The terrible thing that's happened in america

[Ulysses]

Of course it doesn't justify racism, and I have absolutely no idea why you think I intended it to do so. It does suggest the simplistic idea that the North fought the war to abolish slavery is historically wrong. Do you think we should accept distorting history just to avoid comforting racists?

 

I have not disputed that the South seceded and fought largely to keep slavery.

 

If it doesn't justify racism, then don't comfort the racists.

 

The war would not have happened without slavery, therefore the Union's motives in fighting the war are irrelevant.  If the Union had not prosecuted the war, the South would have built a society based on slavery and racism.  The purpose of whataboutery in relation to the Civil War is so that racists can fabricate reasons why the Union can be seen as wrong and the South can be seen as right.  If you play to that agenda, you are comforting the racists.  That's not a good idea, so don't do it.

 

The Union fought and won.  The Union was right, and the secessionists were wrong.  That was the case then, and it remains the case today.

[Francis Albert]

If it doesn't justify racism, then don't comfort the racists.

 

The war would not have happened without slavery, therefore the Union's motives in fighting the war are irrelevant.  If the Union had not prosecuted the war, the South would have built a society based on slavery and racism.  The purpose of whataboutery in relation to the Civil War is so that racists can fabricate reasons why the Union can be seen as wrong and the South can be seen as right.  If you play to that agenda, you are comforting the racists.  That's not a good idea, so don't do it.

 

The Union fought and won.  The Union was right, and the secessionists were wrong.  That was the case then, and it remains the case today.

Your first sentence is extraordinary. So you really do think we should distort history to avoid comforting racists? I have not of course remotely suggested that the Union was wrong and the South right. The Union's motives may be irrelevant in any right vs wrong discussion but that doesn't mean we should accept distortions about the Union's motives just to avoid giving comfort to racists. Racists have much more to gain by denying history and distorting it than anti-racists. So to accept distortions of history just to avoid comforting racists is a pretty dangerous precedent to grant them.

[Sydney]

But remind me Cade, why are the 'antifascists' of today and Corbynistas too anti the only tiny glorious free pro LGBT in the mid east, the land where most Jews gather together, many of whom having fled actual Nazis?

 

Maybe you should look it up?  Or do you already know and you find the truth uncomfortable? 

 

Are you finding contradictions where none exist?  Think about it.

 

Where everyone else sees clear blue skies, you see clouds and night and fog

[Sidelight]

The KKK and white supremacist groups in the USA love Trump and what he's doing.  When you say to move on, are you suggesting that people turn a blind eye to it? 

 

And if I looked beyond "the nonsense" as you suggest, what would I see?

WW3. Damascus first. Then the dominoes fall.

[Maple Leaf]

WW3. Damascus first. Then the dominoes fall.

In your view, are recent events the start of a period of Tribulation?

[Adam Murray]

More statues coming down.

 

It seems rather that than council votes and democratic process, these statues are being removed by the force of mob rule, with public safety being cited.

 

Who was it at the start of the thread that said that it was not all statues being removed, but only a few? It definitely seems that is no longer the case, others will be shamed (forced) into removing any that they are in charge off.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/21/us/texas-austin-confederate-statues.html

[John Findlay]

Land of the Free. Not so free afterall.

[Sharpie]

Watched the news this morning, big resurgance of Stalin, many new statues to be raised in his honour, busquers who Vegas like with Elvis dress up to look like Stalin and making good money doing it.  Are they really going to honour such a despot, or is it a give the middle finger to America.

[Cade]

More statues are being removed BECAUSE OF the violent protests by the hard right over the removal of one of them.

 

Other towns and institutions do not want hordes of Nazis goose-stepping all over the place and using the statues as a rallying beacon.

 

So down they come.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Watched the news this morning, big resurgance of Stalin, many new statues to be raised in his honour, busquers who Vegas like with Elvis dress up to look like Stalin and making good money doing it.  Are they really going to honour such a despot, or is it a give the middle finger to America.

