Blogcritics Comments on The Civil War SHOULD have been about slavery

Comment by Clavos on The Civil War SHOULD have been about slavery

Sat, 25 Nov 2006 15:38:58 EST

when I used to go up the bush here, every second road sign had been blasted. You mean those aren't targets??? Only every second sign? What's the problem--poor marksmanship?

Comment by STM on The Civil War SHOULD have been about slavery

Sat, 25 Nov 2006 09:07:30 EST

"In these parts, an Outdoor Recreation Party would certainly involve lots of firearms, so I could go for that." LOL ... you could offer to put more money aside for extra road signs. I assume it's the same in America - when I used to go up the bush here, every second road sign had been blasted.

Comment by troll on The Civil War SHOULD have been about slavery

Sat, 25 Nov 2006 08:27:57 EST

(Al - you're probably right...my experience was likely atypical occurring as it did during the centennial in a DC suburb - the heart of elitist darkness)

Comment by Al Barger on The Civil War SHOULD have been about slavery

Fri, 24 Nov 2006 14:35:45 EST

Donnie, you reply with a perfectly reasonable criticism of the southern government- that's not really responsive to my point. But this is a good reminder that I might clarify my outlook on the Confederacy. In short, the Confederacy pretty much sucked as a form of government. Even if, like Lincoln, you could overlook that little slavery thing, the Confederacy was no libertarian Garden of Eden- which still does not even begin to justify the war of Northern aggression. It's a bit like some of my more dysfunctional cracker neighbors. OK, so Mom's no good, neglecting and abusing the kids. But that wouldn't justify much less sanctify Dad (who's been slapping the kids around himself) if he up and killed Mom rather than let her leave him. Something like that. Troll, this is one of the least worthy comments I've seen from you, "the 'simple' slavery explanation already had been shelved when I studied the war in public school." For starters, no it hasn't been shelved. That's still just exactly what children are being indoctrinated with- quite successfully, judging by all the folks here spouting back their rote lesson perfectly. Sometimes when some student actually takes it on themselves to read the timeline and ask the obvious questions, some of the sharper paid government hacks/history teachers will come up with some acknowledgement that it was maybe a little more complicated than just saying "Lincoln freed the slaves." They're just spinning sophistic excuses to try to justify sticking with a basic point that's just not credible. But nonetheless, that's still basically the answer. Well, no it was not, historically. Certainly there are complications, multiple and different motivations for different players at the time. But getting into the war does not seem, historically, to have had much to do with slavery. If Lincoln issued an Emancipation Proclamation to free the slaves, and THEN the southern states seceded, it would have been about slavery. Things just didn't actually happen that way. STM- In these parts, an Outdoor Recreation Party would certainly involve lots of firearms, so I could go for that.

Comment by Donnie Marler on The Civil War SHOULD have been about slavery

Fri, 24 Nov 2006 10:07:48 EST

I would argue the 'huge moral issue' for Lincoln was simply the preservation of the Union by any means necessary. In that, he succeeded. It's quite easy to sit at our keyboards and say what he should have, or could have done, but he had to make the decisions, we didn't. I've always argued the South was doomed from the outset and only hung on as long as they did due to the magnificence of their battlefield commanders such as Lee and Jackson. Politically, the South was inept and poorly led. The agricultural based South had no chance to defeat the heavily industrialized North. The real tragedy following the Civil War was the assasination of Lincoln and the rise to power of a weak man at a time when our land could least afford to be led by such a person. I believe Lincoln could have brought America together and avoided many of the problems that plagued the South for years due to poor policy and vengeful feelings in Washington, D.C.

Comment by S.T.M on The Civil War SHOULD have been about slavery

Fri, 24 Nov 2006 09:57:38 EST

Ah, now I understand where you're coming from Al ... close to being an anarchist! Good stuff. My personal favourite in Australia was the call for a flat tax a few years back. Always makes for more colourful elections. A mate of mine ran for the New South Wales Upper House in the State election as a member of the Outdoor Recreation Party ... and won a seat! He got paid for outdoor recreation ... the platform of the party. He had to study beaches and barbecue facilities, fishing spots and campgrounds and things like that. When people talk about politicians having one long holiday, in his case they were right. People from all over the world pay big bucks to go to the places he had to "study". Should be more of it. You didn't do too badly in the vote either, considering. You should have another lash at it. Try standing as an independent in a state election. Or start up the Kentucky Branch of the Outdoor Recreation Party. I bet you'd quadruple your vote.

