Robert E. Lee was a traitor, a brute and a slaver who wouldn't even trade black union soldiers taken prisoner for the lives of his own men because he saw black people as property to be owned.https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/ …
-
-
OK. I wouldn't call it a lie, though. The reason they went to war was because they were not allowed to secede from the Union. Which still leaves slavery as the cause for wanting to secede in the first place.
-
But slavery was exactly zero percent of the reason the Union was fighting. So saying the war was about slavery is either a deliberate lie, or foundational ignorance.
-
I don’t want to speak for these guys, but they might disagree with that statement.pic.twitter.com/N5YfU94Wj3
-
I never claimed it wasn't a reason any soldier signed up or pulled the trigger. I said it wasn't the reason the Union was fighting. As in the federal government. Not the grunts. The government. Which was fighting to maintain control and power.
-
Over a region of the country that wanted to maintain and expand slavery! To say it’s not the crux of the conflict when one side has higher ambitions is silly. Would the south seceded if it could have expanded that peculiar institution further west?
-
The federal government was not fighting to prevent them from maintaining and expanding slavery. It was not fighting about any ambitions regarding slavery. The slavery issue was tangential to the Union purpose in fighting for control, at best.
-
But the slave issue was not tangential but central to the south. Ss were issues of white supremacy. Southern elites wrote as much. It was their reason for breaking away from the union. The fact that the north didn’t oppose slavery doesn’t mean it was not the bases for the war.
- Konec konverzace
Nová konverzace -
-
-
The articles of secession themselves LITERALLY say they were leaving to protect slavery. That makes it ABOUT slavery. Don't believe me, read them yourself. It's there in plain language, blatant. Don't have time, just read Georgia's.
-
No. You are wrong. The war is only about slavery if BOTH SIDES are fighting about slavery. As I said, the secession was largely about slavery. The war was about the Union refusing to allow people that did not consent to be governed by the federal government to leave.
-
The war was about states leaving because they were being told by the Feds (aka the North) they couldn't keep people as property. It's a chicken and egg argument. And one we won't end on Twitter. :)
-
They weren't being told that by the Feds, though. They expected it come up, but it wasn't actually happening until after the war.
-
What? It's literally written in the articles. Here's GA- "For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery."
-
For ten years they'd been heaving conflicts about various legal ramifications, particularly in interstate trade, and if escaped slaved that made it to free states must be returned. But they were not being told they could not own people. As evidenced by the fact they did legally.
Konec konverzace
Nová konverzace -
-
-
I’d buy this argument if there were some evidence that the leaders of the southern states were surprised when their decision to secede lead directly to war. The situation at Fort Sumter tells me that probably wasn’t the case.
-
No part of that comes within a thousand miles of refuting the argument you claim you don't buy.
Konec konverzace
Nová konverzace -
-
-
Civil War was about expansion of US Westward & adding new states. Balance of power in Congress. South wanted new states to allow slavery and North wanted new states to be Free.
-
That was a significant contributing factor in the disagreements that lead up to the secession, yes. But it's not so much the reason people were killing each other.
Konec konverzace
Nová konverzace -
-
-
It doesn’t seem difficult to hold both of these views simultaneously: 1. The South seceded - & was willing to fight- to maintain their ability to allow slavery, irrespective of DC, 2. The North went to war to preserve the Union, not to end slavery Both can be true.
-
Both being true means the war was not about slavery. It makes it a half-truth at best. Note that here "preserve the union" means "enforce rule over those who did not consent to their governance." That hardly makes them the good guys.
-
I have no quarrel with this take. But people saying, “it was about slavery!” v “it was about states’ rights!” are both ½ right - and ½ wrong. Each side had a different motivation, not fully captured in these simplistic statements.
Konec konverzace
Nová konverzace -
Načítání se zjevně nějak vleče.
Možná je překročena kapacita Twitteru nebo došlo k momentálnímu zablokování. Zkuste to znovu nebo se podívejte na stavovou stránku Twitteru, kde najdete další informace.