 

Probably the latter Bob.

[maroonlegions]

GIRUY All you neo nazis, fascists , racists and apologists, well done the mother of Heather Heyer. 

 

 

 

 Mother of woman killed by neo-Nazi refuses to talk to Trump

The mother of Heather Heyer - the woman killed after a white supremacist drove in to a crowd of anti-fascist protesters - has said she now refuses to talk to Donald?

INDEPENDENT.CO.UK

 

 

[Ulysses]

Your first sentence is extraordinary. So you really do think we should distort history to avoid comforting racists? I have not of course remotely suggested that the Union was wrong and the South right. The Union's motives may be irrelevant in any right vs wrong discussion but that doesn't mean we should accept distortions about the Union's motives just to avoid giving comfort to racists. Racists have much more to gain by denying history and distorting it than anti-racists. So to accept distortions of history just to avoid comforting racists is a pretty dangerous precedent to grant them.

 

You need to learn to read - not just my posts, but your own.  You're the one in this conversation who is trying to support an agenda to misrepresent and distort history, not me.  Up to now I've given you the benefit of the doubt, but to be honest the more I read of you tying yourself into knots to find excuses to cheerlead for this nasty brand of neo-conservatism, the more I wonder about you.

 

Cop yourself on, for crying out loud.

[Ulysses]

More statues coming down.

 

 

It's all getting a bit "bandwagonish", IMO.

 

I don't really see much point in the statues being removed, to be completely honest, but I get the point about bodies - including public bodies - having the right to decide whether these statues should or shouldn't sit on their land.  However at this stage this has all the appearance of mob rule, or of municipal authorities falling over themselves to get the job done before the mob arrives.

[Francis Albert]

You need to learn to read - not just my posts, but your own.  You're the one in this conversation who is trying to support an agenda to misrepresent and distort history, not me.  Up to now I've given you the benefit of the doubt, but to be honest the more I read of you tying yourself into knots to find excuses to cheerlead for this nasty brand of neo-conservatism, the more I wonder about you.

 

Cop yourself on, for crying out loud.

I quoted Lincoln to illustrate that the war was not for the North primarily a "war against slavery" (I accepted that it was for the South primarily a war in defence of slavery). . As usual rather than addressing what I say you simply abuse. I would love to hear how you think I am distorting history. Or rather "supporting an agenda to misrepresent and distort history". I'd love you to demonstrate how I "find excuses to cheerlead for this nasty brand of neo-conservatism".

 

I'd love to hear why you think accepting distortion of history is acceptable (indeed mandatory) because to do otherwise would give comfort to racists.

 

And I assume you mean neo-fascism or racism rather than "neo-conservatism". Is conservatism now an evil equivalent to fascism and racism? (Speaking as a non-conservative, at least in the political big C sense).

[niblick1874]

Trump voters/supporters=alt-right=white supremacist=Nazis. Antifa? Nothing but Americas defending themselves. This is what the MSM are pushing.

 

Now you have nut bars trying to blow up the statues FFS. 

[Ulysses]

I quoted Lincoln to illustrate that the war was not for the North primarily a "war against slavery" (I accepted that it was for the South primarily a war in defence of slavery). . As usual rather than addressing what I say you simply abuse. I would love to hear how you think I am distorting history. Or rather "supporting an agenda to misrepresent and distort history". I'd love you to demonstrate how I "find excuses to cheerlead for this nasty brand of neo-conservatism".

 

I'd love to hear why you think accepting distortion of history is acceptable (indeed mandatory) because to do otherwise would give comfort to racists.

 

And I assume you mean neo-fascism or racism rather than "neo-conservatism". Is conservatism now an evil equivalent to fascism and racism? (Speaking as a non-conservative, at least in the political big C sense).

