I agree with the South. It was essential to their being. But that said, bad ways and bad ideas should die, even if many are hurt. I have been delving into the idea of generational 4th turnings. Granted I am not well versed into the theory, so I am shooting from the hip. From a British perspective, the American Revolutionary war is a mere footnote due to pride. But no one can argue the impact America eventually had on the world due to the vast unknown treasure of resources found on the continent. I would suggest the American Revolutionary war served as a springboard to end unwanted colonialism. Imperialist can not fight long term guerrilla warfare. Just look at Afghanistan. I would also suggested the Civil War served to end the global acceptance of human slavery. So I do agree with you, slavery would have ended in the United States, sooner than later. We will agree the Civil War was brutal, however there are worse outcomes. I would suggest WWI and WWII ended the acceptance of mass casualties of war. Killing mass amounts of people for religious and economic gains is just not cool anymore. I feel we are entering into a new era of humanity where mass poverty and starvation is no longer accepted. It takes the death of generations past to fully move on to new ideas.
Since we've been talking about alternate histories about if slavery would've survived on it's or not here's how I see it. I think it's inevitable the Civil War would've been fought and that the Southern states wouldn't accept the compromise to keep slaves but not be able to expand. For slavery to survive it would've been if the Confederacy had won and by winning I don't mean they conquer the North but force a diplomatic settlement that forces the North to recognize the Confederacy. What happens in the new CSA is that slavery continues but they slip further and further behind the Union. Meanwhile trading partners such as the UK pressure the CSA to give up slavery. Given the weak structure of the CSA some states decide to voluntarily give up slavery which leads to conflict within the CSA. Other conflict's arise such as Texas pushes for more expansion into western territories causing more conflict with the Union and friction within other CSA states who don't get as much benefit from westward expansion. Eventually I think the CSA falls apart.
You'd also have border clashes with poor CSA migrants trying to illegally cross the border into the US for economic opputuinity where Southerners replace illegal Mexican migrants as the scape goat for our problems.
The Dred Scott Podcast You Didn't Know You Needed https://reason.com/volokh/2021/07/07/the-dred-scott-podcast-you-didnt-know-you-needed/
I don't think the results are what he's expecting and really hope this event happens! https://www.houstonchronicle.com/po...-suggests-Forget-the-Alamo-event-16318298.php
It was about slavery for the South and generally white supremacy. The secession documents and Stephens' cornerstone speech support that. What I teach is that this country has always had variation in beliefs, even with the framers who were all educated white men. You meant the Union was attacked at Fort Sumter, correct? Anyhow, yes, it's not binary, but not the most complicated thing ever. The Union transitioned from it being about not slavery to freeing slaves as partly a moral, governmental, and strategic decision. Two generals had actually emancipated slaves before Lincoln, who then rescinded those orders because it exceeded their authority in his opinion. Also, Lincoln thought for time that freedmen should live in colonies in Haiti and Liberia - those things actually happened, but didn't work out. Not sure if I buy the slavery would have ended thought. It was a booming industry in the South. We were one of the few societies in history that had a self-sustaining slave industry where you didn't need to import slaves. Slaves were born, then taken from their families when ready to work. And slavery continued after the war in other countries. It's arguable that if the South won, the institution would have lasted for much longer. It wasn't just a fight for economic protection, but for many, a belief in protecting a virtious way of life. A lot of the revisionist history actually comes from southern writers who wrestled with this loss for years. It was the exception to the saying that winners write history. It was the South that was stuck in the past trying to explain and justify it, birthing the Dunning school and calling the end of the reconstruction the redeemer era. Okay, maybe it is a little more complicated than not, lol. I am fascinated by the Civil War and Reconstruction era. Soaking in all the books, podcasts, docs, movies that I can find. I think this is under-taught in our HS and college history and government classes. Educating the youth more in-depth here would better serve our society imo...better debates, better marketplace, less stupid yelling.
Graduated HS in 2013, still the way it was being taught. Although I will say the war wasn't solely to free the slaves (for the North).
from the north and lincolns perspective, yes. for the south it was about protecting the institution of slavery.
Haha yes. When the Confederacy attacked Ft Sumter is what I meant. I am convinced the overall events played out were the only outcome. Meaning the South was not going to let slavery go without a fight and there was no chance for them to win long term. A more interesting discussion is the treatment of slaves after the war. Sure, they were no longer slaves, but they were not exactly free. If anything, the civil rights movement truly marked the end of slavery.
Black Codes, Freedmen's Bureau, Reconstruction, 14th Amendment (Netflix has a decent doc on this with many modern famous actors reading historical speeches and texts), States' Rights, the changing role of government. It was a truly a revolutionary time, that became stunted for 50 year, then took another 50 years to somewhat realize the goals set forth in the 1860's. People get surprised when I tell them that Congressional Acts saying stuff like motels need to allow blacks were written in the 1860's not 1960's, but were struck down by the Supreme Court. Excerpts from Stephens' speech: But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, 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.
In my opinion, it is more accurate to say that secession was about slavery, and the Civil War was about the right of secession.
Former governor of Arkansas: The area of slavery must be extended correlative with its antagonism, or it will be put speedily in the "course of ultimate extinction." ... The extension of slavery is the vital point of the whole controversy between the North and the South ... Amendments to the federal constitution are urged by some as a panacea for all the ills that beset us. That instrument is amply sufficient as it now stands, for the protection of Southern rights, if it was only enforced. The South wants practical evidence of good faith from the North, not mere paper agreements and compromises. They believe slavery a sin, we do not, and there lies the trouble. — Henry M. Rector, Arkansas Secession Convention, (March 2, 1861)
Totally agree. Slavery was the main issue, but my contention is that the economics of it was what made it a full out war. If the rural south didn't think they needed economically, there wouldn't have been people shooting at each other. It would have been just a political battle like women suffrage and civil rights movement.
The idea of the people called "Mexican" being migrants or foreign to their own land in most if not all of the American Southwest is an oxymoron.
It isn't the same thing. The South chose secession. The North chose civil war to stop secession. The first doesn't require the second, the north could have allowed the CSA to go. Sometimes, maybe. Usually I'm boring, like most people.
Why did the South choose secession? You can't just use the secession reason without saying the reason for secession. The second was required because of slavery.
