I hate preconceptions and prejudices, even when I have the utmost respect for the moral stances that cause people to have those preconceptions and prejudices. We can not be better than the idiots if we copy their style.
1) Slavery became an issue in the Civil War because Lincoln chose to make it an issue to prove the moral right was on their side. Admittedly, it was one of the major things that the South was trying to protect by seceding, but it was not what the war was about. Plain and simple, the war was about whether states have the right to leave the Union. It's quite possible slavery would have endured if the southern states hadn't seceded. 2) The North's economy got a few minor benefits from the slave trade. Like, oh, say, the money brought in by many slave traders. Ok, I understate. While not utilizing slave labor heavily like the South, the North's economic power was largely built on selling slaves to the South. 3) Did they seize US Gov't forts and ammo, or did they seize their own? In a divorce, without prenups, most states order a fair split of equity. This may or may not happen in the courts, but it's the ideal. If half the country split from the other half (without a war), would they or would they not have the right to a certain amount of the national resources?
If you dismiss the legitimacy of an argument out of hand, you're doing silly things and ignoring most of the picture. You're seeing "OMG SLAVERY BAD." It was.
War might not have been the most appropriate way to have ended it, and it might not have been necessary.
I may be mistaken, but I believe that when the southern states seceded, they were outnumbered by their slaves. It's quite possible that if the North and smirked and stepped back and withheld their share of the formerly-national resources, the whole problem would have cleaned itself up in a few bloody slave revolts.
Do I think the North was wrong? No. I also don't think secession from the Union WAS legal as such, anyhow. But neither do I think that it's 'obvious' just because it's unpopular to think otherwise.
And yes, I honestly think Lincoln was more concerned about the authority and integrity of the Federal government than concerned about civil rights.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-12-13 07:32 am (UTC)1) Slavery became an issue in the Civil War because Lincoln chose to make it an issue to prove the moral right was on their side. Admittedly, it was one of the major things that the South was trying to protect by seceding, but it was not what the war was about. Plain and simple, the war was about whether states have the right to leave the Union. It's quite possible slavery would have endured if the southern states hadn't seceded.
2) The North's economy got a few minor benefits from the slave trade. Like, oh, say, the money brought in by many slave traders. Ok, I understate. While not utilizing slave labor heavily like the South, the North's economic power was largely built on selling slaves to the South.
3) Did they seize US Gov't forts and ammo, or did they seize their own? In a divorce, without prenups, most states order a fair split of equity. This may or may not happen in the courts, but it's the ideal. If half the country split from the other half (without a war), would they or would they not have the right to a certain amount of the national resources?
If you dismiss the legitimacy of an argument out of hand, you're doing silly things and ignoring most of the picture. You're seeing "OMG SLAVERY BAD." It was.
War might not have been the most appropriate way to have ended it, and it might not have been necessary.
I may be mistaken, but I believe that when the southern states seceded, they were outnumbered by their slaves. It's quite possible that if the North and smirked and stepped back and withheld their share of the formerly-national resources, the whole problem would have cleaned itself up in a few bloody slave revolts.
Do I think the North was wrong? No. I also don't think secession from the Union WAS legal as such, anyhow. But neither do I think that it's 'obvious' just because it's unpopular to think otherwise.
And yes, I honestly think Lincoln was more concerned about the authority and integrity of the Federal government than concerned about civil rights.