FAO Dr Parsnip

[JustJack]

They seceded because they were being crippled economically by the policies of the now heavily industrial north states, who were pillaging their supply of cotton supplied by the slave trade, but opposing its ability to grow or spread (not be abolished entirely).

It's been a while and the ol' book is a lil dusty but that was my general understanding of the events.

Of course you can then talk about the period after the war and the 'Reconstruction' period, which historians argue was a failure.

In 1876 the Republicans all but gave up fighting for the 13th amendment, the subsquent protection of the black population and conditions returned to as they were some 20 years previous, albeit in a different legal context.

History will always be revised.

So they seceded over slavery. As I said.

We can go around in circles all day dressing up the details in different ways.

Was the cause of the war the emancipation of slaves? no.

Was the cause of war an economic dispute of which the slavery trade was integral? potentially, yes.

Let's not forget it took another 80 or so years thereafter for the civil rights movement to begin

 

[exiledclaseboy]

So they seceded over slavery. As I said.

We can go around in circles all day dressing up the details in different ways.

Was the cause of the war the emancipation of slaves? no.

Was the cause of war an economic dispute of which the slavery trade was integral? potentially, yes.

Let's not forget it took another 80 or so years thereafter for the civil rights movement to begin

The answer you gave to the first question you asked and answered yourself is wrong so there’s not much point in debating it further. It’s blatant revisionism and very odd.

 

[JustJack]

We can go around in circles all day dressing up the details in different ways.

Was the cause of the war the emancipation of slaves? no.

Was the cause of war an economic dispute of which the slavery trade was integral? potentially, yes.

Let's not forget it took another 80 or so years thereafter for the civil rights movement to begin

The answer you gave to the first question you asked and answered yourself is wrong so there’s not much point in debating it further. It’s blatant revisionism and very odd.

Considering the Emancipation Proclamation didn't arrive until the third year of the war and did very little for slave rights in what was the Union, we will have to agree to disagree.

Did bolster the army numbers though.

 

[J_B]

Sadly 100 years after the end of the war the South was operating a system of apartheid.

 

[AceJack]

Not to be seen in even slight agreement with that individual, but the Civil war was a melting pot of complexities far more than just slavery. I will go as far as to say that I don't think many of the top generals cared either way for its abolition, but it worked fantastically as a recruitment tool to garner support.

IMO, economics 'caused' the war far more than anything else, as was ever thus.

It's a revisionism. Whilst State rights and other factors were involved, the overwhelming reason was over slavery. The current historical view is this. From the reconstruction on, there has been a desire not to make the south look racist and willing to go to war over slavery. Modern historians are less complicit. It may be individuals (certainly Robert Lee) were not pro-slavery, but the war was very much that.

I'm not one for videos but this from the former Professor of Military History at West Point says it extremely well:

https://youtu.be/pcy7qV-BGF4

Please tell me you didn’t just cite a Prager U video…

 

[AceJack]

The answer you gave to the first question you asked and answered yourself is wrong so there’s not much point in debating it further. It’s blatant revisionism and very odd.

Considering the Emancipation Proclamation didn't arrive until the third year of the war and did very little for slave rights in what was the Union, we will have to agree to disagree.

Did bolster the army numbers though.

There’s no agree to disagree when you’re flat wrong.

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.

Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, The Cornerstone Address, March 21 1861.

 

[Itchysphincter]

God, he’s not even back yet!

 

[AceJack]

God, he’s not even back yet!

I know but it’s fitting that some people have chosen to downplay the influence of white supremacy in the USA in his memory.

 

[Swanjaxs]

Anyway lads, who would take the Parsnip to enlighten us all on this site now he's looking for a "forever home" ? Honest question...

He comes over as a bit of a narcissistic, egotistical flat track bullie to me, someone I'd love to educate on a regular basis

 

[Itchysphincter]

Anyway lads, who would take the Parsnip to enlighten us all on this site now he's looking for a "forever home" ? Honest question...

He comes over as a bit of a narcissistic, egotistical flat track bullie to me, someone I'd love to educate on a regular basis

… a bit …. ?!

Anyway, we’re a broad church here aren’t we? Very few arguments, gangs or cliques, I’m sure he’ll settle in well.

I’ve always been about inclusion rather than exclusion, must be the ant-racist, woke, liberal leftie in me?

 

[JustJack]

Considering the Emancipation Proclamation didn't arrive until the third year of the war and did very little for slave rights in what was the Union, we will have to agree to disagree.

Did bolster the army numbers though.

There’s no agree to disagree when you’re flat wrong.

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.

Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, The Cornerstone Address, March 21 1861.

Which parts are wrong? That the Proclamation came three years into the war? Or that it still allowed slavery to be legal in 4 of the Union States?

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

President Abraham Lincoln Inaugural Address, March 4 1861

 

[DJack]

Anyway lads, who would take the Parsnip to enlighten us all on this site now he's looking for a "forever home" ? Honest question...

He comes over as a bit of a narcissistic, egotistical flat track bullie to me, someone I'd love to educate on a regular basis

… a bit …. ?!

Anyway, we’re a broad church here aren’t we? Very few arguments, gangs or cliques, I’m sure he’ll settle in well.

I’ve always been about inclusion rather than exclusion, must be the ant-racist, woke, liberal leftie in me?

Ya big softie!

 

[Professor]

It's a revisionism. Whilst State rights and other factors were involved, the overwhelming reason was over slavery. The current historical view is this. From the reconstruction on, there has been a desire not to make the south look racist and willing to go to war over slavery. Modern historians are less complicit. It may be individuals (certainly Robert Lee) were not pro-slavery, but the war was very much that.

I'm not one for videos but this from the former Professor of Military History at West Point says it extremely well:

https://youtu.be/pcy7qV-BGF4

Please tell me you didn’t just cite a Prager U video…

If a highly conservative source says it’s all about slavery, it rather gives the apologists nowhere to go really. Can’t be accused of ‘wokery’. The original point was the flags of the confederacy are symbols of racism and white supremacy and as vile as the swastika.

The video is pretty unequivocal that the confederate leaders were traitors and racists.

 

[AceJack]

There’s no agree to disagree when you’re flat wrong.



Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens, The Cornerstone Address, March 21 1861.

Which parts are wrong? That the Proclamation came three years into the war? Or that it still allowed slavery to be legal in 4 of the Union States?

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

President Abraham Lincoln Inaugural Address, March 4 1861

Apols not disputing Lincoln or the Emancipation Proclamation, just the main cause of the civil war was slavery.

 

[AceJack]

Please tell me you didn’t just cite a Prager U video…

If a highly conservative source says it’s all about slavery, it rather gives the apologists nowhere to go really. Can’t be accused of ‘wokery’. The original point was the flags of the confederacy are symbols of racism and white supremacy and as vile as the swastika.

The video is pretty unequivocal that the confederate leaders were traitors and racists.

If I click on that link its going to destroy my YouTube recommendations :lol: