[MicoSiru]

So the south's case for secession was that the north had agreed to respect slavery?

[IteseFrusty]

A short summary of my views:
The casus belli was the secession of the southern states.
The reason for the secession were the doom-spelling election results (Republican majority and a Republican potus), which were the pivotal point in the struggle of northern politicians to outlaw slavery.
The main driving point behind that struggle was not the humanistic desire to emancipate the slaves, although it was actively used in propaganda.
The main driving point was the desire to curb the economic and political power of the southern states.
If the economic and political power of the southern states had been allowed to grow unchecked, the northern elite would've lost their power, the USA would've remained a primarily agrarian country and would've lagged behind the UK and Germany in the industrial race.

In my opinion, calling slavery the reason for your civil war is a simplistic approach that's good for primary school ("And then, children, good president Lincoln told the Southern states he had enough of their evil ways and made them free their poor downtrodden black slaves. When they refused, he had to wage war on them, but in the end, white and black people held hands and were happy. Yes, Milly, you had a question? Why did it take another hundred years for black people to become full-fledged citizens? Um... Uh, because Mr. Lincoln was shot and no one else knew what to do!")

[hansen384cbh]

It's "not about slavery" in the same sense that, if I refuse to pay my rent, and then shank my landlord when he comes to collect, the cops won't be coming to arrest me because of the rent. Technically true, but the root cause of the problem remains my disagreement with the landlord over money.

[Marat]

The main driving point was the desire to curb the economic and political power of the southern states.
If the economic and political power of the southern states had been allowed to grow unchecked, the northern elite would've lost their power, the USA would've remained a primarily agrarian country and would've lagged behind the UK and Germany in the industrial race. What in the heck? Who in the world are you reading? Yes, the Northern and Southern states had different economic interests, but the reason the South left was because they were afraid that Lincoln would ban slavery. After all, his party, the Republicans came into existance after the Whigs split on North & South lines because of.... get this... slavery! And not just because of cynical interests, but because of honest-to-goodness moral concerns.

[Efonukmp]

That's a disgusting point of view. Even though slavery was evil, this is like gloating about the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They may have been necessary and/or justified, but it's still tasteless to speak of them as anything better than a necessary evil.

You're not comparing property destruction to dropping bombs on civilians, are you?

[royarnekara]

You're not comparing property destruction to dropping bombs on civilians, are you?

Maybe I have my facts wrong, but weren't a lot of civilians killed too?

And even so, it was devastating to the south, and while I don't think for a second that Sherman's March was wrong or a mistake, treating it glibly the way Alby did is tasteless. This isn't sympathy to slaveowners.

[seosoftseo]

The point is that saying "I get a stiffy from people's homes burning down!" is disgusting. And not just because it might possibly create the mental image of Alby getting a stiffy.

[Habalinnyf]

A short summary of my views:
The casus belli was the secession of the southern states.
The reason for the secession were the doom-spelling election results (Republican majority and a Republican potus), which were the pivotal point in the struggle of northern politicians to outlaw slavery.
The main driving point behind that struggle was not the humanistic desire to emancipate the slaves, although it was actively used in propaganda.
The main driving point was the desire to curb the economic and political power of the southern states.
If the economic and political power of the southern states had been allowed to grow unchecked, the northern elite would've lost their power, the USA would've remained a primarily agrarian country and would've lagged behind the UK and Germany in the industrial race.

In my opinion, calling slavery the reason for your civil war is a simplistic approach that's good for primary school ("And then, children, good president Lincoln told the Southern states he had enough of their evil ways and made them free their poor downtrodden black slaves. When they refused, he had to wage war on them, but in the end, white and black people held hands and were happy. Yes, Milly, you had a question? Why did it take another hundred years for black people to become full-fledged citizens? Um... Uh, because Mr. Lincoln was shot and no one else knew what to do!")

You're better informed than the Yankees here. Very good.

[bestbyV]

Dad gummit, I don't believe this hooey! Y'all mean that folks don't like like it when you tell them that their government, which they feel loyal to, used to be evil and then they make excuses? Well golly, I never woulda guessed that.

Okay, my horrible southerner caricature aside, I find it unsurprising that people make excuses for their home state. It doesn't mean they think the south should have won or that slavery was good or that they are racist. It just means they're intellectually dishonest, which is not a terribly serious crime even if it is politically insensitive.

We should apply the same principle to German Holocaust deniers. Oh, wait, that would be ****ing stupid.

[Soadiassy]

In my opinion, calling slavery the reason for your civil war is a simplistic approach that's good for primary school

In my opinion, you are ridiculous. There would not have been a civil war, or there would have been an unrecognizably different one, if not for slavery - and preservation of slavery was the primary motivation of one of the belligerents.

[fuslkdhfma]

Also regarding creationism/evolution, from an objective standpoint it isn't often possible to say which debates consist of correct people and shouting idiots and which debates consist of two unique and legitimate points of view.

I know you're going to pull a godwin on this and bring up holocaust denial, but that has entirely different motivations than religious beliefs.

[itititit]

Also regarding creationism/evolution, from an objective standpoint it isn't often possible to say which debates consist of correct people and shouting idiots and which debates consist of two unique and legitimate points of view.

Of course it is, just as much as we can objectively say that creationists are wrong and the Earth is round.

[invasuant]

Morons, no

Wrong.

but honestly none of them are trying to bring back the good old days of Jim Crow or slavery so who the hell cares?

1) I thought you had read your goddamn Orwell.
2) Your arguments still all apply against holocaust deniers.

Stop passing judgement on them

No.

there are far worse crimes than this

blah blah blah I can't complain about anything short of murder blah blah

Do you also get angry when people speak fondly of the Roman Empire?

No, because the Roman Empire was ****ing awesome.

[Tw1anJOO]

The apologists for communism actually wanted communism.

I thought you had read your goddamn Orwell.

Apparently not.

[adesseridopaw]

I thought that it was obvious that State's Rights were at the center of the causes for the Civil War. Hell war nearly broke out in 1832 over tariffs. It just so happens that one of the rights they were interested in at the time was the right to keep people in chains.

[strongjannabiz]

I thought that it was obvious that State's Rights were at the center of the causes for the Civil War. Hell war nearly broke out in 1832 over tariffs. It just so happens that one of the rights they were interested in at the time was the right to keep people in chains.

You like peeing on historical facts, don't you?

[Snocioncilm]

My understanding is that the war wasn't about slavery, unless you think the South were vindictive racists who wanted to keep the black man down (hmmm). It was about economics. The economic value of keeping slavery made it worth while attempting to secede and it was by far the largest economic factor.

I never studied the stuff, this is just what I absorbed by metaphorical osmosis.