Is It Time to Dissolve the United States?

[Axl Van Sixx]

But that had nothing to do with ethnicity

Sure, unless you count enslaving people of a certain ethnicity while propagating doctrines of racial superiority.

and more along the lines of a bunch of ignorant people thinking that the Federal government was going to use its supremacy to take away their property despite the fact that Lincoln had no intention to do so.

Lincoln had every right to take away their "property", seeing as they were claiming ownership of human beings.

The Civil War was WASP vs. WASP not an ethnic conflict like say the ETA going up against the Spanish government, or the civil war in Sri Lanka, or the ethnic cleansing in Yugoslavia.

I don't think it's that simple. There were huge cultural and economic differences between the industrial North and the agrarian South. Southerners themselves called it a war against Northern aggression. And today, the Confederate battle flag is flown - to use the most charitable interpretation - as a symbol of Southern pride.

The war might not have been an ethnic conflict, but it was strongly based on regional culture (in addition to the economic factors, which I would argue were the most important factor).

 

[hippie_hunter]

Sure, unless you count enslaving people of a certain ethnicity while propagating doctrines of racial superiority.

Still doesn't change the fact that the Civil War was not an ethnic conflict. Slavery could have been based on economic status (like the serfs) or religion (like the Jews in Egypt), an abolition movement would have most definitely developed and the South would have been fearful of the Federal government taking their property even if they were white Catholic slaves or whatever.

Not only that but the slaves weren't the ones who drove the war, the South did. The Civil War wasn't a conflict of whites vs black slaves. That would have been an ethnic conflict. The Civil War was WASP vs. WASP. And when they were given an opportunity, African-Americans opted to side with the WASPs that offered them freedom (which was a tool to weaken the South, not a genuine desire to free blacks).

Lincoln had every right to take away their "property", seeing as they were claiming ownership of human beings.

I don't think we need to argue on that on the simple basis on how wrong slavery is

I don't think it's that simple. There were huge cultural and economic differences between the industrial North and the agrarian South. Southerners themselves called it a war against Northern aggression. And today, the Confederate battle flag is flown - to use the most charitable interpretation - as a symbol of Southern pride.

The war might not have been an ethnic conflict, but it was strongly based on regional culture (in addition to the economic factors, which I would argue were the most important factor).

It certainly was a regional conflict between two areas that were culturally different, but my point still stands that ethnicity has never really been a problem in the United States like it is in other countries that have distinct ethnicities dividing nations like Russia, Kosovo, China, Iraq, etc. Culture and economics played a much bigger factor than ethnicity in the Civil War.

 

[DACrowe]

Here's what Lincoln had to say about slavery's role in the War:

Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war...The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

He certainly seemed to believe this to be a moral issue about enslaving of an ethnic group, even if he did not enter the war initially to end the practice. He saw the war as punishment for the sin of slavery in the US and not just an economic tool used to weaken the South. And he was right.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Well he certainly was right in regards to the morality of slavery. No doubt about that.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

Still doesn't change the fact that the Civil War was not an ethnic conflict. Slavery could have been based on economic status (like the serfs) or religion (like the Jews in Egypt), an abolition movement would have most definitely developed and the South would have been fearful of the Federal government taking their property even if they were white Catholic slaves or whatever.

Not only that but the slaves weren't the ones who drove the war, the South did. The Civil War wasn't a conflict of whites vs black slaves. That would have been an ethnic conflict. The Civil War was WASP vs. WASP. And when they were given an opportunity, African-Americans opted to side with the WASPs that offered them freedom (which was a tool to weaken the South, not a genuine desire to free blacks).


I don't think we need to argue on that on the simple basis on how wrong slavery is


It certainly was a regional conflict between two areas that were culturally different, but my point still stands that ethnicity has never really been a problem in the United States like it is in other countries that have distinct ethnicities dividing nations like Russia, Kosovo, China, Iraq, etc. Culture and economics played a much bigger factor than ethnicity in the Civil War.

My original point was that neither nationality, geographic region, ethnicity or culture make as much of a difference to people's day-to-day lives as economic class.

That's why I think in the very long run, it's more likely that national borders will vanish - between Canada and the United States certainly, Latin America hopefully - than that new national borders will arise within Canada or the United States, through an independent Quebec or Texas.

Nationalism is becoming less and less important in people's lives. Of course wars will start and people initially rally around the flag, but when the wars drag on that patriotism tends to dwindle.

