Left Wing Activist NOMINEE for Supreme Court

[ImJustBayuum]

bdbdbd said:

ImJustBayuum said:

TheRealMafoo said:

ImJustBayuum said:
i think they are arguing about the predominant/root cause of the civil war, which was indeed slavery. But there were different reasons/motives for either upholding/abolishing slavery, predominantly economic (cotton industry, economic interests) & political (state rights, proper govt representation etc)...there were also social reasons but these were in the minority.

The difference between what he is saying, and what I am saying, is this:

I think if at that time, they had picked something as sweeping as abolishing slavery, we would have the same result. The states that seceded were fed up with federal government take over of there rights.

ManusJustus is saying that no other issue would have caused this. That the war was over slavery alone. 

I think in the next 50 years, the US might prove him wrong, as I think it will happen again, and it will have nothing to do with Slavery

No, he said that slavery was the main cause of this specific war. If healthcare instead of slavery was the issue, than healthcare is the main cause of the civil war. And there are motives/reasons for supporting/not supporting whatever the major issue are (healthcare or slavery), these reasons than subsequently drove america to civil war. What you are assuming however is, no matter what the issue is, these reasons (eg state rights) will remain the same or remain the most significant drive behind a civil war.

 

What Mafoo is saying is, that in order to have people's support to something like war, you need to give them a "larger than life" reason for the war. In general, there are only two reasons behind any war:

1. Money

2. Power

 

In my earlier post, i wrote that some things that resulted into civil war culminated in slavery.

Slaves were cheap workforce in the south, which is why the economics of the south relied on the slaves.

South wanted to sell the cotton they produced to Europe, but north insisted, that the cotton should be refined first at the factories of the north.

South wanted all the states being autonomic, while the north wanted an union with centered government.

 

If we look the situation preceding the the civil war, it's really a no brainer to see that the south was getting the short end of the stick. Basically they were put into the same situation as the developing countries are today - they were just producing low-margin products for the rich.

Here's the catch. With the union politics (that was supporting north due to them being bigger) that basically forced south to sell the cotton to north, instead of Europe, south indeed needed the slavework. But if the states had become independent and south could have sold their cotton to anybody for the same price, the slavery would've been pretty obsolete. But, the cheap cotton of the south was too important for the industry of the north to let go.

 

Now, IF the south had been bigger than the north, south had not wanted to leave the union, because they had been in charge and the union would drive their interest.

 

Gettting back to the excuse - which one do you think is the better one:

These are evil people and have slaves

or

These fucks don't do as we tell them to

Slavery was the last straw, right. So slavery burst the bubble of accumulated problems, that drove america to civil war. So technically speaking, slavery was the cause of this specific civil war. But this is from a face-value perspective, if you look at a it holistically, than of course youre going to find deeper reasons/motives than what is presented at face value (slavery). I guess it all depends on how you view the issue.