the result. It just wasn't under their control.
Then it's weird that every single one of the articles of secession mention slavery in the first paragraph. Sort of like they started it because of slavery.
The declarations of secession from the southern states makes it clear they are seceding because of the federal government's unwillingness to enforce their laws regarding ownership of slaves (right to private property) in non-slave states. At the same time Lincoln had no intention or even thought he could legally do anything about slavery in the south, very plainly stated in his first inaugural address on March 4 1861 as he desperately tried to avoid a civil war:
For the north, and America as a whole, the idea that the war was about slavery as a moral evil was something the slaves themselves fought for. Even though they faced racism from northern troops many former slaves understood the reason for the war to a deeper level than even their northern generals.
Like I said, all of them mention slavery. Almost immediately. I'm not sure why you're pretending they don't.
I mean the Mississippi one, for example, says:
...I am agreeing they mention slavery, that's why the Confederate states seceded, they didn't want the federal government interfering with their right to own slaves and run their economies using them. For Lincoln however he was both being "smart" in not attacking slavery directly because he knew if he alienated his supporters in those states he would be making a strategic error, and also because he didn't think he could actually do anything about it as president. At the time when Lincoln gave the Emancipation Proclamation, the people who would sympathize with that message were far ahead of him in recognizing and adopting emancipation as a moral justification for the war. Lincoln basically said, if you are fighting this war for freedom and liberty, join and fight for it. The error we make looking back is emphasizing this speech as the turning point, it was actually reacting to what abolitionists, slaves, and former slaves had already done.
I shared an excellent hour and a half interview with civil war historian Barbara Fields in another comment expressing this sentiment, often reciting from books and historical letters throughout, that gets deep into this topic. Obviously people are downvoting it, but she explains it clearly:
I think what most people are trying to get at here was that Lincoln himself was not particularly a pro abolishinist. He was a lawyer who just wanted the Union to stay together and follow the current laws.
He was up against difficulty when he wanted new states to not allow slavery. This made the southern states mad, etc, etc, war. Even still at first, he did not free slaves. It wasn't until the war was underway and not going as well as hoped that freeing slaves became a thing. This was after a southern slave commandeered a southern ship and escaped to the north with it. A general then had to decide if they were required to "return property" or free the slave. He freed the slave, stating he had no obligation to "return property" to a force that was an enemy. This was a big decision at the time. I think that event set the ball rolling on freeing slaves.
So people are being pedantic. Yes it was about slavery. No, it was not (at first) about freeing slaves. That came later.
I think it's not pedantic because it's very important to recognize that Lincoln in the Emancipation Proclamation was reacting to what slaves and abolitionists had decided the war was going to be about. When people say "it was about slavery" and attribute that to Lincoln, who very clearly did not believe he had the power to end slavery even despite people telling him in times of rebellion he did, and this is incredibly well documented, this takes away credit from the slaves, former slaves, and abolitionists who decided they would fight for the war to be about abolition and succeeded in that.
In another comment I shared a letter written by a freed slave to the mistress who owned his child, a letter who's contents would have been punishable by death even from where he was writing it in the north, but it expresses perfectly the sentiment that caused the war to be about abolition. In the letter he says a thousand black soldiers and him are coming and that she will burn in hell etc.
So when we say "it's about slavery" from the very beginning we need to be clear that it was specifically the confederates going to war over the right to own slaves at the start, while the north was going to war to preserve the Union. It became "about slavery" in the sense of freeing slaves and abolition after slaves, freed slaves, and abolitionists fought for that. It could very well have been a senseless conflict if it weren't for abolitionists, and they fought despite the racism they faced in the north as well, because they had a higher purpose for fighting even above the generals who they fought under.
Love the actual history getting downvotes here... this also doesn't conflict with it being about slavery. The thing we shouldn't do is equate "about slavery" in the way the Confederate states meant it when they seceded, with "about slavery" in the sense of abolition. Lincoln did not enter the war to emancipate slaves and fight for abolition, his first inaugural address on the eve of war leaves no question, a direct quote:
Lincoln's primary motivation was keeping the Union together at first, and obviously that changed, because we have the Emancipation Proclamation. The moral issue of slavery was hugely important for the North's motivation and for people to fight though, many being emancipated slaves who understood the true point of fighting more than their northern white commanders, and who also faced racism from other northern soldiers yet still fought with them. The point is it wasn't some goodness of the government that defined this war to be about slavery, it was actually the slaves that did that and those that were sympathetic to this cause.
