International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   Social Issues & Current Events (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=82)
-   -   One less confederate monument to vandalize... (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=321074)

Pterodactyl 3rd July 2017 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy (Post 11906349)
The North chose to resist the secession. What was their motive? Were White people in the North fighting to free the slaves?

The President certainly was not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Honest Abe Lincoln
If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union;

That quote doesn't prove that the south's primary reason for seceding was to preserve slavery as an institution, but it does show that it was not the North's primary concern.

JoeMorgue 3rd July 2017 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy (Post 11906349)
The North chose to resist the secession. What was their motive?

Why don't you tell us? Share your narrative of how and why events happened.

Because right now all I get out of the Southern Apologist is that the Southern States just woke up one morning and all decided to form a new country for no reason (a new country with a Constitution that was pretty much 100% identical to the US Constitution just with making slavery explicitly permitted) and the big mean Union wouldn't let them do it.

Quote:

Were White people in the North fighting to free the slaves?
"The North was racist too! The North was racist too! That proves it wasn't about slavery because of... reasons." I KNOW. I've heard Southern Apologists parrot that nonsense my whole life.

JoeMorgue 3rd July 2017 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pterodactyl (Post 11906381)
That quote doesn't prove that the south's primary reason for seceding was to preserve slavery as an institution.

Then what was it then? Why would a few agriculture rural states just up and form their own country (a country with yet again I need to point out was setup EXACTLY like the United States except for the whole "Putting allowing the ownership of slaves in their Constitution" thing) and go to war over it?

All the Southern Apologist seem so sure of why the South didn't secede over the thing they obviously did secede over but seem a lot fuzzier on why they think they did it.

Pterodactyl 3rd July 2017 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 11906399)
Then what was it then? Why would a few agriculture rural states just up and form their own country (a country with yet again I need to point out was setup EXACTLY like the United States except for the whole "Putting allowing the ownership of slaves in their Constitution" thing) and go to war over it?

All the Southern Apologist seem so sure of why the South didn't secede over the thing they obviously did secede over but seem a lot fuzzier on why they think they did it.

Sorry for being unclear, Im largely in agreement with you.

Clearly, as in any war the (confederate) poor were doing the dirty work for the rich, in this case plantation owners who viewed slavery as an economic imperative to wealth. The views of the individual soldiers on either side aren't really of much consequence.

But the North was fighting simply to preserve the union, not to free slaves.

autumn1971 3rd July 2017 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pterodactyl (Post 11906407)
Sorry for being unclear, Im largely in agreement with you.

Clearly, as in any war the (confederate) poor were doing the dirty work for the rich, in this case plantation owners who viewed slavery as an economic imperative to wealth. The views of the individual soldiers on either side aren't really of much consequence.

But the North was fighting simply to preserve the union, not to free slaves.

And the South, who started the war, did so only to preserve slavery.

JoeMorgue 3rd July 2017 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pterodactyl (Post 11906407)
But the North was fighting simply to preserve the union, not to free slaves.

But the only reason the Union needed preserving was slavery.

The Southern Apologist are trying to force us into a false dichotomy where unless it can be shown that the North had some perfectly White Knight anti-slavery motivations then the war "Wasn't about slavery" and the South's legacy is no longer tainted which makes zero sense.

Anti-slavery sentiment was much higher in the North than in the South. The leadership of the southern states knew how much their economy was dependent on slavery. They made the decision to get out of the Union before anti-slavery sentiment in the North solidified into actual political changes. Slavery was more important to them than their country to the point that they rebelled against it just because of the possibility of slavery becoming unpopular enough they might risk losing it.

Upchurch 3rd July 2017 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pterodactyl (Post 11906407)
Sorry for being unclear, Im largely in agreement with you.

Clearly, as in any war the (confederate) poor were doing the dirty work for the rich, in this case plantation owners who viewed slavery as an economic imperative to wealth. The views of the individual soldiers on either side aren't really of much consequence.