The nation-state has long outlived its historical usefulness, considering we've been living in a globalized economy for the last century at least.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Just looking at old threads and this popped up and thought I would comment.

I know it won't happen anytime soon but part of me feels that it might be for the best to divide the country into 5 separate countries(something along the lines of)

I'm all for this.

All the people who claim evil liberals and big government are the source of all their problems can move to certain areas only to realize their local governments and militias are no better if not worse.

 

[DACrowe]

Well he certainly was right in regards to the morality of slavery. No doubt about that.

My point is that he didn't view as ending slavery as a tactic to economically weaken the South or that the suppression of an ethnic minority was not at play in the war. He did not go to war to end slavery at first, but he considered the war God's punishment for the original sin of slavery in America. One that had to be paid in full. He did eventually form black regiments and it did become about the morality of this issue for the North.

 

[Schlosser85]

The Emancipation Proclamation originally only applied to slaves in the Confederacy, which had declared itself a separate nation anyway, and so obviously did not recognize it. Lincoln didn't even try to free the slaves in the border states who sided with the Union, because he didn't want to drive them to join the Confederacy.

It was originally a political move more than a moral one.

 

[DACrowe]

It was both. Is that so hard to understand. You're right that it did not touch the slaves in the border stats because he didn't want them changing sides, but after the war was won he pressured Congress into the Thirteenth Amendment which would end slavery across the entire country.

And again, just read Lincoln's own personal thoughts on the matter in the above post.

 

[8wid]

Ya know one thing I'm very tired of? Why is that one person is in charge of decision making in the United States? Why is the president in charge of the army? Why isn't there an elected council of different politicians and decision makers that are represent more than one chief executives view? It shouldn't be allowed for the president to choose his own cabinet, but instead done so by the houses of Congress.

 

[hippie_hunter]

It was both. Is that so hard to understand. You're right that it did not touch the slaves in the border stats because he didn't want them changing sides, but after the war was won he pressured Congress into the Thirteenth Amendment which would end slavery across the entire country.

And again, just read Lincoln's own personal thoughts on the matter in the above post.

Lincoln also allowed slavery in territories that were in rebellion. New Orleans, Hampton Roads, and the Eastern Shore of Virginia were exempted from the Emancipation Proclamation. There was no fear of those territories breaking away considering that they already tried to break away and were under military occupation.

Despite Lincoln's personal views on slavery, the Emancipation Proclamation was nothing but a maneuver to weaken the South and to ensure that Europe would not get involved in favor of the South.

 

[WildcatNC]

I'm a history buff and Hippie Hunter is right on.

Lincolns stance on Slavery and black americans seemed to evolve as the war progressed, I agree with that.

It was the wedge issue in the war at the time though.

An important thing in looking at history is NOT to look at it from a modern perspective with OUR value system. You have to view it like an umpire or you won't really understand the context of decisions, events, etc.

Slavery is detestable by most's standards now (including mine) yes. At that time though it was only detestable to SOME. Most of the people that were even against slavery wanted them to just "go back to africa". Sure it wasn't right to enslave them, but they didn't want to live or mingle with them. MANY personal letter show this, even from the anti-slavery movement and the Union.

Things were different. Culture was different. Society was different.

 

[hippie_hunter]

An important thing in looking at history is NOT to look at it from a modern perspective with OUR value system. You have to view it like an umpire or you won't really understand the context of decisions, events, etc.

Slavery is detestable by most's standards now (including mine) yes. At that time though it was only detestable to SOME. Most of the people that were even against slavery wanted them to just "go back to africa". Sure it wasn't right to enslave them, but they didn't want to live or mingle with them. MANY personal letter show this, even from the anti-slavery movement and the Union.

Things were different. Culture was different. Society was different.

Precisely.

 

[Schlosser85]

Hell, by modern standards, Lincoln was racist.

But it's not fair to judge people from 1860 by a 2012 viewpoint.

 

[DACrowe]

Lincoln also allowed slavery in territories that were in rebellion. New Orleans, Hampton Roads, and the Eastern Shore of Virginia were exempted from the Emancipation Proclamation. There was no fear of those territories breaking away considering that they already tried to break away and were under military occupation.

Despite Lincoln's personal views on slavery, the Emancipation Proclamation was nothing but a maneuver to weaken the South and to ensure that Europe would not get involved in favor of the South.

