/his/ - History

>>33529

not him but:

The southern economy didn't really become all that irrelevant after the war tho.

Most former slaves couldn't find work and willingly worked on their former master's plantation and with the invention of the cotton gin a couple years later the need for human labor was greatly lessened to the point where Slavery would have been less profitable.

Although I do agree, the southerners saw it as an end to their lively hood. But yeah in the end it's better for everyone that the North won because if the states were divided Britain would have just made us a colony again.

>inb4 britbongs say that would be the better outcome

>It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

>It has invaded a State, and invested with the honors of martyrdom the wretch whose purpose was to apply flames to our dwellings, and the weapons of destruction to our lives.

>It has broken every compact into which it has entered for our security.

>It has given indubitable evidence of its design to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system.

>It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

>implying it's not both states rights and slavery

>>33648

This.

>>33521

the 'states rights' stuff is pretty duplictous imo.

when you claim that the civil war was primarily over the issue of slavery, then the rights of states is self-evident as part of the issue at hand; different states in the union either allowed or disallowed slavery, and so thus slavery was a state-by-state issue. states rights as a cause of the conflict can be inferred.

if you say that the civil war was about 'states rights', you aren't wrong, but your reasoning isn't complete. What states rights specifically were at issue? It could be literally any and every issue which was dealt with by the states rather than the federal government. saying 'states rights' is useful apologetics because you're able to bring up an umbrella term which covers some of the nuanced issues over which the civil war was fought without actually bringing them up specifically.

>>33671

> What states rights specifically were at issue? It could be literally any and every issue which was dealt with by the states rather than the federal government. saying 'states rights' is useful apologetics because you're able to bring up an umbrella term which covers some of the nuanced issues over which the civil war was fought without actually bringing them up specifically.

you can get around this by saying that it was about the philosophical principal and was completely disconnected to any contemporary events, but that would be a dubious at best.

the best argument would be that it was about states rights, and the dilemma occurred because the central government was making unprecidented overreach into seriously fucking the southern economy's shit up. that could be worded better but its 3 AM so fuck it.

Do you think people in the future will recognize that Abe Lincoln was not some anti-slavery hero?

>>33758

NOPE. He's practically a saint who went to war only to save them poor slaves down south, which aggravates me because on the same coin people completely invalidate people like Jefferson since he owned slaves.

The problem is that schools emotionally charge these kinds of things so it's all in absolutes, which really makes history a lot less interesting.

>>33758

>>33768

I think Lincoln was a pretty cool dude because he pretty masterfully guided his nation through the biggest threat since the American revolution. Bismarck even called him an OG.

He had all but one of his kids die, and his wife go bonkers. He advocated amnesty for the South after the war and probably the worst thing he did was suspend Habeas Corpus.

I understand we like to be contrarian but I really don't know why someone can make the evil Lincoln argument. I guess it's an extension of people hating "le ebil north"?

>>33769

Oh I never said Lincoln was evil, he was a pretty cunning statesman and a gifted orator who had a tough row to hoe but made the most of it, I mean he held on by the skin of his damn teeth when it came to re-election time during a war everyone hated him during, especially considering the drafts.

Lincoln wasn't evil, he was just a hardass whose considered the moral guardian instead of just a president who wanted to keep his damn country together.

>>33769

I never made an "evil Lincoln" argument, simply an argument that he shouldn't be hailed as this great hero when he wasn't. He made some good political decisions, and he made terrible ones, but he managed to lead his nation well enough to get a second term, even if that second term ended early, but he not an anti-slavery hero.

>>33776

Which decisions do you consider terrible?

>>33777

Suspending Habeas Corpus, for one, but I'm sure there will be people in here that disagree with me.

The choice of words in the Emancipation Proclamation. If he just targeted slavery in the USA in general instead of "slavery in the states currently in rebellion" (who won't give a shit what he says), then I wouldn't be here saying that he shouldn't be seen as an anti-slavery hero. Granted, it did keep European aid away from the CAS, so there is good, but I think he could have gone all the way.

His choice to change his VP between his first and second term was pretty dumb.

Ambrose Burnside.

Camp Douglas

There's some other shit, but I can't think of it right now.

>>33778

>Only in states currently in rebellion

Well he didn't want to piss of the states still on the verge of joining the confederacy.

>Camp Douglas

I don't think it's fair to place the blame on Lincoln, and although it doesn't absolve the poor treatment of prisoners Union POW's had it worse.

I agree with you completely on Habeas Corpus and Burnside. (How does a general even fuck up that badly?)

>>33521

why did people from that time period have such fucking weird facial fair?

>>33732

eh? I never said that states rights wasn't at issue. I simply pointed out that slavery, the major cause of the tension between north and south and the outbreak of war allows one to infer states rights as a cause of the CW, while the opposite is not necessarily true.