But the North was fighting simply to preserve the union, not to free slaves.

And to provide a little deeper context, Lincoln was talking about what his intentions were in his role as President. Lincoln still held a personal belief in abolition.

As per my link, here is the last line of that letter:
Quote:

I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

Foolmewunz 3rd July 2017 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy (Post 11906343)
So you really believe that North was fighting the war because they wanted slavery abolished?

You can't really think people fall for these junior high school debating tactics, can you?

This, class, is what is called a straw man. This is what CaptainHowdy wants to argue against, not the argument being proffered.

The abolition of slavery, Captain, was a feature, not a bug. The program was Preserve the Union V2.1.1. The folks who seceded happen to have seceded on a program of "We want to own people and be able to breed them and sell them off like livestock." The people who were against them dissolving the Union were willing to fight to preserve it. The Union side had to be convinced to abolish slavery as many hadn't really thought of it in those terms. I know that. You know that. It was in all the papers.

This post hoc rationalization is a bunch of crap. The cause of the war was the southern bloc wanting to maintain and expand slavery. It wasn't dying out; that's more of that Vienna School rationalization. "It would have died out of natural causes"? Bull pucky. Lookit the behavior of the former Confederate States in the post-reconstruction period, through the Jim Crow era and even up to the present generation. Why, back in '16 the good old boys in North Carolina tried to put through election reforms that would've been at home under Andrew Johnson. And that's not 1916 - it was 2016. You telling us that those people wouldn't happily be owning other people if the laws still allowed it?

bruto 3rd July 2017 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy (Post 11906343)
So you really believe that North was fighting the war because they wanted slavery abolished?

If the south fought the war because they wanted slavery maintained, it does not matter so much why the North fought it. Whether to abolish slavery, to preserve the union, to prevent a territorial threat, to prevent a geopolitical shift, etc. etc., (or several of those reasons at once), the war was fought to prevent the South from doing what it was doing, and that was seceding in order to preserve slavery. You can spin and deflect and euphemize till the cows come home, but the fact remains that if slavery had not been an issue, secession would not have occurred, and if secession had not occurred, a war would not have been fought. Connect the dots.

Ian Osborne 4th July 2017 01:35 AM

Should we suspend this discussion for the rest of the day, so the Americans can celebrate Secession is Cool day, before resuming it again tomorrow when they can go back to telling us why secession is not cool?

Craig B 4th July 2017 02:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne (Post 11905883)
Slavery was certainly an important factor in why the southern states seceded, but it wasn't why the north invaded. 'The people kicking off the civil war' did so to preserve the union against the wishes of the people who wanted to leave peacefully.

How can anything be a factor in why the South seceded, but not be a factor in why the North acted to suppress the secession? That doesn't make sense, unless you're arguing that "invasion" by the North had nothing to do with secession, which is not merely false, but incoherent.

CaptainHowdy 4th July 2017 02:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 11906390)
Why don't you tell us? Share your narrative of how and why events happened.

Because right now all I get out of the Southern Apologist is that the Southern States just woke up one morning and all decided to form a new country for no reason (a new country with a Constitution that was pretty much 100% identical to the US Constitution just with making slavery explicitly permitted) and the big mean Union wouldn't let them do it.

It takes two to tango. The South fought for a reason. You say it was slavery. OK, fine. But why did the North insist that they stay? Why did the North refuse to allow the majority of the slave states to secede? There wasn't enough slavery in the united states unless the Southern states remained? The North fought for a reason and it wasn't slavery. So the Civil War wasn't all about slavery.

Why is this so difficult to comprehend?


Quote:

"The North was racist too! The North was racist too! That proves it wasn't about slavery because of... reasons." I KNOW. I've heard Southern Apologists parrot that nonsense my whole life.
It proves that it wasn't about slavery because the North wasn';t fighting to free the slaves. At best they were anti-slavery, not in favor of freeing the slaves.

