School erases ''Mother's Day'' in favour of non-binary ''Acknowledgement Day''

[95thrifleman]

They should not have been allowed to be put up in the first for the leaders of CSA, I'm OK with maskers and memorials for the poor soldiers they carried into their vial cause .



OH and would describe it, please not the boring false tariff argument.

Any study of the US civil war shows it was NOT about slavery, rather economic and political inbalance between north and south. Lincoln himself stated that if he could of won without freeing the slaves he would of done so. Slavery became an issue later, mostly because it was a way to further divide north and south and get the people in the north to support the war.

[Gaidin]

Any study of the US civil war shows it was NOT about slavery, rather economic and political inbalance between north and south. Lincoln himself stated that if he could of won without freeing the slaves he would of done so. Slavery became an issue later, mostly because it was a way to further divide north and south and get the people in the north to support the war.

Half the documentation from the south seceding made it about slavery and vast amounts of the southern economy depended on slavery. And it all started when Lincoln got voted into office. And the first shots were fired by the South at Fort Sumter.

If the south couldn't get out of the slavery-based economy. Then....well... What were they going to fight for?

[Heathen Hammer]

Half the documentation from the south seceding made it about slavery and vast amounts of the southern economy depended on slavery. And it all started when Lincoln got voted into office. And the first shots were fired by the South at Fort Sumter.

If the south couldn't get out of the slavery-based economy. Then....well... What were they going to fight for?

I recall this argument being demolished by... mr. Lincoln himself and his own words about slavery, when he said that he'd rather keep slavery then let South secede.

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

Lincoln himself stated that if he could of won without freeing the slaves he would of done so.

proof?

[The spartan]

Any study of the US civil war shows it was NOT about slavery, rather economic and political inbalance between north and south. Lincoln himself stated that if he could of won without freeing the slaves he would of done so. Slavery became an issue later, mostly because it was a way to further divide north and south and get the people in the north to support the war.

This revisionism myth seriously needs to die. Notice you won't actually find historians who will say the American Civil War was not primarily about slavery, only amateurs who bought into the "Lost Cause" myths. Even Prager-ing-U got a Military History professor to lay this out as simply as possible:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Don't encourage HH in his ideas that he has control of the historic timeline and can change events as he sees fit for his arguments.

[Gaidin]

I recall this argument being demolished by... mr. Lincoln himself and his own words about slavery, when he said that he'd rather keep slavery then let South secede.

I don't care about Lincoln's own words. I care about the South's actions. We know what speaks louder.

[Sir Adrian]

The only revisionist myth that needs to die is that slavery was exclusively white on black and that disagreements between the northern and southern states only appeared because of slavery. In actual fact divisions between north and south existed since the time of the first continental congress over tariffs, farmer's rights and a slew of other issue which resulted from the extremely uneven econimic aspect of the country. Ffs both Adams and Jefferson had to do an acrobatics act to avoid the specter of civil war and slavery was still legal in the north at that time.

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

The war was about slavery as the Clay Compromise in 1850 prevented in the last second a earlier secession, because it allowed single states to make a decision about the introduction of slavery (California, New Mexico territory).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compromise_of_1850

[The spartan]

The only revisionist myth that needs to die is

I didn't really read past this because you are basically admitting to be dishonest here. No, it isn't the only revisionist myth that needs to die. If you don't care about being accurate to history, don't evoke it. But if you spout historical revisionism, expect to be challenged by people who actually know and care. The war was primarily about Slavery. History doesn't need your consent on that. The only thing you get to decide is if you personally accept or deny a well studied historical event.

[Sir Adrian]

Thank you for wording my position in regards to your post with such eloquence.

If you really cared you would not be marching with your head held high down the path towards a second civil war.

[The spartan]

Thank you for wording my position in regards to your post with such eloquence.

The rest of your post doesn't really do it much of a service as it is just a strawman. No one said Slavery was the only issue. No one said the North and South didn't have any issues outside of slavery. What was being discussed was the primary cause of the American Civil War being slavery, which it was.

If you really cared you would not be marching with your head held high down the path towards a second civil war.

I don't even know what this means. Do you think I disapprove of the American Civil War happening? Because I feel like it was pretty justified, the South didn't leave much of a choice. And what am I "marching" in regards to a second Civil War? I don't want it to happen, I just think that some level of violent conflict is inevitable.

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

The rest of your post doesn't really do it much of a service as it is just a strawman. No one said Slavery was the only issue. No one said the North and South didn't have any issues outside of slavery. What was being discussed was the primary cause of the American Civil War being slavery, which it was.


I don't even know what this means. Do you think I disapprove of the American Civil War happening? Because I feel like it was pretty justified, the South didn't leave much of a choice. And what am I "marching" in regards to a second Civil War? I don't want it to happen, I just think that some level of violent conflict is inevitable.

Slavery and economic potential were pretty much joined at the hip at that time for the south to be fair. As I sunderstand it.

[95thrifleman]

Slavery and economic potential were pretty much joined at the hip at that time for the south to be fair. As I sunderstand it.

This is true, one of the reasons for the south being poorer as slavery is a bad system for an economy. However the south didn't start the civil war because the federal government was planning any abolitionist legislation.

[Spitfire -WONDERBOLT!]

unless you provide a soure for lincon was pro slavery, I trust little what you say on this topic, that claim is so outlandish it impacts your veracity.