 

If you'd love to hear why I think whatever it was you said you think that I think, it's easy: Just make something up and tell it to yourself, because your so-called view of my so-called position is entirely made up by you.  My position on the removal or non-removal of statues is as stated above in my reply to Adam Murray's post; any further interpretation of my view is over-analysis.  My position on history is that it can only be explored fully; incomplete analysis of history is bound to be at best inaccurate, at worst terribly biased.  I haven't said that any history should be ignored or downplayed.  What I have said is:

 

- all sorts of things happened in the lead up to the Civil War, but without slavery it is difficult if not impossible to imagine that war happening;

- there is an agenda to whitewash slavery out of the story of the American Civil War;

- that agenda is designed to make the Union look like "bad guys" and the secessionists look like "good guys";

- that agenda is either driven or enthusiastically supported by racists, white supremacists, and neo-fascists;

- that agenda proposes an analysis of the Civil War that is not supported by the historical realities;

- giving credence to this view means giving comfort to the racists, white supremacists, and neo-fascists;

- therefore decent and well-meaning people should not give credence to this view.

 

If you want to disagree with any of the above, by all means disagree with it.  I've even laid it out in a manner that lends itself to deconstruction.

 

I can't make up my mind if you are a conservative old geezer, a curmudgeonly contrarian with a decent streak, or if you're harbouring a deeper set of prejudices. I'd like to think it was one of the first two, but it's kind of hard to tell these days.  Anyway, that's neither here nor there; it might just give you some insights into my comments about your posts.

[ZeroHour]

Trump voters/supporters=alt-right=white supremacist=Nazis. Antifa? Nothing but Americas defending themselves. This is what the MSM are pushing.

 

Now you have nut bars trying to blow up the statues FFS.

Statues have just became a new focal point for those who simply cannot accept a democratic election. The Russian conspiracy theory fizzled out to nothing. These lunatics will find something else next week.

[doctor jambo]

Statues have just became a new focal point for those who simply cannot accept a democratic election. The Russian conspiracy theory fizzled out to nothing. These lunatics will find something else next week.

Which side cannot accept a democratic result?

- the Nazis who cannot accept the democratic right if their council to remove a statue?

-or the left loons refusing to accept the Donald?

[maroonlegions]

Yes, and you are talking through your trousers.

 

The political nuances and intricacies of the time were all related to the fact that the secessionist states did not want the Federal government restricting or restraining slavery, particularly in the territories that were to become states.  Without the existence of slavery, it is difficult if not impossible to conjure up a set of circumstances in which civil war would have taken place in the United States.

 

 

 

That doesn't justify racism, so it would really be better for you to avoid doing so, or avoid giving comfort to those who do so.

 

 

Great posts.

 

 

Nothing can justify racism, the white supremacists  apologists try  but fail because racism in any form is unjustifiable because it sets out to oppress and disrespect those of non white backgrounds and is by that definition wrong. 

 

Yes you are also bang on it regards to slavery in the deep south of America as being one of the primary motivators of  why a civil war broke out.The South wanted no end to slavery in principle at least. 

 

The KKK are another vile organisation , vile to the point that they often see themselves as victims or try that line when faced with massive opposition.

 

 

[Sidelight]

In your view, are recent events the start of a period of Tribulation?

 

There are many who hate God, hate the idea of God and stand their entire life on this stage.

They ridicule, deny and use their intellect and life experience to proclaim their truth. I understand that.

Eschatology, the study of end times is a deep and complex subject, I do not consider myself an expert even though I am read some on the subject. The more I learn of all things, my understanding and knowledge is shown to be less.

To start, the bible teaches and Christians believe that one day Jesus Christ will return, to the same spot where he left, Jerusalem. There will be universal awareness and instant recognition. But when will this momentous event happen?

I don?t know, only God Himself knows.

The bible gives no dates but does describe proceeding events that must take place before his arrival.

Jesus himself laid out these signs to his disciples:

Sign1: (Matt 24: 4-8).

