[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] Rogerguy123 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

It is quite obvious when you look from a object and non emotional standpoint that slavery was no where close to the trigger or even a main issue in the war.

That's not true at all. Slavery was a huge dividing issue between north and south.The only thing you're right about is that emancipation was not a stated goal of the North until the emancipation proclamation. But to say that slavery wasn't the trigger or main issue of the war misses the point of the war entirely.

The war more than anything was fought over the right of a state to secede. Secession set a very dangerous precedent that any time a state disagreed too strongly with the central government, it could just leave. By declaring war on the states that had seceded and quashing the rebellion, the government more or less guaranteed that secession wouldn't be a serious issue for a very, very long time, and the fact that secession hasn't been much of an issue since proves the validity of that theory.

You could argue that the southern states seceded to protect their rights as states to make their own laws and decide their own future, and you wouldn't be wrong. But the inescapable fact of the matter is this: the primary right they were protecting at that point was slavery. While it was unlikely that anything resembling emancipation was imminent, it still scared them that more and more states would enter the union without slavery and swing the balance of power. The slave states saw the writing on the wall that even if they had the votes to hold off emancipation for now, the shift in power was inevitable. Secession was a pre-emptive strike to stop that from happening, a guarantee that the slavery issue would be in their own hands.

I couldn't dream of another issue at that point in history that could have caused a state to secede. The ending of slavery was an existential threat to the southern way of life, to the point that they would go to war to defend it. No other issue came close. Claiming that slavery had nothing to do with the civil war is uninformed at best and revisionist at worst.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] nobodylistensanyway 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

The other thing to keep in mind is slavery was a big economic issue. My understanding, from listening to different Civil War historians, was that the south had a huge advantage due to slave labor. The south was incredibly prosperous. The politics of the time was to level the playing field and the best way to do that was to abolish slavery. The north had slavery as well but not to the extent the south did. This is my understanding anyway, based on histories that have been researched and updated in the last twenty years or so.

0
2

[–] Cappy 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

What is and is not conservative is very specific to the times that you are talking about, for instance a "conservative" today wants a fully operational standing military with a large budge but a "conservative" in the early 1900's probably didn't want to spend much money at all on a standing military. The difference being that the need for one was not so great back then but now it is and to dismantle the military now would be considered liberal and progressive because it is change.

The civil war, in my opinion, for I am not a student of the topic but merely a fan of history and political science, was an a boiling point battle between two forces that have been fighting since the ratification of the constitution and that continue to fight today under different names (Conservative/Liberal) I am of course talking about federalists and anti-federalists. Federalism is what makes our country run, back in civil war times not many people viewed the US as one single nation but rather a gathering of states (State can be synonymous with country) that were tied in a union through the Constitution.

As a matter of fact, it was not until the 14th amendment was ratified after the Civil War that the bill of rights applied to each state. So this battle between Federalists and anti-Federalists has been going on since the US was founded. The argument basically comes down to how much power should the central government have i.e. federal government. A modern example of this could be health care, can the Federal government say that someone in Montana, New Jersey, and North Carolina all need to pay a tax as a result of the Affordable Care Act? Or should it be up to the governments in each state to decide what its citizens do? That was the argument back then except it was about slavery, can the president say that slavery is outlawed in the USA or should that be up to the Governor in South Carolina to decide? It's an argument that has plagued us since the beginning and it will be with us for a very, very long time for the simple fact that people don't want to be told what to do. From a political science point of view there are valid arguments for both sides and it can be said that Lincoln is a tyrant for invading the south and killing Americans so that they could not follow their political ambitions that were ultimately constitutional. But what Lincoln did he did so that the Union as we know it today could be preserved and whether or not he was right or wrong he acted and we are a stronger country as a result.

To answer your question about would the USA be more progressive and liberal if the south had successfully seceded into their own country (CSA, Confederate States of America)? Yeah the USA would be more liberal but we'd be weaker, much weaker.

0
1

[–] Rogerguy123 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

It's really easy to look at the political state of our country and just proclaim that the liberals are in the north and the conservatives are in the south, and without the conservatives we'd be more liberal. While that's true, it ignores the entire counter history that would have played out over 150 years leading us to the present day, a history that easily could have had a half dozen or more periods of open conflict between north and south.

Things would have gotten very strange if the south had just seceded. For us northerners, we'd have a hostile state right on our borders, perhaps similar in hostility to what south korea faces from the north. The situation could be so volatile, even in times of relative peace, that I could even conceive of the union taking a much more militaristic, and perhaps even fascist turn, with an obsession with military power and brinksmanship a full century before the cold war.