Civil War: Fought over Secession or Slavery?

[JC Callender]

You're dealing with different people, different value system, different views on government, and a different culture. Today people have no stomach to physically challenge their government and the line the government has to cross for even a complaint from most people expands outwards all the time. In those days it was just different and people wouldn't tolerate things as easily.

Do you believe people in today's society would be less willing to fight a civil war over slavery?

 

[Henrin]

I disagree. A whole bunch of people in the US distrust the government.

Distrusting government doesn't amount to much in most cases.

 

[TheGoverness]

Do you believe people in today's society would be less willing to fight a civil war over slavery?

There'd be no point in fighting another Civil War, anyways. No need to rip the entire country apart from the seems again.

 

[JC Callender]

This is where you're running off into fallacy. Motives were the topic of your OP, were they not?


The Civil War was not initially motivated by a desire to free all slaves on the part of the Union. It was motivated by a desire to keep the Southern states IN the Union.

Southerners fought, in the main, for "States Rights" and not out of a love for slavery as an institution. You don't get men to fight to preserve a high standard of living for a small number of wealthy plantation owners, and for an institution most of them were too poor to benefit from.


Lincoln was originally against emancipation, and changed horses in mid-stream. The war was about whether the Southern states could freely conduct their affairs without being dominated and impoverished by the Federal congress, which was dominated by the North and Northern industrial and shipping interests.


Almost every war ever fought had an underlying causality based in economics.

Yes, this is a discussion about motives and my point concerning Lincoln is that he said some things that I don't believe were his ultimate motives in order to get the bigger thing (abolition) accomplished. He was setting up the legal framework for it. Now there's a case to be made that Lincoln didn't fully know what he wanted earlier in his career, but he always abhorred slavery for the slaves and masters. Just as Lincoln was setting up his arguments for solving the slavery issue, the South was setting up theirs for keeping slavery, and I believe many economic and states rights issues were brought up to bring those who didn't agree with their stance on slavery aboard.

I also believe economics were a large part of it, and the slaves were a large part of the southern economy. But I believe another and possibly bigger reason was fear of a major culture change with millions of freed slaves living among them and also the retribution that they felt was coming to them once the slaves were free. This would be motivation for some of the poorer and more naive whites to fight. I'm sure the rich plantation owners were spreading all kinds of horror stories about what slaves would do to whites once given their freedom.

 

[Tigerace117]

Why are people intent on saying things factually incorrect? Anything can be property really. You just need to have the ability to control it, and there you go, it's property. Now property claims having justified merit is a different matter that deals with how that property came into being and the facts about that property. The issue with property claims of other people is that it aggresses on other peoples claims to themselves and their own freedom.

prop·er·ty
noun

a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively.
"she wanted Oliver and his property out of her house"
synonyms: possessions, belongings, things, effects, stuff, gear, chattels, movables

Is a person gear? Are they a possession?

You can force someone to work for you but that doesn't mean they are property.
People aren't stuff

 

[Henrin]

prop·er·ty
noun

a thing or things belonging to someone; possessions collectively.
"she wanted Oliver and his property out of her house"
synonyms: possessions, belongings, things, effects, stuff, gear, chattels, movables

Is a person gear? Are they a possession?

You can force someone to work for you but that doesn't mean they are property.
People aren't stuff

Are animals considered property today? Yes. What makes it so animals can be property, but not people?

 

[Tigerace117]

Are animals considered property today? Yes. What makes it so animals can be property, but not people?

For one thing, people are far smarter than any animal. Not even to mention the fact it's immoral to hold another person and force them to work for you. People also have souls. Animals have their own version, I guess but all in all intelligence is the biggest favtir

 

[TheGoverness]

For one thing, people are far smarter than any animal. Not even to mention the fact it's immoral to hold another person and force them to work for you. People also have souls. Animals have their own version, I guess but all in all intelligence is the biggest favtir

And also the fact that humans are self-aware beings and a part of our own species.