Described as increasing disasters in the world, wars, earthquakes, famine. Others are mentioned in Revelation, polluted rivers and oceans, bloodshed, disease, death.

Sign2: (Matt 24: 9-14). A great falling away in the church.  

Sign3: (Matt: 24: 15-28).

The rise of a satanic indwelt world dictator, anti-Christ personality. Described as the ?Beast? he will be accompanied by his religious a co-conspirator, the ?false prophet?.

Together they set up a totalitarian regime, where only those who bow to him will be allowed to do business. Christians are destined to live through this tribulation.

Sign4: Darkness in the Sky. (Matt 24: 29-31).

The final sign will be unmistakable, natural light will be extinguished leaving the sky black. Sun, moon and stars will be shaken out of their orbit. God uses astrological events as signs and warnings. Then the end will come.

Observing the signs present in the world today, I believe that we are accelerating quickly (at its door perhaps) towards the 7 years of tribulation described in scripture. The stage is being set for the arrival of this anti-Christ personality. The world will love him.

[ZeroHour]

Great posts.

 

 

Nothing can justify racism, the white supremacists  apologists try  but fail because racism in any form is unjustifiable because it sets out to oppress and disrespect those of non white backgrounds and is by that definition wrong. 

 

Yes you are also bang on it regards to slavery in the deep south of America as being one of the primary motivators of  why a civil war broke out.The South wanted no end to slavery in principle at least. 

 

The KKK are another vile organisation , vile to the point that they often see themselves as victims or try that line when faced with massive opposition.

 

 

 

Awful quote. It's "a shame" to be free?  

[doctor jambo]

Awful quote. It's "a shame" to be free?  

Freedom comes with responsibility.

Without one you cannot have, nor enjoy the other.

People who do not exercise responsibility do not deserve freedom

Otherwise freedom is anarchy

Alpha would love this one "do as thou shalt, shall be the whole of the law"

- Lucifer

So yes, its a shame to be free without constraints, in which case - its not freedom

[Zico]

Nelson's column up next...https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/22/toppling-statues-nelsons-column-should-be-next-slavery

[doctor jambo]

Ayr has its own

james George Smith Neil

Aide de camp to the queen , Scottish soldier

large statue in Wellington square outside the court

known as the "Butcher of Allahabad"

killed loads of Indians quelling uprising, hanging  prisoners, executing large numbers and so on.

The debate re Charlottesville caused me to look him up out of curiosity using just his name whilst chatting to my kids

Hero back then, but holy shit he did some awful stuff

-though it does back up my stance of leave the statues alone as an educational tool- without the statue we would never have known.....

[Francis Albert]

Nelson's column up next...https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/22/toppling-statues-nelsons-column-should-be-next-slavery

Churchill next. An arch imperialist (in fact preserving the Empire was never far from British leaders lips in both World Wars). Then maybe the generals and soldiers of WW1 who fought for the preservation of empire. Once you start it will never stop.

[Francis Albert]

If you'd love to hear why I think whatever it was you said you think that I think, it's easy: Just make something up and tell it to yourself, because your so-called view of my so-called position is entirely made up by you.  My position on the removal or non-removal of statues is as stated above in my reply to Adam Murray's post; any further interpretation of my view is over-analysis.  My position on history is that it can only be explored fully; incomplete analysis of history is bound to be at best inaccurate, at worst terribly biased.  I haven't said that any history should be ignored or downplayed.  What I have said is:

 

- all sorts of things happened in the lead up to the Civil War, but without slavery it is difficult if not impossible to imagine that war happening;

- there is an agenda to whitewash slavery out of the story of the American Civil War;

- that agenda is designed to make the Union look like "bad guys" and the secessionists look like "good guys";

- that agenda is either driven or enthusiastically supported by racists, white supremacists, and neo-fascists;

- that agenda proposes an analysis of the Civil War that is not supported by the historical realities;

- giving credence to this view means giving comfort to the racists, white supremacists, and neo-fascists;

- therefore decent and well-meaning people should not give credence to this view.

