another couple generations from now they will look back at how retarded it is to get worked up over the color of some ones skin. there will probably still be pockets of racism. but look how much smaller this way of thinking has gotten even over the last 20 years
first of all - lincoln was a conservative, dumbass.
the south simply didn’t like paying tariffs (this means taxes) to a northern industrialist-run federal government that didn’t support the south in return.
south says fuck you, we’d rather secede than pay into a system that doesn’t give us anything in return, which by the way, is legitimate by the constitution (if a state felt a federal law extended beyond the Constitutional rights of the government that state had the right to ignore (or “nullify”) the law.) you see, back then, states were like little countries, each very much self-governing.
lincoln knew if the south seceded the north would starve, and so rather than to admit “we tried to bully the south for it’s lunch money, and when it up and left, we realized we needed its resources, so we’re gonna beat the shit out them so we can continue to tax the fuck out of them,” the MORAL reason for war was invented - slavery. no fucking WAR is fought on moral grounds. i don’t get how fucking stupid you can be to not understand this. ALL WAR IS ECONOMICAL.
you do realize the north’s economy was way more advanced than the south’s at the time of the civil war, don’t you? most of the banks, factories, shipping industry, etc… was in the north.
and no one is saying the war was fought on moral grounds, slavery WAS the main impetus for the south to secede and slavery was also mainly an “economical” institution.
Lincoln was a Republican, but he wasn’t a conservative. You may not be aware, but the Republicans were once considered the “progressive party” and the Democrats (Dixiecrats especially) used to be the conservatives. This changed primarily after civil rights, when Lyndon B. Johnson did the right thing, and by his own admission “lost the south for a generation.” This left an opening for the Republicans to appeal to the disgruntled white voters in what is now known as the southern strategy, starting with Nixon in the 1968 election and it has been continually used pretty much to this day.
Lincoln was a protectionist, which is diametrically opposed to the laissez-faire free market economic theory endorsed by modern conservatives. Furthermore, conservatives, Barry Goldwater most notably, were historically against civil rights all the way through. Their reasoning was not necessarily racially motivated (although it did provide convenient cover for those who were), as they claim it was a state’s rights issue. More importantly than that, you should remember the definition of conservatism:
Conservatism (Latin: conservare, “to preserve”) is a political and social philosophy that holds that traditional institutions work best and society should avoid radical change.
The abolition of slavery definitely falls under radical change, and so it seems strange for conservatives to try to claim Lincoln after the fact just because his radical ideas happened to work.
It’s pretty easy for people to forget how radical common sense ideals like “equality” and “slavery is bad” were only a few hundred years ago. It just goes to show that the radical positions of today can become the mainstream of tomorrow.
Denying slavery’s abolishment role in the starting of the civil war is silly and stupid saying it was a mere footnote to a greater issue with banking and taxing is just ignorance. The south built itself around slavery to the point that slaves were necessity to maintain the economy. It got to the point the slaves outnumbered the masters completely.The slavery was going to end one way or another either through govenrment intervention or a full scale rebellion. Guns and whips were only gonna go so far into oppressing these people who were getting breed to be stronger and faster. The South was dying slowly but surely they were overproducing cotton, and other goods . It was only a matter of years before the economy and society down there fully collapsed. Luckily the Civil War happened earlier than it should had.
yeah that got handled pretty conclusively, just chiming into say that I’m amazed someone is going to argue what a state seceded over when there is written historical record, produced by that state, explaining exactly what they were rebelling over. At that point there isn’t anything to have an argument about. It’s game over. “The federal government perverted their power to the oppression of the southern slave holding states”. It is right there. It is literally right there. Slavery is part of the issue. Not the only issue, but slavery and the economic system it represented is unarguably a competent here, by the admission of the very parties involved at the centre of the argument.
It is literally right fucking there in the founding speech of the confederate states of america.
"C.S. Vice President Alexander Stephens declared that the “cornerstone” of the new government “rested upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery?subordination to the superior race?is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth”
If you argue that slavery was not a major component here, you’re a complete joke of a person. The end.
If you argue this point, you’re a complete joke of a person. Repeated, seconded, stamped, etc.
Oh, I also almost forgot to throw this out there…