Comment by troll on The Civil War SHOULD have been about slavery

Fri, 24 Nov 2006 09:13:22 EST

Al - where's the rest of this article...the part with content - ? did the Editor get a hold of it and slice and dice your ideas leaving only this attack on Strawman - ? the 'simple' slavery explanation already had been shelved when I studied the war in public school decades ago so I think you're a little behind the curve

Comment by Al Barger on The Civil War SHOULD have been about slavery

Fri, 24 Nov 2006 03:27:31 EST

STM- I'm pleased to offer my BASIC DEFINITION OF A LIBERTARIAN. Broadly, I'd say that "libertarian" would be the modern term for what are sometimes known as "classical liberal" political principles favoring open societies and bare minimal government. I ran for the US Senate in 2004 largely because that seemed healthier than just sitting here cussing the Congress out on TV. Damn them! It was my best way to get my 2 cents in.

Comment by Al Barger on The Civil War SHOULD have been about slavery

Fri, 24 Nov 2006 03:16:24 EST

STM- Of course, everybody knows that the Civil War was fought over slavery. Also, everything you know is wrong, or so it seems from the basic factual timeline. The actual basic historical timeline simply does not fit the victor's historical narrative. Then again, I'm from slow-witted Kentuckian stock, so maybe I'm missing the link- or perhaps I AM the missing link. How does your story fit within the factual timeline of 1)the Greely letter, then 2)North starts the war, then 3)years later Lincoln comes up with the (half-assed) Emancipation Proclamation? Considering specifically the Greely letter, it does not make sense that the South seceded because of slavery- Lincoln very publicly said that he would not push the issue if that's what it took to "save the union." The basic US historical narrative that we are programmed with in the government schools leans very heavily on this story of Lincoln freeing the slaves and fighting a Civil War over them. This idea which does not seem to be congruent with the basic known historical facts and timeline is an important myth used in a hundred different ways to give justification to the federal government morally for their continued usurpations of power from the states and the individual citizens. That makes the point kind of important.

Comment by STM on The Civil War SHOULD have been about slavery

Fri, 24 Nov 2006 03:08:46 EST

BTW, Al, what's a Libertarian?? Pardon my Australian ignorance, but I'm genuinely interested in what that's about and why you decided to run as a candidate. Please explain, old boy

Comment by STM on The Civil War SHOULD have been about slavery

Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:45:25 EST

You guys are losing the plot. The American Civil War WAS about slavery. Geez, even I know that and I live on the other side of the Pacific. The south seceded from the Union because it wanted to keep slavery, and the North went to war to keep the union intact - and at the same time, wanted a BAN on slavery - in line with other civilised nations that had already done so, in some cases nearly 60 years earlier. Here endeth the argument, Al ... anything else, as others have pointed out, is pure semantics. Tragically, blacks had to wait another century before they REALLY got a break, but the Civil War at least sowed the seed for change. And Dawn, cut the crap about your allies getting their asses kicked ... they just had a little run of bad luck.

Comment by Al Barger on The Civil War SHOULD have been about slavery

Fri, 24 Nov 2006 01:17:13 EST

Philip, you don't understand about Lincoln. See, ending slavery was the REAL reason that Lincoln started the Civil War, only he didn't let on until halfway into it. Strategery, as George Bush would say.

Comment by Philip on The Civil War SHOULD have been about slavery

Thu, 23 Nov 2006 19:15:42 EST

Yes, what you say is correct, but it is so much nicer if we can demonize the South. It seems that if Lincoln really was concerned about the Black slaves in the US, he would have freed all the slaves, not just the ones in the South. It would have been nice if he would have bothered to free the ones in Washington DC when he "freed" the slaves in the South. Wouldn't have hurt to have freed them at the start of the war instead of the middle. Oh well, one of the spoils of war that the victor is entitled to is the right to write the history books.