 

If you want to disagree with any of the above, by all means disagree with it.  I've even laid it out in a manner that lends itself to deconstruction.

 

I can't make up my mind if you are a conservative old geezer, a curmudgeonly contrarian with a decent streak, or if you're harbouring a deeper set of prejudices. I'd like to think it was one of the first two, but it's kind of hard to tell these days.  Anyway, that's neither here nor there; it might just give you some insights into my comments about your posts.

't disagreed

I don't, and haven't, disagreed with anything you say. Where I differ is believing that we should object to re-writing history when people suggest the North fought the Civil War in order to end slavery. That seems to me really offering comfort to the racist, fascist and neo-Nazi enemy ... after all if we can rewrite history it is more difficult to oppose their rewriting of history.

 

I also recognise the hard right is not the only element in all this that has an agenda.

[Rocco_Jambo]

Nelson's column up next...https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/22/toppling-statues-nelsons-column-should-be-next-slavery

 

Wonder if we'll see them do an article providing a similar revaluation of Mohammed in a modern context.

[John Findlay]

Ulysses against Francis Albert. Better than Borgue against McEnroe. Gentlemen please take it to a 5th set tie break. Thank you.

[doctor jambo]

Wonder if we'll see them do an article providing a similar revaluation of Mohammed in a modern context.

You mean with regards to his whole under age sex thing, or his homophobia or general sectarianism?

[Sharpie]

Ayr has its own

james George Smith Neil

Aide de camp to the queen , Scottish soldier

large statue in Wellington square outside the court

known as the "Butcher of Allahabad"

killed loads of Indians quelling uprising, hanging  prisoners, executing large numbers and so on.

The debate re Charlottesville caused me to look him up out of curiosity using just his name whilst chatting to my kids

Hero back then, but holy shit he did some awful stuff

-though it does back up my stance of leave the statues alone as an educational tool- without the statue we would never have known.....

 

The Black Hole of Calcutta was not really a peace offering. But like you say the statues can be an educational tool, if they represent memories one can live in hope that future generations will not do the same thing. As I well know things in life change with extreme regularity, its not really so long ago that war was so modernised with rifles and bayonets, last night the President was happy to announce that there was more money going into nuclear weapons, that the armory of nuclear weapons would be increased. Just proves that the one thing that never seems to change, and is the cause of all of the most rfecent problems , mans inhumanity to man.  Thank god taking down a few statues will change that, and if it doesn't we will nuke the shit out of them.

[Rocco_Jambo]

You mean with regards to his whole under age sex thing, or his homophobia or general sectarianism?

 

And with regards to mass murder, genocide and slavery.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

At this rate Bambi will be the only statue left.

[ZeroHour]

Freedom comes with responsibility.

 

No it doesn't. You're free or you're not.

[niblick1874]

Which side cannot accept a democratic result?

- the Nazis who cannot accept the democratic right if their council to remove a statue?

-or the left loons refusing to accept the Donald?

 

People are not thinking this through

 

Here's the thing where the right of the council to do what they are doing is concerned. 

 

Politicians come and go and who holds the majority in councils can change as well.

 

When that happens, will the new bunch go around puling down everything that they claim offends them and then put their stuff up again. Where will it end?

 

They are lighting the blue touch paper and standing back. That is all there is to it.

[deesidejambo]

At this rate Bambi will be the only statue left.

Bambi is an anagram of I am BB.    Which all liberals know is a sectarian youth organisation.     So thats Bambi nailed.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Bambi is an anagram of I am BB.    Which all liberals know is a sectarian youth organisation.     So thats Bambi nailed.

 

Oh damn.

 

Ok a pious man of god then, a pope for example, someone such as Pope Alexander VI, surely nobody could find fault with a man of god?

