• Madison420@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    44
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I mean they’re not entirely wrong, fighting slavery was a political tool not a moral imperative as it should have been and Lincoln didn’t in fact want to unilaterally shut it down he wanted the nation to figure it out ideally without violence.

    Ed: books people, I’m not interpreting anything Lincoln was extremely vocal about it. Listen to Lincoln, he knows Lincoln weirdly enough.

    https://www.nps.gov/liho/learn/historyculture/slavery.htm

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yes yes, history is nuanced but your actually a Nazi if you recognize that fact…

        You see the problem there boss?

        • GentlemanLoser@ttrpg.network
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          History is nuanced, yes. Lost Cause bullshit and slavery apologists can GTFO tho. They’re not arguing in good faith so when you chime in to let everyone know how smart you are by supporting that nonsense, you know what it looks like, right?

          • Madison420@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Bro it’s factually correct, you can read Lincoln’s diary discussing it. The statement “the civil war was about slavery” isn’t wrong it just lacking nuance in the same way the statement I added to was.

            Resolutions upon the subject of domestic slavery having passed both branches of the General Assembly at its present session, the undersigned hereby protest against the passage of the same.

            They believe that the institution of slavery is founded on both injustice and bad policy; but that the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather to increase than to abate its evils.

            They believe that the Congress of the United States has no power, under the constitution, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the different States.

            They believe that the Congress of the United States has the power, under the constitution, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia; but that that power ought not to be exercised unless at the request of the people of said District.

            The difference between these opinions and those contained in the said resolutions, is their reason for entering this protest."

            Dan Stone, A. Lincoln, Representatives from the county of Sangamon

    • Papergeist@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It was a moral imperative for much of the North. Lincoln only barely scraped out the Republican nomination. His main opponent was William Seward who was a “radical” abolitionist. Had Seward won the nomination, there may have been some fracturing of the newly formed Republican party. So while there was indeed a portion of the population who felt the complete abolition of slavery was too far, a huge chunk agreed with Seward. In particular, his own wife, Francis Seward. She abhorred slavery and I urge everyone to read her writings upon the subject.

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not enough to change it by force federally, clearly. I’m well aware, that doesn’t change the fact Seward did not win and Lincoln and his supporters didn’t want radical emancipation they wanted to slow roll everything.

        And to be clear the South viewed a loss of slaves to the North as a loss of property and thus trade to the North. It’s dumb and tedious but very accurate to say it was a trade dispute, a horrific hard to visualize in full one but a trade dispute none the less.

        • nodiet@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I’m neither american nor well versed in american history. That being said, from the quotes I read in your linked article about Lincoln’s views on slavery it does not seem to me that the northern states had a lot of money/resources to gain from freeing slaves in the south. So, correct me if i’m wrong, but how can you call it a trade dispute if one side views it as losing property while the other side does not view it as obtaining property?

          • MasterBlaster@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well, I’ve had a neighbor claim I was doing things on his side of the property line, which he placed in the middle of my driveway. For him, it was a property dispute. For me, it was the ravings of a not-quite sane person. Think of it that way.

            You are right, it was not a trade dispute, but the raving slave-owners would say whatever they could to justify their actions and make it sound noble. Much like Putin says he invaded Ukraine to “save them” from “embedded Nazis”. For Putin, it’s a mission of peace. For everyone else, it’s an unjustified invasion.

          • Madison420@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Fair enough.

            That being said, from the quotes I read in your linked article about Lincoln’s views on slavery it does not seem to me that the northern states had a lot of money/resources to gain from freeing slaves in the south.

            They wouldn’t gain money or resources no, they would instead reach a more even economical footing with the South. It’s one of those things I think I would have to provide links to because I don’t think I could adequately explain it myself.

            So, correct me if i’m wrong, but how can you call it a trade dispute if one side views it as losing property while the other side does not view it as obtaining property?

            I mentioned the South specifically but both sides took it as a loss of valuable property to the free North. The North in many actual laws regarding freemen specifically refer to slaves as property as does the Confederate Constitution if I’m not mistaken.

    • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      It depends on the answer to this question:

      Did the South start the Civil War by seceding, or did the North start the Civil War by not letting them?

      If the South started it by seceding, it was absolutely, unquestionably over slavery. A simple look at the various articles of secession makes that abundantly clear.

      If the North started it by not letting them secede, then the Civil War was about preserving the Union, which the South was trying to leave because of slavery. The North wasn’t fighting to end slavery. The north in general may or may not have wanted that, but that wasn’t why they went to war.

      • Madison420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Sure.

        The South literally declared war so that would be hard to argue plus the whole succession thing.

        Correct.

        Also correct, those that l two things aren’t mutually exclusive nor are they in this case. I mean they don’t particularly care about the union, they wanted to keep the territories and keep the trade. If all the people of the South wanted to leave with their slaves the North world have cheered it on and in fact did with a number of southerners who went to places like Brazil and Argentina before during and after the war. Weirdly enough much like Nazis.

    • Yondoza@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It feels disingenuous to remove morality from the equation. Morality clearly played a role which is why thinkers like Frederick Douglass are still remembered to this day. Clearly there were other forces at play- political and economic which shaped how this played out, but morality was certainly involved.

      Gonna get a little preachy here - skip this part if you don’t wanna hear that.

      All of American history from the Revolutionary war to today can be summed up with people trying to reconcile the conflict of individual freedom and equality. Those two cannot coexist, and a boundary must be placed on one in order to allow the other ideal to flourish.

      The civil war is a great example, individual freedom allows one to own another person if that is their desire. Equality says that your individual freedom cannot impede another person’s. This means slavery cannot exist in such a value system and equality was valued above individual freedom.

      The current abortion debate has the same bedrock conflict. Does an individual’s personal freedom allow them the right to stop being pregnant if they wish? Well equality says the unborn child should be considered, as the choice to terminate violates their individual freedom to exist.

      Let me be clear - in this post I am not advocating for either side in the abortion debate. I am merely trying to show that most of American history has been defined by trying to draw the line between the two founding principles of the nation.