 

[Henrin]

For one thing, people are far smarter than any animal. Not even to mention the fact it's immoral to hold another person and force them to work for you. People also have souls. Animals have their own version, I guess but all in all intelligence is the biggest favtir

Intelligence wouldn't matter to the discussion. Property has to do with the ability to control something and claim it as your own. The intelligence of the object in question wouldn't make it incapable of being controlled or claimed. As for souls, there is no prove they exist, so they can't be a determining factor.

 

[Henrin]

And also the fact that humans are self-aware beings.

Animals are also self aware.

 

[TheGoverness]

Animals are also self aware.

Not as self aware as humans. And they don't have the ability to comprehend things at the same level that humans can.

 

[Henrin]

Not as self aware as humans. And they don't have the ability to comprehend things at the same level that humans can.

I'm not sure how we are more self aware than other animals, but I can see your later point well.

 

[DA60]

Secesvery.

 

[Tigerace117]

And also the fact that humans are self-aware beings and a part of our own species.

Intelligence wouldn't matter to the discussion. Property has to do with the ability to control something and claim it as your own. The intelligence of the object in question wouldn't make it incapable of being controlled or claimed. As for souls, there is no prove they exist, so they can't be a determining factor.

Are you seriously arguing that slavery was a good thing and that people can be kept as property?

After all, your argument seems to be "people are property" which has been used by Confederate apologists---"the evul Feds were trying to steal our property"

 

[Henrin]

Are you seriously arguing that slavery was a good thing and that people can be kept as property?

After all, your argument seems to be "people are property" which has been used by Confederate apologists---"the evul Feds were trying to steal our property"

I was not arguing the merit of slavery, but only pointing out that people can in fact be property.

 

[TheGoverness]

I was not arguing the merit of slavery, but only pointing out that people can in fact be property.

But still that shouldn't be the case at all, since slavery is a violation of human rights.

 

[Henrin]

Depends on where you live for that to be true. But still, slavery is a violation of human rights.

That's a different matter entirely and one I already spoke towards. Slavery is a fundamental violation of self ownership and the freedom of people, so yes, it is a human rights violation.

 

[Henrin]

But still that shouldn't be the case at all, since slavery is a violation of human rights.

What is the case in the reality of what can and can not be property has nothing to do with human rights.

 

[TheGoverness]

What is the case in the reality of what can and can not be property has nothing to do with human rights.

People being considered property has nothing to do with human rights?

 

[Henrin]

People being considered property has nothing to do with human rights?

Property can be both legitimate and illegitimate. For example, technically speaking stealing property transfers it from one person to another, but that is not a legitimate transfer of property as it ignores the consent of the owner. Property existing deals with an object being controlled, while legitimate property can only be obtained through agreement or original acquisition.

 

[Sherman123]

wrong, slavery was an issue, however some of the issues of the civil war go back as far as thew early 1830's over commerce.

Which in themselves are traceable to slavery. When people talk about 'agricultural' issues in the South and the problem with import/export tarriffs they are really referring to the hinderance placed on a Southern economy utterly warped by slavery and the cheap production of cash craps. It was 100% about slavery.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

It was about slavery. The people who try to use other reasons, like commerce, and 'states rights' as reasons for the Civil War and Secession are just throwing up smoke screens. They don't want to admit the South went to war to try and preserve the right to sell human beings. Not only in the Southern States, but also in some Western Territories.

 

[JoeTrumps]

It was about slavery. The people who try to use other reasons, like commerce, and 'states rights' as reasons for the Civil War and Secession are just throwing up smoke screens. They don't want to admit the South went to war to try and preserve the right to sell human beings. Not only in the Southern States, but also in some Western Territories.

yeah, that explains why a vast majority of army volunteers had no slaves. they wanted to risk their lives in a mostly hopeless cause to protect slaves they didn't own. genius.

 

[JANFU]

Except none of those issues would have led to secession. The slavery issue, without the others, would have. So we are back to the civil war being about(roughly) slavery.

Or stopping the expansion of slavery into new States-Territories?

 

[JANFU]

yeah, that explains why a vast majority of army volunteers had no slaves. they wanted to risk their lives in a mostly hopeless cause to protect slaves they didn't own. genius.

We have seen how well propaganda worked in W1 and 2, with an educated population. How well does it work, when people are not well educated?