It came from strategical needs. But he still saw slavery as evil and he did end it all together with the Thirteenth Amendment. Trying desperately to discredit his efforts because of the initial purpose is just that....trying to desperately discredit him.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

In the end, Lincoln was a politician and did whatever was politically advantageous at the time. But I tend to side with DACrowe's view.

From what I understand, Lincoln disagreed with slavery on moral grounds, but didn't do jack about it until the Emancipation Proclamation arose as a strategic maneuver to win the war.

But that doesn't change the fact that he did a great thing, probably the most progressive act in American history: the abolition of slavery. Hippie seems overly preoccupied with the means rather than the end that was attained.

 

[hippie_hunter]

It came from strategical needs. But he still saw slavery as evil and he did end it all together with the Thirteenth Amendment. Trying desperately to discredit his efforts because of the initial purpose is just that....trying to desperately discredit him.

I just think that Lincoln doesn't deserve a lot of the credit he gets. Sure, he wanted to get rid of slavery, but he only got rid of it just to weaken the Confederacy, he would have kept slavery in place if it meant preserving the Union. That was his only real goal.

If Lincoln were truly serious about ending slavery, he would have flat out abolished it with the Emancipation Proclamation. He wouldn't have given exemptions to the Border States, Tennessee, New Orleans, Hampton Roads, and Virginia's Eastern Shore region. It's not like they were going to break away from the Union. Hampton Roads, New Orleans, Tennessee, and Virgina's Eastern Shore were under military occupation, they weren't going anywhere; and emancipation efforts were growing in West Virginia, Maryland, and Missouri to where they ended slavery before the Thirteenth Amendment was even put into place.

There really was nothing noble about the Emancipation Proclamation. It was just an effort to ensure that Europe (Britain in particular) wouldn't side with the Confederacy and get slaves to join the Union cause. While there is nothing wrong in getting rid of the vile institution of slavery, the circumstances surrounding it shouldn't be sugar coated.

 

[hippie_hunter]

In the end, Lincoln was a politician and did whatever was politically advantageous at the time. But I tend to side with DACrowe's view.

From what I understand, Lincoln disagreed with slavery on moral grounds, but didn't do jack about it until the Emancipation Proclamation arose as a strategic maneuver to win the war.

But that doesn't change the fact that he did a great thing, probably the most progressive act in American history: the abolition of slavery. Hippie seems overly preoccupied with the means rather than the end that was attained.

I just don't like sugar coated history. Sorta like how the United States fought for our independence because we were fighting against British tyranny when the reality was that we just simply didn't want to pay our taxes. Or how the United States came in and saved the day during World War II when the reality is that the Russian Juggernaut did far more to defeat Germany.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

I just think that Lincoln doesn't deserve a lot of the credit he gets. Sure, he wanted to get rid of slavery, but he only got rid of it just to weaken the Confederacy, he would have kept slavery in place if it meant preserving the Union. That was his only real goal.

If Lincoln were truly serious about ending slavery, he would have flat out abolished it with the Emancipation Proclamation. He wouldn't have given exemptions to the Border States, Tennessee, New Orleans, Hampton Roads, and Virginia's Eastern Shore region. It's not like they were going to break away from the Union. Hampton Roads, New Orleans, Tennessee, and Virgina's Eastern Shore were under military occupation, they weren't going anywhere; and emancipation efforts were growing in West Virginia, Maryland, and Missouri to where they ended slavery before the Thirteenth Amendment was even put into place.

There really was nothing noble about the Emancipation Proclamation. It was just an effort to ensure that Europe (Britain in particular) wouldn't side with the Confederacy and get slaves to join the Union cause. While there is nothing wrong in getting rid of the vile institution of slavery, the circumstances surrounding it shouldn't be sugar coated.

I agree with most of this. American history shouldn't be sugarcoated.

If a politician engages in a historically progressive step, they shouldn't be denied praise. But we should never forget who really deserves the credit: the masses who fight the wars and revolutions. If the Union Army hadn't fought against the Confederacy, Lincoln would never have been in a position to emancipate the slaves.

 

[DACrowe]

I just think that Lincoln doesn't deserve a lot of the credit he gets. Sure, he wanted to get rid of slavery, but he only got rid of it just to weaken the Confederacy, he would have kept slavery in place if it meant preserving the Union. That was his only real goal.

