Which is the more disingenuous revisionist claim?

[manifold]

Some people claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery at all.

Other people claim that it wasn't about anything else.

Of course both positions are disingenuous revisionist horseshit.

But what I can't decide is which one is worse.

What say you?

 

[manifold]

Some people claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery at all.

Other people claim that it wasn't about anything else.

Of course both positions are disingenuous revisionist horseshit.

But what I can't decide is which one is worse.

What say you?

Upon further consideration, I'd have to say the latter is worse and here is why:

People who claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery at all do so out of a subconscious desire to purge their conscience of any guilt associated with honoring the Confederacy. And while this is still revisionist denial, at least it's not borne of malicious intent.

On the other hand, those that claim it was ONLY about slavery do so out of a desire to malign an entire culture for really no good reason beyond spite and/or hatred. To me that is worse.

 

[Intense]

Here is a great book on history, that does touch on injustices done to the South, which fueled tension leading up to the Civil War, separate from slavery. Again, it touches on it, it is not the main topic of the book.




Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy [Hardcover]
William Watkins (Author)


Review
"With historical knowledge that one can only wish more could possess, Watkins has brought our attention back to Jefferson's and Madison's constitutional commentary in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798-1800 and their illuminating relation to American history."--Clyde N. Wilson, Professor of History, University of South Carolina
"With Reclaiming the American Revolution, we have a thorough, thoughtful, and important study of a significant subject that has been too long neglected."--Joyce O. Appleby, Professor of History, UCLA; past president of Organization of American Historians and American Historical Association
"William Watkins' important book, Reclaiming the American Revolution, is intriguing and controversial: it is based on much research, and it is full of interest for the questions it raises about federal-state relations."--Robert L. Middlekauf, Preston Hotchkiss Professor of American History, University of California, Berkeley
-- Review
Product Description
Reclaiming the American Revolution examines the struggles for political ascendancy between Federalists and the Republicans in the early days of the American Republic viewed through the lens of the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions authored by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. Jefferson and Madison saw the Alien and Sedition Acts as a threat to states' rights, as well as indicative of a national government that sought unlimited power. The Resolutions sought to return the nation to the tenets of the Constitution, in which rights for all were protected by checking the power of the national government. Watkins examines the two sides of this important controversy in early American history and demonstrates the Resolutions' relevance to current politics.

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-American-Revolution-Kentucky-Resolutions/dp/1403963037]Amazon.com: Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy (9781403963031): William Watkins: Books[/ame]

 

[rightwinger]

The Civil War was about States Rights

The Right to own Slaves

 

[Ravi]

Some people claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery at all.

Other people claim that it wasn't about anything else.

Of course both positions are disingenuous revisionist horseshit.

But what I can't decide is which one is worse.

What say you?

Upon further consideration, I'd have to say the latter is worse and here is why:

People who claim that the Civil War wasn't about slavery at all do so out of a subconscious desire to purge their conscience of any guilt associated with honoring the Confederacy. And while this is still revisionist denial, at least it's not borne of malicious intent.

On the other hand, those that claim it was ONLY about slavery do so out of a desire to malign an entire culture for really no good reason beyond spite and/or hatred. To me that is worse.

I've never heard anyone claim that the civil war wasn't about anything but slavery...so maybe you win your own prize for revisionist fucktard of all time.

I'd like to throw into the running the claim that Hitler was a socialist.

 

[uscitizen]

The Civil War was about States Rights

The Right to own Slaves

States rights mostly is why it started. But not about slaves, mostly about taxes, tarrifs, etc.
The slavery issue was thrown in to garner support in the north for the war.

 

[Sheldon]

Is this a spin off of the Confederate flag vs NY Mosque thread?

 

[rightwinger]

The Civil War was about States Rights

The Right to own Slaves

States rights mostly is why it started. But not about slaves, mostly about taxes, tarrifs, etc.
The slavery issue was thrown in to garner support in the north for the war.

Revisionist bullcrap

The southern states went as far to try to ensure that new states admitted to the union were slave states to maintain the balance of power.

They seceeded when Lincoln was elected and they weren't concerned with Lincolns views on taxes and tarrifs

 

[Sheldon]

The Civil War was about States Rights

The Right to own Slaves

States rights mostly is why it started. But not about slaves, mostly about taxes, tarrifs, etc.
The slavery issue was thrown in to garner support in the north for the war.

Revisionist bullcrap

The southern states went as far to try to ensure that new states admitted to the union were slave states to maintain the balance of power.

They seceeded when Lincoln was elected and they weren't concerned with Lincolns views on taxes and tarrifs

I think they cared more about Lincoln being sympathetic to the abolitionists than about his view on tariffs. High taxes, they could withstand. Nationwide abolition, they couldn't. They were a one-crop, slave-based economy.

 

[uscitizen]

The Civil War was about States Rights

The Right to own Slaves

States rights mostly is why it started. But not about slaves, mostly about taxes, tarrifs, etc.
The slavery issue was thrown in to garner support in the north for the war.

