You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Tearing Down Statues: How Everything Could and Is Going Wrong in the US Empire... And How To Fix It
The great majority of them don’t even realize that the civil war had absolutely nothing to do with slavery.
I swear - if you wouldn't write stupid things like that, you'd likely get more support for anarchism.
What historical record are you basing that statement on? Please tell me you didn't simply pick this up from that charlatan, Di Lorenzo.
the emancipation proclamation? - not even issued till AFTER the war have been raging for 6 months?
Lincoln stating if the union could come together without the freeing of any slaves whatsoever, he would do it?
.....Just sayin'
The timing of the Emancipation Proclamation is irrelevant. It had no impact on the causes of war, because - as you stated - it was issued well after secession and well after the war began.
I was simply highlighting one piece of information relevant to your post, regarding the civil war and slavery being the issue, or not .
This being done retrospectively, after the war had begun, and Lincolns own words vis a vis that slavery wasn't the issue - but keeping the union together was - is (without going deeper), a fair indicator that shows the slavery issue was nothing more than political football.
And not the cause of the war. ( as dollar vigilante's expressed )
While the slaver issue may have contributed to the reason for some states to secede - the actual war was about the secession , not the causes of secession
Sure. The direct cause of warfare for the North/Federal government was the firing on Fort Sumter. But the general reason that brought both sides into inevitable conflict was absolutely and almost entirely the issue of slavery. To deny that is to admit absolute ignorance of historical facts dating from the creation of the United States to seceding states in 1861.
Now we can get into semantics about "causes" or what the war "was about," but I have no desire to do that. The Southern/Confederate states got their panties into a bunch because they thought they were about to lose their "right" to treat people with darker skin as property. That's the historical record and there is overwhelming evidence to corroborate it.
So, when TDV says:
He's not only parroting the idiotic revisionism of charlatan "scholars," but he's demonstrating that he either 1) has no understanding of history himself or 2) has no problem with completely and intentionally misrepresenting it...lying in order to push his agenda.
My point is - you don't need to make a fool of yourself and disseminate factually incorrect information in order to condemn the coercive state and advance anarchist ideals. In fact, when you do that, you only serve to discredit yourself and your philosophy. And since I am an anarchist myself, what he and others say and do under the self-identity of "anarchists" casts a poor light on me and others like me who don't share their ignorant/incorrect views/understanding of historical facts/records.
A nice post, sir.
And yes , I agree with you (and historical fact) about the southern states stressing about their possible sudden reduction in very very cheap labor.
Saying 'it had absolutely nothing' may have been a little....absolute.
There is still value in the statement though - especially for people who know little except what the standard history(channel) says.
Portraying the war as a 'war about slavery' is incorrect, and portraying it as that - simplistically - is simply following the political narrative served up,
at the time.
(in my opinion)
Actually, I would say that is one of the less stupid things in his post. The north didn't give a shit about slavery...it was about money.
That on the other hand, is some stupid shit. I dropped out of school because I refuse to go into debt, and I loved it. I studied anthropology and computer science. My 'anti-capitalist' beliefs came much later from traveling to places that have been socially and ecologically ripped apart by attempting to follow our weird industrial mythic religion of PROGRESS . The water is definitely weird...I drink mountain water, I can't stand city water. But schools making people communist?? please!!! That's a load of crap.
The teachers are teaching the gospel of government or else they would not have that job or not even get a job or license that they get from....the state. They only get their license if they teach what the state tells them to teach. That the state is great and the state is good and that without it, all would be chaos and hell.
State schools don't make people into independent, critical thinking human beings who don't need a state. Because it would then make itself obsolete.
Edit (English is not my native language. I don't know if obsolete is the correct word, or that superfluous or dispensable is better, But I guess you know what I mean.)
The key is to not take any of the posted statements literally.
I think the key is to not post wholly inaccurate and really stupid statements.
I suggest you study the issue from direct sources and you will discover dv is right.
I have done that. The historical record is pretty clear. The direct sources refute the claim that slavery was not the defining issue. It's revisionists like Di Lorenzo who try to claim otherwise by ignoring the wealth of evidence.
You're a smart man, Dan. I'm sure you know how to find things like the Annals of Congress and their committee records, secession documents from the states, and transcripts of speeches from the time. And understanding the major divisive issues since the days of the revolution paints a pretty clear picture as well. Slavery was the impetus for the divisions and eventual secession, which led to the war.
Acknowledging and understanding this stuff doesn't make you less libertarian or not anarchist. It just makes your comprehension of the historical record accurate. Yes, the federal government is coercive and immoral. No, the Confederate governments were not trying to protect freedoms/rights. You don't have to be revisionist in order to demonize one or the other. They both suck/sucked.