[The spartan]

This is true, one of the reasons for the south being poorer as slavery is a bad system for an economy. However the south didn't start the civil war because the federal government was planning any abolitionist legislation.

Not directly based on any legislation no, but the South was convinced the election of Lincoln would inevitably lead to abolition. To quote Wikipedia here:

The causes of secession were complex and have been controversial since the war began, but most academic scholars identify slavery as a central cause of the war. James C. Bradford wrote that the issue has been further complicated by historical revisionists, who have tried to offer a variety of reasons for the war. Slavery was the central source of escalating political tension in the 1850s. The Republican Party was determined to prevent any spread of slavery, and many Southern leaders had threatened secession if the Republican candidate, Lincoln, won the 1860 election. After Lincoln won, many Southern leaders felt that disunion was their only option, fearing that the loss of representation would hamper their ability to promote pro-slavery acts and policies

The South didn't think slavery would last under Lincoln, who could not even campaign in the South because of how dangerously disliked he was, and so secession seemed the only way to protect their slave interests. Don't be mistaken, it was primarily because of the issue of slavery that the South left the Union.

[95thrifleman]

unless you provide a soure for lincon was pro slavery, I trust little what you say on this topic, that claim is so outlandish it impacts your veracity.

Firstly I never stated Lincoln was "pro-slavery", however Lincoln was more interested in the union than anything else. Despite being an abolitionist and favouring returning slaves to Africa, Lincoln supported a state's right to slavery. I shall provide some quotes from Lincoln for you.

In a letter to Joshua Speed, 1855

"You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of it... I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the constitution, in regard to your slaves."

In letter published in 1862, stating Lincoln's view on the union and slvery

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.2

Tellingly, Lincoln's famous emancipation proclomation only freed slaves in the Confederacy, no slave in the union was freed under that decree. The fact is, the majority of the north didn't give a damn about slavery and where, in fact, racist against non-whites as where the majority of white people of the time in any white nation.

To say the US civil war was about slavery is as accurate as saying the English civil war was about religion or WW2 was about anti-semetism. Slavery was a factor, it tied into the economic and social issues of the time but slavery was not the factor that the war revolved around, nor the reason it started or the reason it ended.

The US civil war resulted in ending slavery but the same can be said of the Napoleonic wars and slavery in the UK and nobody claims that the wars against Napoleon where waged to free British slaves, yet that conflict created the political enviroment Wilberforce required to push through his abolitionist policies.

It's historical revisionism to try and create this back v white narrative of the US civil war.

[The spartan]

I preemptively apologize for stepping in here, but I am quite a fan of US Civil War history and have a lot to say about it.

Firstly I never stated Lincoln was "pro-slavery", however Lincoln was more interested in the union than anything else. Despite being an abolitionist and favouring returning slaves to Africa, Lincoln supported a state's right to slavery. I shall provide some quotes from Lincoln for you.

I don't think I have ever read anything about Lincoln wanting to return slaves to Africa, though that was an entertained idea during his time, but Lincoln did have a strong desire to preserve Union. As is mentioned in the Prager U video I linked earlier, Lincoln did not think the Union could be maintained with pro-slavery/anti-slavery sentiment coexisting. From what I have read about Lincoln, he wanted to institute policies that would do away with slavery in a long term sense as to not provoke a war with the South. This obviously did not play out after the South seceded from the Union. As the war went on, again as was referenced by the professor from West Point featured in the Prager U video, Lincoln decided it was the right time to make a move to do away with slavery once and for all in the US.

Tellingly, Lincoln's famous emancipation proclomation only freed slaves in the Confederacy, no slave in the union was freed under that decree. The fact is, the majority of the north didn't give a damn about slavery and where, in fact, racist against non-whites as where the majority of white people of the time in any white nation.

Indeed, the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the Confederacy and do you know why? It was to not upset/drive away the border state of Kentucky who was a slavery-friendly state that stayed loyal to the Union while making the war a clear issue of Slavery. The North certainly did give a damn about slavery, if it didn't there wouldn't have been previous issues of Free Soilers vs Slavery territories and Bleeding Kansas.

To say the US civil war was about slavery is as accurate as saying the English civil war was about religion or WW2 was about anti-semetism. Slavery was a factor, it tied into the economic and social issues of the time but slavery was not the factor that the war revolved around, nor the reason it started or the reason it ended.

No, it's not. As has been mentioned multiple times (I don't know if you are purposefully ignoring it at this point), the primary reason for the Civil War was the institution of Slavery. It wasn't secondary to other issues it was the central issue.

The US civil war resulted in ending slavery but the same can be said of the Napoleonic wars and slavery in the UK and nobody claims that the wars against Napoleon where waged to free British slaves, yet that conflict created the political environment Wilberforce required to push through his abolitionist policies.

I am not as near as familiar with slavery in the UK, but yes, Slavery was the primary cause and an addressed issue by the end of the war. It is starting to feel like you are purposefully engaging in revisionism, or perhaps you just bought the Lost Cause narrative.

It's historical revisionism to try and create this back v white narrative of the US civil war.

It's really, really not. Try doing some research on the topic. Perhaps listen to some historians, such as the professor showcased in that Prager U video.

[Abdülmecid I]

The discussion has moved from the celebration of Mother's Day in an Australian School to the causes and pretexts of the American Civil War. The thread has obviously run its course, so it's now permanently closed. If wish to debate about the American Civil War, you are welcome to open a new thread in Vestigia Vetustatis, the site's forum specifically dedicated to historical matters.