Ian Osborne 4th July 2017 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig B (Post 11906894)
How can anything be a factor in why the South seceded, but not be a factor in why the North acted to suppress the secession? That doesn't make sense, unless you're arguing that "invasion" by the North had nothing to do with secession, which is not merely false, but incoherent.

The North did not invade to free the slaves, it invaded to force the south back into the union. Emancipation wasn't even a Unionist war aim until around 18 months into the war, and that was a political move designed to stop Britain and France recognising the Confederacy as a new country. Suggesting the North fought to free the slaves is a clear example of the winners writing the history books.

Ian Osborne 4th July 2017 02:30 AM

And let's not forget Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abraham Lincoln
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it...


Craig B 4th July 2017 03:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne (Post 11906904)
The North did not invade to free the slaves, it invaded to force the south back into the union. Emancipation wasn't even a Unionist war aim until around 18 months into the war, and that was a political move designed to stop Britain and France recognising the Confederacy as a new country. Suggesting the North fought to free the slaves is a clear example of the winners writing the history books.

This is ludicrous. If slavery was the main factor in the secession, and if the secession was the prime occasion of the outbreak of hostilities, then slavery was the main cause of the war, even if nobody in Fort Sumter, or nobody bombarding it, gave the issue a moment's thought. Slavery was the cause even if the North didn't "fight to free the slaves", but fought to suppress the secession which had been caused by the slavery issue. That is very easy to see.

There were slaves in the North in 1860, but they were not the mainspring of the economy, and slave owners were not the dominant economic class. Slavery was peripheral in the North, as an examination of the 1860 census will convince you. But in the South it was essential.

Whether or not Lincoln or other prominent Northern politicians were personally averse to slavery is neither here nor there. They were averse to secession, and secession was occasioned by the threat to slavery existing within the Union, then perceived by the dominant economic forces in the South.

uke2se 4th July 2017 03:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne (Post 11906904)
The North did not invade to free the slaves, it invaded to force the south back into the union. Emancipation wasn't even a Unionist war aim until around 18 months into the war, and that was a political move designed to stop Britain and France recognising the Confederacy as a new country. Suggesting the North fought to free the slaves is a clear example of the winners writing the history books.

But they only needed to force the south back into the Union because the south started hostilities over slavery.

Slavery was the cause of the war. Get over it.

Roboramma 4th July 2017 04:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne (Post 11906880)
Should we suspend this discussion for the rest of the day, so the Americans can celebrate Secession is Cool day, before resuming it again tomorrow when they can go back to telling us why secession is not cool?

How about secession can be cool when done for the right reasons and can be not cool when done for the wrong reasons. Seceding to preserve slavery is a bad thing. We should all probably admit that.

Ian Osborne 4th July 2017 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craig B (Post 11906941)
This is ludicrous. If slavery was the main factor in the secession, and if the secession was the prime occasion of the outbreak of hostilities, then slavery was the main cause of the war

If you followed this argument to its inevitable conclusion, you'd end up with Adam and Eve.

Look at it another way. If the North hadn't invaded, there wouldn't be a war. So why did the North invade?

JoeMorgue 4th July 2017 04:14 AM

So basically the doublespeak cop out that the Southern apologist have landed on is "We accept that the South seceding was about slavery, but not the Civil War."

Wow that's some nice mental gymnastics.

Ian Osborne 4th July 2017 04:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roboramma (Post 11906973)
How about secession can be cool when done for the right reasons and can be not cool when done for the wrong reasons. Seceding to preserve slavery is a bad thing. We should all probably admit that.

And the winner gets to decide the right reasons?

JoeMorgue 4th July 2017 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne (Post 11906979)
And the winner gets to decide the right reasons?

No but sometimes the winner, by chance if nothing else, was on the right side.

JoeMorgue 4th July 2017 04:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian Osborne (Post 11906975)
Look at it another way. If the North hadn't invaded, there wouldn't be a war. So why did the North invade?

This is getting farcical.

So basically "It's all the North's fault. If they had just let those nice, peaceful Southerners break off and form their own country (so they could enshrine their right to hold other human beings in bondage) none of this would have happened!"

Again I feel the need to ask... everyone does agree the Confederate States failing as a political institution is a good thing right? Right? RIGHT!?

Upchurch 4th July 2017 07:04 AM

Nm. Misread

BobTheCoward 4th July 2017 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 11906985)
This is getting farcical.

So basically "It's all the North's fault. If they had just let those nice, peaceful Southerners break off and form their own country (so they could enshrine their right to hold other human beings in bondage) none of this would have happened!"

Again I feel the need to ask... everyone does agree the Confederate States failing as a political institution is a good thing right? Right? RIGHT!?

They didn't fail. They were denied the opportunity to try and fail.

TragicMonkey 4th July 2017 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11907103)
They didn't fail. They were denied the opportunity to try and fail.

Survival of the fittest. If a nation can't repel invasion and keep itself intact it has failed as a nation.

BobTheCoward 4th July 2017 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey (Post 11907107)
Survival of the fittest. If a nation can't repel invasion and keep itself intact it has failed as a nation.

If it exists as a Nation at that time. The south was never permitted to be its own nation.

Upchurch 4th July 2017 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CaptainHowdy (Post 11906903)
It takes two to tango. The South fought for a reason. You say it was slavery. OK, fine. But why did the North insist that they stay? Why did the North refuse to allow the majority of the slave states to secede? There wasn't enough slavery in the united states unless the Southern states remained? The North fought for a reason and it wasn't slavery. So the Civil War wasn't all about slavery.

Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

Why is it difficult for you to comprehend that two sides can have different motives for fighting in the same war?

Is it your position that the North was fighting the Civil War because there were just too many states' rights?

Why not read what each side actually said at the time as to why they were fighting? The South clearly stated that they were fighting to preserve slavery and the North clearly stated they were fighting to preserve the Union. Why do you need to twist history in knots to make it appear that the South weren't entirely motivated by maintaining slavery, when they say that plainly?

Upchurch 4th July 2017 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11907114)
If it exists as a Nation at that time. The south was never permitted to be its own nation.

Sounds like they did it wrong, then.

BobTheCoward 4th July 2017 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 11906985)
This is getting farcical.

So basically "It's all the North's fault. If they had just let those nice, peaceful Southerners break off and form their own country (so they could enshrine their right to hold other human beings in bondage) none of this would have happened!"
!?

This is true. If the North let the south leave, there wouldn't have been a civil war. Why is that a farce?

BobTheCoward 4th July 2017 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 11907118)
Sounds like they did it wrong, then.

Correct.

Upchurch 4th July 2017 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11907121)
This is true. If the North let the south leave, there wouldn't have been a civil war. Why is that a farce?

If the South had let new states enter the Union as free states, eventually leading to a clear free State majority, there wouldn't have been a Civil War.

BobTheCoward 4th July 2017 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 11907137)
If the South had let new states enter the Union as free states, eventually leading to a clear free State majority, there wouldn't have been a Civil War.

Correct. Also not a farce. It is almost as if good counter factuals are not farcical.

JoeMorgue 4th July 2017 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11907103)
They didn't fail. They were denied the opportunity to try and fail.

Yes. They were denied the opportunity to start a new country just so they could enshrine the right to own human chattel in the highest law of their land.

I keep feeling like I need to asking over and over for the warm and fuzzy that everyone gets that that is a good thing, because it is seeming more and more like some of you don't.

The South not being allowed to form an explicitly pro-slavery nation was a good thing. Please tell me you get that.

Because I'm really running out of ways to give your constant need to make excuses for the Confederacy the benefit of the doubt here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11907121)
This is true. If the North let the south leave, there wouldn't have been a civil war. Why is that a farce?

I literally cannot explain this any better.