[Francis Albert]

At this rate Bambi will be the only statue left.

The animal rights activists will get onto that in due course. Bambi - a degrading caricature of a noble beast.

[deesidejambo]

The animal rights activists will get onto that in due course. Bambi - a degrading caricature of a noble beast.

Don't forget feminists: Bambi is clearly depicted as a male fawn, which is obviously sexist.

[Ulysses]

I don't, and haven't, disagreed with anything you say. Where I differ......

 

 

???

 

Either you differ, or you don't.

[Francis Albert]

???

 

Either you differ, or you don't.

I was of course referring to what you said in the post I quoted, in which you invited me to disagree, if I wanted to, with what you said in that post.

[Ulysses]

I was of course referring to what you said in the post I quoted, in which you invited me to disagree, if I wanted to, with what you said in that post.

 

Ah.  You don't disagree with anything I said, but you do disagree with something I said.  That's a neat trick - fair play to you. 

 

 

So what was it that I said in that post that you disagree with?  For ease of reference, it's quoted below.

 

If you'd love to hear why I think whatever it was you said you think that I think, it's easy: Just make something up and tell it to yourself, because your so-called view of my so-called position is entirely made up by you.  My position on the removal or non-removal of statues is as stated above in my reply to Adam Murray's post; any further interpretation of my view is over-analysis.  My position on history is that it can only be explored fully; incomplete analysis of history is bound to be at best inaccurate, at worst terribly biased.  I haven't said that any history should be ignored or downplayed.  What I have said is:

 

- all sorts of things happened in the lead up to the Civil War, but without slavery it is difficult if not impossible to imagine that war happening;

- there is an agenda to whitewash slavery out of the story of the American Civil War;

- that agenda is designed to make the Union look like "bad guys" and the secessionists look like "good guys";

- that agenda is either driven or enthusiastically supported by racists, white supremacists, and neo-fascists;

- that agenda proposes an analysis of the Civil War that is not supported by the historical realities;

- giving credence to this view means giving comfort to the racists, white supremacists, and neo-fascists;

- therefore decent and well-meaning people should not give credence to this view.

 

If you want to disagree with any of the above, by all means disagree with it.  I've even laid it out in a manner that lends itself to deconstruction.

 

I can't make up my mind if you are a conservative old geezer, a curmudgeonly contrarian with a decent streak, or if you're harbouring a deeper set of prejudices. I'd like to think it was one of the first two, but it's kind of hard to tell these days.  Anyway, that's neither here nor there; it might just give you some insights into my comments about your posts.

[Francis Albert]

Ah.  You don't disagree with anything I said, but you do disagree with something I said.  That's a neat trick - fair play to you. 

 

 

So what was it that I said in that post that you disagree with?  For ease of reference, it's quoted below.

I repeat I don't disagree with anything you say in the post I quoted.

 

I repeat I do disagree with your view, as you expressed in previous posts, that correcting erroneous statements about history (such as that the North fought the civil war in order to abolish slavery)  is giving comfort to or credence to those who want to rewrite history for their own ends. And that distorting history ourselves actually gives comfort or credence to others who want to distort history, And have much more to be gained by distorting it than we anti-fascists and anti-racists do,

[luckyBatistuta]

Nelson's column up next...https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/22/toppling-statues-nelsons-column-should-be-next-slavery

  

Wonder if we'll see them do an article providing a similar revaluation of Mohammed in a modern context.

 

 

Ulysses against Francis Albert. Better than Borgue against McEnroe. Gentlemen please take it to a 5th set tie break. Thank you.

You want a bigger spoon

[Ulysses]

I repeat I don't disagree with anything you say in the post I quoted.

 

I repeat I do disagree with your view, as you expressed in previous posts, that correcting erroneous statements about history (such as that the North fought the civil war in order to abolish slavery)  is giving comfort to or credence to those who want to rewrite history for their own ends. And that distorting history ourselves actually gives comfort or credence to others who want to distort history, And have much more to be gained by distorting it than we anti-fascists and anti-racists do,

 

 

That's not my view. 

