I was simply highlighting one piece of information relevant to your post, regarding the civil war and slavery being the issue, or not .
This being done retrospectively, after the war had begun, and Lincolns own words vis a vis that slavery wasn't the issue - but keeping the union together was - is (without going deeper), a fair indicator that shows the slavery issue was nothing more than political football.
And not the cause of the war. ( as dollar vigilante's expressed )
While the slaver issue may have contributed to the reason for some states to secede - the actual war was about the secession , not the causes of secession
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Sure. The direct cause of warfare for the North/Federal government was the firing on Fort Sumter. But the general reason that brought both sides into inevitable conflict was absolutely and almost entirely the issue of slavery. To deny that is to admit absolute ignorance of historical facts dating from the creation of the United States to seceding states in 1861.
Now we can get into semantics about "causes" or what the war "was about," but I have no desire to do that. The Southern/Confederate states got their panties into a bunch because they thought they were about to lose their "right" to treat people with darker skin as property. That's the historical record and there is overwhelming evidence to corroborate it.
So, when TDV says:
He's not only parroting the idiotic revisionism of charlatan "scholars," but he's demonstrating that he either 1) has no understanding of history himself or 2) has no problem with completely and intentionally misrepresenting it...lying in order to push his agenda.
My point is - you don't need to make a fool of yourself and disseminate factually incorrect information in order to condemn the coercive state and advance anarchist ideals. In fact, when you do that, you only serve to discredit yourself and your philosophy. And since I am an anarchist myself, what he and others say and do under the self-identity of "anarchists" casts a poor light on me and others like me who don't share their ignorant/incorrect views/understanding of historical facts/records.
A nice post, sir.
And yes , I agree with you (and historical fact) about the southern states stressing about their possible sudden reduction in very very cheap labor.
Saying 'it had absolutely nothing' may have been a little....absolute.
There is still value in the statement though - especially for people who know little except what the standard history(channel) says.
Portraying the war as a 'war about slavery' is incorrect, and portraying it as that - simplistically - is simply following the political narrative served up,
at the time.
(in my opinion)