Talk:Industrial Revolution

From 1d4chan

Civil War[edit]

I'm sure the President of the United States, who personally knew veterans of the war and may have been speaking to some at the time of the quote (certainly included people alive at the time) knew absolutely nothing about the causes of the war. All the pro-abolition confederate leaders fought purely to preserve slavery. The Confederate Constitution main differences being the "sovereign and independent" nature of the states and lowers the fed's power of tariffs for the hell of it too. Lincoln spent the majority of his first State of the Union talking about preserving the union and only a minority about slavery's role in that struggle for no reason whatsoever. Slavery is ultimately the straw the broke the camel's back, but to assert it was the only issue at play shows a lack of any serious research. --Agiletek (talk) 01:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Basically. In the context of the Civil War, slavery was just the means to an end - specifically the end of the Confederacy, once they broke the back of the system that sustained it. It's a common mistake to overemphasize the role of slavery in the Civil War, and this more 'sanitized' view of the conflict is certainly incongruous with how feet were dragged on granting and enforcing the rights of those freed slaves for quite some time after - something you can actually blame the US school system for and have it hold water. --LGX-000 (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Exactly my point. --Agiletek (talk) 04:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Slave based agriculture was ultimately the foundation of the Southern Economy before the Civil War, there were 3.9 million slaves in the CSA out of a total population of 9.5 million people (more than 40% of the population), most of which were employed in cotton cultivation. The elite of Southern Society was the plantation owner class, which poor white people in the south aspired to become part of and were often employed to be slave drivers, handlers and catchers. Southern Industrialization and urbanization was minimal in the south compared to the North which was home to 22 million people. The prospect of slavery ending would have meant that the society of the South would be disrupted. The CSA's constitution specifically forbade Abolitionism. Defense of Negro Slavery against abolition is mentioned repeatedly in Southern State's declaration of succession. This was not an issue which just became a hot topic out of the blue in 1860. Southerners had tried for decades to make new Slave States to match the number of Free States up until Bloody Kansas. There was The Dread Scott case and the Fugitive Slave Act, among other instances. Lincoln's Republican Party was a fairly loose coalition of people which included a variety local candidates which had various anti-slavery attitudes (this ranged from hard line Abolitionists through people who were inclined against slavery in general, Free Soilers which wanted the West to be settled by White People) because that what was needed to make an impact. Managing said coalition was a delicate game. But keeping the Union together was a good option for eventually dealing with slavery by containing with compensated emancipation. If Tarrifs had been a prime motivator the Civil War would have broken off with the Nullification Crisis. The notion that the Civil War was not mainly about Slavery emerged in the late 19th/early 20th century with lost cause confederate apologism.--A Walrus (talk) 10:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Thing is, Walrus, I don't think we're really even disagreeing so much as stating the same conclusion in different wordings. Slavery was certainly a main factor and neither of us are denying that, but it's coming across as inaccurate to portray it as solely a moral matter - and again, "solely" is the key word. --LGX-000 (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Not that I'm contradicting either of you, since it does appear to me you are both on the same argument conclusion (and one I broadly agree with), but I figured I'd just jot down these three links for anyone else coming to this argument late, or fresh from the "states' rights" viewpoint:
Another thing to note is that Lincoln feared losing reelection if the war wasn't finished before his next election and the war would end. If the north went to war to end slavery and not to preserve the union, why would people growing tired of the war ever be a concern? --Agiletek (talk) 20:05, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
For the same reasons Churchill was concerned about the length of WWII, or more recently, the Bush and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hell, Vietnam wasn't an issue until agitators _made_ it one, and you can read up on exactly how fast the US public went from barely supporting the war to outright wanting to walk away from it. Nixon knew it, and wanted the US out if only to preserve what was left of his party's public good will. Johnson dropped out of the race after he got rope-a-doped by McCarthy (no, not THAT McCarthy) in New Hampshire when McCarthy ran on an anti-war platform. While the culture and reasons may change, the peoples' reaction tends to stay the same. Great as long as you're winning, but stall that streak and people tire of wars surprisingly quickly, from both the costs in lives and money, and unhappy people will turn on you in the polls (see Germany in the late portions of the war; the citizens weren't happy, but they kept fighting because the feared what the Soviets were bringing). It may be simplistic so say this, but wars get people killed, and leave orphans and widows, and those people grow up, remembering who got their loved ones killed. Wars are great for short-term jingoism, but tend to leave a bad legacy that people remember at the poll booth. -174.4.170.101 10:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I did read the talk page. LGX-000 was in agreement it's not the only factor, and seemed to conclude Walrus was merely misunderstanding sole!=most important. --Agiletek (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)