If Lincoln were truly serious about ending slavery, he would have flat out abolished it with the Emancipation Proclamation. He wouldn't have given exemptions to the Border States, Tennessee, New Orleans, Hampton Roads, and Virginia's Eastern Shore region. It's not like they were going to break away from the Union. Hampton Roads, New Orleans, Tennessee, and Virgina's Eastern Shore were under military occupation, they weren't going anywhere; and emancipation efforts were growing in West Virginia, Maryland, and Missouri to where they ended slavery before the Thirteenth Amendment was even put into place.

There really was nothing noble about the Emancipation Proclamation. It was just an effort to ensure that Europe (Britain in particular) wouldn't side with the Confederacy and get slaves to join the Union cause. While there is nothing wrong in getting rid of the vile institution of slavery, the circumstances surrounding it shouldn't be sugar coated.

Lincoln was a statesman. One of the greatest we've ever seen. Your argument boils down to that he did it incrementally and strategically. He said countless times he viewed slavery as evil, but would contain it if it meant preserving the Union. After it became clear well into the Civil War that there was no way to preserve the Union, save through force, he abolished slavery...in the rebellious states. This turned the war into a moral one and kept Europe out. He did it incrementally, true, but in doing so he reduced rancor and infighting among his Union that still had several slave states. When the war was all but won, he pressured Congress and used political gamesmanship to ensure the complete abolition of a vice that he viewed as America's founding sin upon which he viewed the war as the country's punishment.

So, he ended slavery in a strategic manner. That still does not take away from the fact he ended slavery and thought it was an evil. You admit you don't think he deserves credit, but that is where your argument begins and ends. Leadership is just not pounding the table and saying "And so it shall be!" though many to this day thinks that's what a good president is supposed to do.

Leadership does involve diplomacy, and the deft touch to know when to pursue one's objectives. Lincoln did that and the end results speak for themselves. I think it is mostly Southern Revisionism that is trying to change the subject from the South's slave institutions into the subject of discrediting Lincoln that leads to these sort of debates. That's my own opinion, of course.

 

[WildcatNC]

History is almost NEVER black and white. We like to make it that way to fit on posters or in a neat paragraph in a textbook.

If someone is making it sound like it was then its almost inevitably wrong.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I agree with most of this. American history shouldn't be sugarcoated.

If a politician engages in a historically progressive step, they shouldn't be denied praise. But we should never forget who really deserves the credit: the masses who fight the wars and revolutions. If the Union Army hadn't fought against the Confederacy, Lincoln would never have been in a position to emancipate the slaves.

They deserve the right amount of praise. Yeah, Lincoln sure as hell deserves praise for freeing the slaves. But it's not like he did it for the right and proper reasons. When you add in the costs of the Civil War like suspending habeas corpus, the draft, those killed, lingering resentments, etc., the praise that Lincoln gets should be a tad bit more muted than the praise he gets.

And some of the praise he gets is on the absurd. Like how Lincoln would be proud with Obama getting elected President when the reality is that he would most likely spinning in his grave that a person of color is occupying the White House.

 

[Axl Van Sixx]

They deserve the right amount of praise. Yeah, Lincoln sure as hell deserves praise for freeing the slaves. But it's not like he did it for the right and proper reasons. When you add in the costs of the Civil War like suspending habeas corpus, the draft, those killed, lingering resentments, etc., the praise that Lincoln gets should be a tad bit more muted than the praise he gets.

Lincoln was not personally responsible for the war. If the South seceded because its leaders feared Lincoln would end slavery, they are to blame for their defense of a vile institution.

And some of the praise he gets is on the absurd. Like how Lincoln would be proud with Obama getting elected President when the reality is that he would most likely spinning in his grave that a person of color is occupying the White House.

I was going to mention his conversations with Frederick Douglass, but yeah...you're probably right.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Lincoln was not personally responsible for the war. If the South seceded because its leaders feared Lincoln would end slavery, they are to blame for their defense of a vile institution.

The South certainly does deserve the blame for starting the war considering that Lincoln had no intentions of freeing the slaves. But a lot of the stuff that Lincoln did to win the war was well.....morally wrong.

 

[kedrell]

I'm no big history buff but didn't Lincoln essentially dare the South to secede by not withdrawing troops from Ft Sumter? I recall some documentary I had watched where his strategy on leaving them there could be seen as a passive-aggressive gesture indicating that perhaps he really did want the war but just didn't want to be the one who officially started it. Any of you buffs want to comment on the validity of this?