Revisionist bullcrap

The southern states went as far to try to ensure that new states admitted to the union were slave states to maintain the balance of power.

They seceeded when Lincoln was elected and they weren't concerned with Lincolns views on taxes and tarrifs

It all began before what you are talking about, it did not just flare up over night.

 

[uscitizen]

States rights mostly is why it started. But not about slaves, mostly about taxes, tarrifs, etc.
The slavery issue was thrown in to garner support in the north for the war.

Revisionist bullcrap

The southern states went as far to try to ensure that new states admitted to the union were slave states to maintain the balance of power.

They seceeded when Lincoln was elected and they weren't concerned with Lincolns views on taxes and tarrifs

I think they cared more about Lincoln being sympathetic to the abolitionists than about his view on tariffs. High taxes, they could withstand. Nationwide abolition, they couldn't. They were a one-crop, slave-based economy.

2 crops actually tobacco and cotton, and they were being burned up on both over taxes/tarrifs.

 

[rightwinger]

Revisionist bullcrap

The southern states went as far to try to ensure that new states admitted to the union were slave states to maintain the balance of power.

They seceeded when Lincoln was elected and they weren't concerned with Lincolns views on taxes and tarrifs

I think they cared more about Lincoln being sympathetic to the abolitionists than about his view on tariffs. High taxes, they could withstand. Nationwide abolition, they couldn't. They were a one-crop, slave-based economy.

2 crops actually tobacco and cotton, and they were being burned up on both over taxes/tarrifs.

Cotton and tobacco were gold and they needed cheap labor. Slavery skyrocketed after the cotton gin was invented

 

[uscitizen]

Of course it did, but not sure what this has to do with slavery vs tarrifs for being the root cause of the civil war.

 

[Sheldon]

Revisionist bullcrap

The southern states went as far to try to ensure that new states admitted to the union were slave states to maintain the balance of power.

They seceeded when Lincoln was elected and they weren't concerned with Lincolns views on taxes and tarrifs

I think they cared more about Lincoln being sympathetic to the abolitionists than about his view on tariffs. High taxes, they could withstand. Nationwide abolition, they couldn't. They were a one-crop, slave-based economy.

2 crops actually tobacco and cotton, and they were being burned up on both over taxes/tarrifs.

There was sugar too. But they called it King Cotton for a reason.

 

[whitehall]

Slavery was "legal". The North had no problem with that concept as long as the cotton crop got picked on time and shipped to New England factories. New Yorkers hanged every Black face they could find to the nearest light pole during the "draft riots" so discrimination was alive and well in the Yankee states. The War was fought to preserve the Union just like Lincoln said. The North forced the Southern states back into the Union.

 

[uscitizen]

Another factor proving that slavery was an added political issue was that ohh i forget the name of the act the north did to prohibit slavery. In any case it only prohibited slavery in southern states not northern ones. And there were slaves in Union states.

 

[westwall]

The Civil War was about States Rights

The Right to own Slaves

States rights mostly is why it started. But not about slaves, mostly about taxes, tarrifs, etc.
The slavery issue was thrown in to garner support in the north for the war.

Revisionist bullcrap

The southern states went as far to try to ensure that new states admitted to the union were slave states to maintain the balance of power.

They seceeded when Lincoln was elected and they weren't concerned with Lincolns views on taxes and tarrifs

If that is true why didn't the Emancipation Proclamation free slaves that were still in the North?

 

[manifold]

I've never heard anyone claim that the civil war wasn't about anything but slavery...

^The post right before this one was rightwinger making this exact claim.

Oh, the irony!

 

[Truthmatters]

The Civil War was about States Rights

The Right to own Slaves

States rights mostly is why it started. But not about slaves, mostly about taxes, tarrifs, etc.
The slavery issue was thrown in to garner support in the north for the war.

I understand what you are saying but there is one point that brings this right back to slavery.

The taxes , terrifs, etc, you are talking about would have NEVER exsisted to be taken from the south had they not had slaves to do all the work which produced all the wealth in the south.

My Mother once told me to not forget the people in the south built this country with their business accumin.

I then told her in response " give me 100 people who have to work for me for nothing but scraps of food and little else and I could be wealthy myself in no time.

She had no response.


The south was built by slaves. They never seem to get the credit.

 

[uscitizen]

The Civil War was about States Rights

The Right to own Slaves

States rights mostly is why it started. But not about slaves, mostly about taxes, tarrifs, etc.
The slavery issue was thrown in to garner support in the north for the war.

I understand what you are saying but there is one point that brings this right back to slavery.

The taxes , terrifs, etc, you are talking about would have NEVER exsisted to be taken from the south had they not had slaves to do all the work which produced all the wealth in the south.

My Mother once told me to not forget the people in the south built this country with their business accumin.

I then told her in response " give me 100 people who have to work for me for nothing but scraps of food and little else and I could be wealthy myself in no time.

She had no response.


The south was built by slaves. They never seem to get the credit.

Of course the slaves made all the welath for their owners in the south.

except for not being slaves not much has changed in that area either, The lowest paid workers are generally the most critical to the success of a company.

Why we offshore to China now.