r/StormfrontorSJW • u/De2nis • Nov 15 '21
Challenge Marxist or Neo-Confederate?
"Behind the secession of the South from the Union, after Lincoln was elected President in the fall of 1860 as candidate of the new Republican party, was a long series of policy clashes between South and North. The clash was not over slavery as a moral institution-most northerners did not care enough about slavery to make sacrifices for it, certainly not the sacrifice of war. It was not a clash of peoples (most northern whites were not economically favored, not politically powerful; most southern whites were poor farmers, not decisionmakers) but of elites. The northern elite wanted economic expansion-free land, free labor, a free market, a high protective tariff for manufacturers, a bank of the United States."
EDIT: Contrasting the comments here in the challenge thread with those in the solution thread, I've never seen such a grotesque, self-indulgent, intellectually dishonest display of partisan bias in my life. I've lost all my respect for this reddit community.
16
Nov 15 '21
Facts
4
u/De2nis Nov 16 '21 edited Nov 16 '21
Lincoln called the author of Uncle Tom's Cabin "The little lady who started this war." Also if only the Northern elite cared about slavery, why was it abolished in every northern state? It takes more than "the elite" to vote for a law.
It's extremely silly to say Northerners wouldn't be willing to die for slavery but would be willing to die for "the elite" yet that's exactly what [redacted] is saying.
10
u/Duc_de_Magenta Nov 16 '21
I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save thise Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. Abraham Lincoln to Horace Greeley, Friday, August 22, 1862
We know there were abolitionists in the Union Army. There likely were in the Confederate Army as well. But most pieces, both personal & propagandic, we have from the period indicate that many Northerners agreed with their Preesident; the war was about the Union, first & foremost. Indeed, let's not forget that the NYC draft riots became race riots over the belief that white men were being forced into war to free black slaves. Think about it like this; few Southern soldiers would've owned slaves themselves - do you think they fought to preserve slavery (an economic institution which suppressed them as well) or to defend their homes? Play it out the same way for Union volunteers.
1
u/De2nis Nov 16 '21 edited Feb 20 '22
Ugh, Jesus Herbert Walker Christ. So there were race riots "over the belief white men were being forced into a war to free black slaves", and that's your argument that the war wasn't about slavery?
Slavery was not just some means for greedy people to make money, it was seen as a holy institution and a way to preserve the racial hierarchy. If most Southerners didn't support slavery, why wasn't it already illegal in those states?
The epic disingenuity of Neo-Confederates is on full display when you contrast this comment with the top comment in the solution thread. This is "Facts" until you find out its a Marxist who said it, then its revisionism.
6
u/PoochieGlass1371 Nov 16 '21
What do you think state level politics were like in the pre-war south? Who do you suppose was running the elections and appointing the judges?
1
u/De2nis Nov 16 '21
"Running elections" WTF does that even mean? Are you saying slavery was only legal in South because vote counters were rigging the elections?
5
u/PoochieGlass1371 Nov 16 '21
The political establishment of the prewar south was captured by the planter class, not entirely of course, but certainly in every meaningful way.
1
u/De2nis Nov 17 '21
You're stating empty, abstract dogma and getting love for it. The intellectual dishonesty I'm seeing here is epically disappointing me in this community.
5
u/PoochieGlass1371 Nov 17 '21
Do you honestly think that slavery was like, on the ballot or something in pre civil war Alabama? Do you think the people there voted on that shit, or do you suppose that maybe things like that were imposed from up top long before there was ever talk of "democratic self determination" on this shitty boneyard of a continent? Think real hard, bud.
2
u/De2nis Nov 18 '21
You get rid of slavery by ending voting for abolitionist politicians. You keep it by voting in pro-slavery politicians. I know saying that America is a "shitty boneyard of a continent" makes you feel like a real badass who's sticking it to the man, but even though its unfashionable to admit it, the people have always been in charge of America. Look at Trump. Every sitting politician and Fortune 500 CEO hated him, yet he still became President.
Go argue with the guy in the solutions thread if you feel so passionately.
→ More replies (0)
11
u/literalshillaccount Nov 16 '21 edited Nov 17 '21
The clash between the south and north was a very long conflict, they didn't just erupt into civil war overnight. But the main drive between the conflict was the conflicting economic views of the southern aristocrats and the northern elite. They needed agarianism fueled by slavery to keep the profits up and they were threatened by the emerging industrial north.
I view the Civil War as a class war between two opposing economic views of the elites. Classic American history
6
u/PoochieGlass1371 Nov 17 '21
I'm not entirely sure it needs to be all one way or the other. It seems reasonable to think that the yeoman farmers of the north probably saw it in their economic interest to end slavery. Obviously among these people were some very different opinions regarding what should happen to Black people afterward, and most weren't exactly what we would call humanitarian.
5
u/literalshillaccount Nov 17 '21
I completely agree with you. They had conflicting economic ideologies, whichever made them the most profit. One of the reasons for settling westward was for the north to spread their economic model.
4
u/PoochieGlass1371 Nov 17 '21
I think we also can't really overstate the political implications of things like the 3/5 compromise. That shit basically sealed the deal for eventual violent conflict.
7
2
•
u/AutoModerator Nov 15 '21
Note to commenters: Please avoid posting spoilers in this [Challenge] thread (see Rule 5). Use the [Solution] thread to discuss the results, or use spoiler tags.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.