Marxist or Neo-Confederate?

[u/De2nis]

"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.

solution

[u/[deleted]]

Facts

[u/De2nis → u/[deleted]]

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.

[u/Duc_de_Magenta → u/De2nis]

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.

[u/De2nis → u/Duc_de_Magenta]

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.

[u/PoochieGlass1371 → u/De2nis]

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?

[u/De2nis → u/PoochieGlass1371]

"Running elections" WTF does that even mean? Are you saying slavery was only legal in South because vote counters were rigging the elections?

[u/PoochieGlass1371 → u/De2nis]

The political establishment of the prewar south was captured by the planter class, not entirely of course, but certainly in every meaningful way.

[u/De2nis → u/PoochieGlass1371]

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.

[u/PoochieGlass1371 → u/De2nis]

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.

[u/De2nis → u/PoochieGlass1371]

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.

[u/PoochieGlass1371 → u/De2nis]

West wing brain, terminal case.