Barbara Fields is an expert on civil war history and makes the case for this view in this excellent interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ncnTNkeoOM The question of Lincoln's motivations at the beginning of the war as Union before slavery and whether he can be excused is addressed at 55 minutes.
Spotswood Rice, a former slave, writes to Kittey Diggs, 1864:
(It's not known if Spotswood had a showdown with Kittey but there are property records indicating he lived with Mary and his wife after the war.)
Edit: It's people downvoting historical letters from freed slaves and historians reading testimonies of black Union soldiers that makes me think my time on this website is just about over...
Hey, I upvoted you and I appreciate this. The other day someone downvoted pictures of my cat. Some people just suck. I appreciate you.
Slavery is still allowed in the US to this day.
Yeah, it's totally the same. Thanks for contributing
No worries. Most Americans seem unaware they live in and pay taxes to a country that still has almost a half a million active slaves. It's worth mentioning when it comes up.
Yeah, weird how most of us don't want to end up like Wesley Snipes...
I'd riot.
Good luck with that.
You guys will figure it out eventually, I'm sure.
I'm sure. In the meantime, I'll stay out of prison and not riot on your behalf if it's all the same to you. I have a child to think of.
Hopefully they don't grow up to be arrested for a non violent crime and end up another slave 👀
Yeah, again, I'm not rioting on your behalf. You want a riot, you start one.
Have you read the declaration of secession?
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp
Or the Cornerstone Speech?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech
Yes, the confederates were complaining about more than just slavery, but slavery was central to secession. In the examples you gave it's still all about slavery. I think looking at foundational documents and speeches makes it clear that the cause was as simple as "slavery".
And also white supremacy. All the states that seceded wrote an article of secession and many, if not all, bring up the importance of maintaining the superiority of the white man. It's insane how people don't know this. Even if you took out all the parts about slavery there would be a shitload of racism left.
It's not the most straightforward route to a wrong answer but you got there in the end.
So your long-winded, weird lost cause diatribe stating it wasn't about slavery still points out of was literally about slavery.
Well that was some cringe, Billy Madison BS early in my morning.
ya see it wasn't about slavery, it was about enforcement of slaver property rights. Not seeing the difference is reductionism. /s
I've blocked you all for hurting my delicate internet feelings
So the American Revolution was about tea?
It wasn't, it was about England trying to collect taxes after not really caring while simultaneously cracking down on smuggling.
But if we're reducing things to single simple causes, it would make just as much sense to say it was about tea.
Which is why it's worth getting down voted for specificity
It sounds like your argument is “if it’s okay to be reductionist, then there are no limits.” But there can totally be limits - it depends on the size of the leap.
All of your posts can be boiled down to “it was about strengthening the federal government, specifically in support of slavery”, but reducing this further to “it was about slavery” isn’t a big leap. That’s what the downvotes are all telling you.
Saying the American Revolution was about
And boiling that down to “it was about tea” is a WAY bigger leap than the one about the Civil War.
A similarly sized leap would probably be saying “it was about taxes.” Personally, I wouldn’t care enough to “um, actually” someone who’d make that kind of leap.
Saying it was about taxes leaves it open to "unfair taxes without representation".
America was treated better than any other colony due to how difficult the journey was.
The rich (who mostly all smuggled various stuff including slaves) didn't want to pay any taxes and convinced the poors that the rich paying taxes was enough for a lot of them to die in a brutal war, after which only 60% of white adult men could vote. No other races or women were able to.
So yeah, I'll take down votes in exchange for details. That shit often matters in history
Yeah? Well I’d argue that saying “slavery” leaves it open for “the strengthening the federal government in support of slavery.”
I’m gonna presume to know something about the majority of internet strangers who’ve downvoted you: they didn’t downvote your details. They downvoted your assertion that the details challenge the idea that it was about slavery. It seems to us like you’re being overly pedantic.
You’re not a martyr for truth, you’re a martyr for your personal opinion on the answer to the question “assuming the Civil War was principally about strengthening the federal government in support of slavery: is saying that the Civil War was about slavery a reasonable summation?”
If instead of saying “it wasn’t about slavery bc …” you’d just said “for some added nuance, …”, then most of your downvotes would be from ppl challenging your information.
As for that information, do you have any arguments against what GoodbyeBlueMonday or banneryear1868 have said? They are, so far, the only ppl to cite actual sources, and it apprears neither of them agree with your assertion that it wasn’t “about slavery”. And reading/listening to their sources doesn’t convince me of that, either.
So it was about slavery
Don´t bother my dude. Most people prefer oversimplified explanations that fit their personal views and will downvote anyone who confronts them with something a little bit more complex than that.