If you don't get why letting the, at the time, young and mostly regional power United States split into two countries just so one of those two countries didn't want to run the risk of their cherished institution of slavery going away I don't think you want to.

BobTheCoward 4th July 2017 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 11907144)
Yes. They were denied the opportunity to start a new country just so they could enshrine the right to own human chattel in the highest law of their land.

I keep feeling like I need to asking over and over for the warm and fuzzy that everyone gets that that is a good thing, because it is seeming more and more like some of you don't.

The South not being allowed to form an explicitly pro-slavery nation was a good thing. Please tell me you get that.

Because I'm really running out of ways to give your constant need to make excuses for the Confederacy the benefit of the doubt here.



I literally cannot explain this any better.

If you don't get why letting the, at the time, young and mostly regional power United States split into two countries just so one of those two countries didn't want to run the risk of their cherished institution of slavery going away I don't think you want to.

None of that changes the scenario that the North letting the south secede would have prevented the civil war.

JoeMorgue 4th July 2017 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11907148)
None of that changes the scenario that the North letting the south secede would have prevented the civil war.

And we could have prevented WWII by just letting Hitler have as much of Europe as he wanted. Your point?

The Civil War was worth it to stop the Confederacy from being a separate country.

The South succeeding in seceding (no pun) would have enshrined slavery as Constitutional in the new country, a fact that you are dancing around mentioning to the point that it is getting sort of suspicious. Apparently now the argument is "It's not about slavery if I just never say the word."

The United States, ambivalent politically about slavery as it might have been at the time, did not want an explicitly pro-slavery nation made out of a chunk of it to become their new neighbor.

"Creating pro-slavery countries is a bad thing" is not a statement that should have a counter argument.

Ian Osborne 4th July 2017 07:57 AM

Does anyone really feel slavery would've lasted much longer in the South even if it had been allowed to secede? The CSA offered to abandon slavery in return for recognition from Europe as a nation. You can bet those same European nations would've been putting pressure on the CSA to move in that direction. Slavery would've died a natural death, without a war, just like it did everywhere else (except Haiti, which was a slave revolt, so not quite the same thing).

JoeMorgue 4th July 2017 07:58 AM

Ah yes the "Slavery was going away anyway so it doesn't matter that the South tried to form a new country with Constitutionally protected slavery the only change." argument.

BobTheCoward 4th July 2017 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 11907157)
Ah yes the "Slavery was going away anyway so it doesn't matter that the South tried to form a new country with Constitutionally protected slavery the only change." argument.

Do you dispute that slavery would not have eventually ended in the south?

BobTheCoward 4th July 2017 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeBentley (Post 11907154)
And we could have prevented WWII by just letting Hitler have as much of Europe as he wanted. Your point?

Also true. My point is these counter factuals are not farcical.

bruto 4th July 2017 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward (Post 11907103)
They didn't fail. They were denied the opportunity to try and fail.

The secession failed. The war, from the Union point of view, was about the secession. To suggest that the Confederacy did not fail is like saying that a bomber did not fail in its mission because it crashed on the runway.

The farce here is in conflating the reason for the secession with the reason for the North's war against it. Captain Howdy, and perhaps others it seems, insists that if the North did not fight the war specifically to end slavery, the war was not about slavery. I think that is a serious misunderstanding of how things happen.

To find a more contemporary example, imagine that a religious fanatic, convinced that God is ordering him, ignites a bomb in a public square. The motivation for the bombing is entirely religious. But when he is arrested, he is not arrested for his religion. He is arrested for igniting a bomb in a public square. The arrest is not about religion, but about an event. But the event is entirely about religion.

Similarly, no matter how many times one says it, the fact that the North did not fight the civil war specifically about slavery, the South seceded about slavery, and that makes the very existence of the Confederacy, and all events that involve its treason and its defeat, about slavery. It does not matter if the North fought them over the color of their uniforms.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:46 PM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-19, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.