 

 

Here's my view, as explained earlier.

 

 

If you'd love to hear why I think whatever it was you said you think that I think, it's easy: Just make something up and tell it to yourself, because your so-called view of my so-called position is entirely made up by you.  My position on the removal or non-removal of statues is as stated above in my reply to Adam Murray's post; any further interpretation of my view is over-analysis.  My position on history is that it can only be explored fully; incomplete analysis of history is bound to be at best inaccurate, at worst terribly biased. 

 

 

You're disagreeing with yourself, or with your interpretation of what I said.  Go on, have another read of the posts.

[Ulysses]

To repeat an earlier post, a recent Marist poll showed that a majority of Americans (62%) thought that Civil War statues should stay in place.  Among African-Americans, a minority (44%) felt they should stay, but that was still more than the 40% who thought they should go.

 

Other polls might produce different results, but it's a snapshot of views that's worth considering.

[Francis Albert]

That's not my view.

 

 

Here's my view, as explained earlier.

 

 

 

 

 

You're disagreeing with yourself, or with your interpretation of what I said. Go on, have another read of the posts.

so you agree that stating that the north fought the war in order to abolish slavery is a distortion. I suspect we don't disagree about very much.

[Ulysses]

Nelson's column up next...https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/aug/22/toppling-statues-nelsons-column-should-be-next-slavery

 

 

Been there, seen that, etc. etc.   

 

 

 

[Ulysses]

so you agree that stating that the north fought the war in order to abolish slavory is a ditortion. I suspect we don't disagree about very much.

 

I haven't said anything one way or the other about the reasons the Union side fought the Civil War.  You did, and then misinterpreted my response.

 

Regardless of any other issue, the Union side would not have fought the war if the secessionists had not seceded or had not fought the war.  The secessionists would not have seceded and would not have fought the war if slavery had not been a source of serious and grievous disagreement in the United States.  Therefore, in the absence of the slavery issue, it is difficult if not impossible to imagine a set of circumstances in which the American Civil War would have happened.

 

Therefore the secession of the states was about slavery and the war was about slavery.

 

Even if the Union side was not motivated in some way by the slavery issue, it doesn't really matter - because the secessionists were motivated by that issue.  That's why one has to be careful to ensure that an analysis of the Union side's motivations does not become some kind of "get out of jail" card for the states who wished to continue to build their societies and economies on slavery.

[Francis Albert]

I haven't said anything one way or the other about the reasons the Union side fought the Civil War. You did, and then misinterpreted my response.

 

Regardless of any other issue, the Union side would not have fought the war if the secessionists had not seceded or had not fought the war. The secessionists would not have seceded and would not have fought the war if slavery had not been a source of serious and grievous disagreement in the United States. Therefore, in the absence of the slavery issue, it is difficult if not impossible to imagine a set of circumstances in which the American Civil War would have happened.

 

Therefore the secession of the states was about slavery and the war was about slavery.

 

Even if the Union side was not motivated in some way by the slavery issue, it doesn't really matter - because the secessionists were motivated by that issue. That's why one has to be careful to ensure that an analysis of the Union side's motivations does not become some kind of "get out of jail" card for the states who wished to continue to build their societies and economies on slavery.

so in answer to my question? Should we challenge the view that the north fought the war in order to abolish slavery. Or accept it because to deny it might comfort fascists and racists?

[Ulysses]

Here's a table worth a quick scan, from the 1860 U.S. Census.

 

Four million slaves were owned by 400,000 slave owners (rounded figures). 

 

In South Carolina, 57% of the population (that's 402,000 people) were owned by 26,700 slave owners.  In Mississippi, 55% of the population (about 437,000 people) were owned by 31,000 slave owners.

 

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/1860_census.html