Comment by Al Barger on The Civil War SHOULD have been about slavery

Tue, 2 Sep 2003 17:46:10 EDT

Roosevelt and the United States wanted to remain neutral during World War II ...Does that mean that the US is an anti-Semetic union that promotes the destruction and murder of an entire race/religion of people? We weren't racing in to untangle WWII right away, but we also were not killing Jews ourselves. By contrast, some of the Union states absolutely had slavery all through the war, and best I can tell black folk weren't treated much better even where they weren't official, legal slaves. I would also take exception to your statement that the most moral side won. the Civil War was about many things, most important of which was the ideology of slavery. Again, Dawn, the whole point of this post is perspective. To YOU, a nice liberal American in 2003, obviously the war between the states was about slavery. My contention is that to those people at the time who actually lived through it, slavery does not appear to have been the main motivating issue to most of them. We can analyze history, but we certainly can not re-write it. We can't change what were the actual events, but history books can and do re-write history. It seems almost beyond argument that the victorious Union supporters teaching in government schools have taught the victor's version of the story. To a significant extent, authors of our history books have re-written history for many years, spinning the bejesus out of it. I'm just looking for the understanding that most closely relates to what actually happened, rather than what I would have like to have happened or what SHOULD have happened.

Comment by Dawn on The Civil War SHOULD have been about slavery

Tue, 2 Sep 2003 15:52:51 EDT

Murphy, I thought I stated my case pretty clearly with this statement: "Presidents have horrible decisions to make with many factors involved, some of which are the continuity of its very existence. Just because Lincoln was reluctant to start a civil war, doesn't mean in his heart he felt slavery was an acceptable burden to bear." His reluctance was to start a war that would tear the union apart, which had the South won, would have been the eventual conclusion, but he chose the more difficult decision and that was to force them to stay as one by fighting - so indeed the decision to fight was about the "whole" entity of the United States, but the impetus for the war was a division of ideologies - and that Lincoln did not ignore. Again, his actions are a much bigger indicator of his intentions than a President's private misgivings. I find it ridiculous to put him the same category as the racist bent of those who led the South at that time (or even some of our modern leaders. We can analyze history, but we certainly can not re-write it.

Comment by Murphy Horner on The Civil War SHOULD have been about slavery

Tue, 2 Sep 2003 15:24:11 EDT

Well yes, Dawn, Lincoln should be judged on his deeds not on his misgiving. But that does not mean that his misgivings should be erased. He eventually _did_ put out the Emancipation Proclamation. And he deserves respect for that. But I think Al is right to point out the journey of getting there. We forget that the UNITED states as one entity, one country, was a far from forgone conclusion at it's inception and even 100 years later. It was a highly experimental thing, and not everyone, even those very involved in the government structure of it, believed that it would really work. It was about slavery AND it was about state's rights. In the beginning, before the secession, Lincoln wasn't as concerned with the slavery question as he was with the job of holding the federal government together. For the seceding states, the idea of states rights was an ongoing issue that had been debated since the formation of the USA. Honestly, we still debate it today. It was and is a real issue, not merely an 1860s excuse to continue slavery. But it was ALSO a way for certain states to uphold the very wrong institution of slavery. Oversimplifying it is not helpful. It blinds people to the reasons and motivations of the players then and now.

Comment by Kelli on The Civil War SHOULD have been about slavery

Tue, 2 Sep 2003 13:26:42 EDT

Go Dawn! As for you Al, why do you feel oddly compelled to keep posting variations on this quarter-baked idea of yours? You really should seek help. Here's my pat response to all the brainwashed young students who ever said to me that the Civil War (and Al, don't you mean "the War between the States"--that's the preferred neo-Confederate lingo) was about states' rights, not slavery: Yeah, states' rights to HAVE slavery. In other words, this is a semantic distinction, barely worthy of discussion.

Comment by Dawn on The Civil War SHOULD have been about slavery

Tue, 2 Sep 2003 11:53:45 EDT

Make that quote from the Gettysburg Address.

Comment by Dawn on The Civil War SHOULD have been about slavery

Tue, 2 Sep 2003 11:48:53 EDT

Right Al, and Roosevelt and the United States wanted to remain neutral during World War II and did so for quite some time as our allies were getting their asses kicked. Does that mean that the US is an anti-Semetic union that promotes the destruction and murder of an entire race/religion of people? No. It means that Presidents have horrible decisions to make with many factors involved, some of which are the continuity of its very existence. Just because Lincoln was reluctant to start a civil war, doesn't mean in his heart he felt slavery was an acceptable burden to bear. The actions are what need to be remembered. There was war, both sides fought and the most moral side one: the North. And while it took a good 100 years or so for Lincoln's EP to actually come to fruition, his words are still true: "Our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal." Lincoln should be judged on his deeds, not his misgivings. And the Civil War was about many things, most important of which was the ideology of slavery.