Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
I actually had a black teacher who argued the Civil War wasn't really about slaves but about tariffs and the wider cultural gap between the agrarian South and the industrial North. She never denied that slavery was a major part though, and seemed to be doing it with the intent of being The Gadfly and trying to get us to look at it a different way than Confederacy apologetics.
From the outside looking in, I tend to agree that the war wasn't really about Slavery...slavery was a big part of it, but let's be honest here, the majority of the people in the North weren't exactly that much less racist than the people in the South. Not everyone who fought for the South was actually someone who owned slaves or was necessarily pro-Slavery, just like not everyone who fought for the North cared one bit about the slaves. The war was largely about cultural differences and pride. The South felt that the North was trying to interfere in their way of life too much, and the North felt that the South was trying to destroy the union with its demands. At the same time, though, Slavery was a big issue in all this and no matter how valiantly the South fought, it doesn't change the fact that one of the things they fought for was the right to own slaves. It would have been way better of if it had swallowed its pride and instead introduced protection laws for slaves - I know, that sounds awful, but realistically speaking, freeing all slaves at once would have been the economic ruin for the South, this was something which should have been done step by step.
What I am trying to say, the narrative that this was about the "good" people in the North wanting to free the "poor slaves in the South" is just as false as the notion that the South "just" wanted to protect its culture and way of life.
Regarding the issue of whether the Civil War was fought over slavery, if I may quote the infamous Cornerstone Speech given by CSA Vice President Alexander Stephens.
In regards to "All Men are created Equal" in the US Constitution
I would argue that according to the Confederate government, the war was exclusively about slavery.
edited 25th Nov '16 4:47:25 AM by LeGarcon
Oh really when?
That is like saying that the current rise of the right is about refugees and immigrants. On the surface level, it looks that way, but once you scratch a little bit at the arguments you realize that it is actually about a number of social issues...the people from the rust belt wanting to keep their way of life while also wanting all the conveniences the people in the big cities have, the lack of job security, the feeling that the rich get more rich while the poor suffer, the general distrust towards the government aso.
Oh, believe me, I don't. But reducing either the Civil War or Trump to one singular aspect is simplifying the matter way too much, and you never solve any problem by just putting it on one handy shelf without ever examining it.
In the case of the Civil War, I am less interested in exonerating the South and more interested in not putting the North on a pedestal.
edited 25th Nov '16 5:08:24 AM by Swanpride
The South certainly rebelled in order to keep slavery - no respectable scholar actually argues against that anymore. But while slavery was extremely unpopular in the North, ending slavery was not their original goal in the war. Gradual emancipation tended to be the more popular idea, and some wanted to send the slaves back to Africa after they were freed.
edited 25th Nov '16 5:22:36 AM by SilentColossus
The north entered the war because that is just what you do when people fire mortars at your soldiers. Ending slavery became a goal during the course of the war both because of the radicalizing effects of the war itself (Fighting a war against a slaverholder rebellion made slavery enormously unpopular), and because everyone agreed that the only way to avoid having to fight the war again a decade down the line was to break the power of the slaveowners over southern society. Which meant ending the institution of slavery. Honestly, reconstruction didn't really succeed entirely at that, because it didn't break up the plantations, so the former slaveowners were still massive landowners.
While I know it's pragmatic, is anyone else just a bit annoyed by the idea that to win over the non-bigoted (or less bigoted) Trump voters, we have to pretend or ignore that they think blatant bigotry is an acceptable trait in the POTUS if they think said POTUS can guarantee them job security? In an industry that is more or less on its way to obsolescence anyway?
Disgusted, but not surprisedTrump's job security promises is a lie.
This hurts to say but I feel quite stupid for letting Trump's Obfuscating Stupidity make me think that he's actually stupid.
Plants are aliens, and fungi are nanomachines.There's a difference between denying bigotry as a factor and acknowledging the reality that there are multiple factors that motivate people, even on an individual basis, and that, with one or more of the economic/structural factors removed, such people might be less inclined to act on their bigotry.
Let me introduce you all to a concept increasingly gaining traction in psychology, the cognitive sciences and neurology: asymmetric intelligence.
What that basically means is: you can be really, really good at a few specific things, but royally suck well below average in almost everything else. Most people show this a lesser degree at school: everybody has classes they find much harder than others. People on the autism spectrum exhibit this issue even more, so too do those with lexical issues like dyslexia... and, people with personality disorders show the same thing. What you are above the average in doesn't disappear what you suck at and find extremely difficult to impossible to do, even if you somehow are able to fake basic competence in it. Or get other people to do it for you. And, people with cluster B personality disorders tend to excel in the "fake it or get somebody else to do it" department.
edited 25th Nov '16 6:09:39 AM by Euodiachloris
Although slavery was the most oft-cited reason for the US Civil War, and is almost certainly the primary factor, there was another issue, seldom acknowledged, that contributed to the divisiveness between North and South — The South had re-established aristocracy within the ranks of their society.
Not going so far as to re-create royalty and nobility and peerage, they at least had landed gentry in the form of plantation owners and “Society” families. A subsistence farmer whose land bordered on a plantation had to depend on the plantation owner for access to virtually everything: a cotton gin or threshing machine, a market to sell his produce, even monetary loans. Cities were few and far between in the South, and the banking industry was poorly developed. A farmer could ill afford to travel hundreds of miles to the nearest city to apply for a loan at a bank, only to be turned down because he had no credit or collateral.
Thus, even a free man was not truly free in the South, since he could do nothing without the approval of the local landlord.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.The historical consensus and the documents/statements by people in the Confederacy overwhelmingly point to slavery being the central factor behind the war. There may have been other factors, but slavery was absolutely and without question the main point behind it.
It's not necessarily that the North was some paragon of justice either, since they let the South get away with their bullshit "Lost Cause" myth in order to heal their wounded ego, but just because the North wasn't fighting to free slaves initially doesn't mean the war wasn't still about slavery, since that's the reason the South was fighting.
"States' rights" being the cause is nothing but revisionist bullshit. "States' rights" or "let the states decide" are almost always used in a situation where leaving it up to the states would throw minorities under the bus.
@Draghinazzo You're right. "States' rights" are supposed to be in opposition to the federal government's rights, but the people who bring it up generally use it as an excuse to stop the federal government from protecting human rights from abuses by the states' governments.
@GameGuruGG THANK YOU. I won't pretend that third-party candidates had zero impact whatsoever, but it's ridiculous to use them as scapegoats.
One does not shake the box containing the sticky notes of doom!I have no issues with third-party voters who voted for their candidates because they sincerely believe that their platforms are the most desirable for the future of the country.
I have no sympathy for those who did so as a "protest". Not when the "protest" had results this devastating.
Say to the others who did not follow through You're still our brothers, and we will fight for you

@Adavarile: One thing that does bear remembering is that public school curriculum is one of the things mostly under control of the states rather than the federal level. The places most likely to see pushes toward revisionist history and creationism science are the ones that have been pushing it for the last decade, just now with more likelihood of getting away with it. If anyone tries to push that crap on places where it's not welcome, resistance should be expected. Also, given that there's talk of dissolving the federal Department of Education which would make imposing top-down mandates much harder.
As for creationism vs evolution, the first amendment "no established religion" clause does remain as a barrier to that, though getting challenges through the court is a long and difficult process.
edited 25th Nov '16 3:51:30 AM by Elle