The United States didn't abolish slavery until after the civil war as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. In a way, the war triggered abolition (or spurred it to happen more quickly), not the other way around.
You're right, of course, but it's not nearly as easy to say succinctly with a clever quip to make a point. The civil war started because states suceded because Lincoln was elected. They did it because there was a gradual progression of laws being enacted with the goal of eventual extinction of slavery in the US. Lincoln's win guaranteed that this was going to continue past some intolerable point for the South and so, secession.
It's a bit like admonishing the protestors for protesting TTIP before it was enacted. Probably could have chosen slightly more accurate words, but my point was still made.
Yes, abolition happened afterwards. Congratulations, you can argue pedantically, perpetuating the seeming belief that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery.
The war happened overwhelmingly _because_ slavery was going to be abolished.
This isn't a minor detail, it's actually quite important.
> perpetuating the seeming belief that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery
Don't put words in my mouth, that's not what I said and I would appreciate it if you'd be a bit more intellectually honest here. The South seceded because they were convinced Lincoln would work to end slavery. They did not secede because abolition actually happened.
> The South seceded because they were convinced Lincoln would work to end slavery
In what way is "work to end slavery" not completely identical, but just different words, to "work towards abolition".
You may think you are just arguing pedantically, but this exact language is leading people to believe that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery. Just because it hadn't yet happened does not mean it can be an important, or even primary motivator.
> The war happened overwhelmingly _because_ slavery was going to be abolished.
That's not the same as "working toward abolition."
> this exact language is leading people to believe that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery
[citation needed]
> Just because it hadn't yet happened does not mean it can be an important, or even primary motivator.
I said that a desire to keep the institution of slavery was the primary motivation. That is not the same as them reacting to abolition, which would violate causality.
Please try to be more civil rather than slinging around insults and accusations.
No. Not at all. Not even in the slightest. This states rights bullshit started in the South as a defensive move to toss a more palatable, quasi-theoretical veneer on what was an unmitigated Southern revolt against the United States because of overt distaste at losing federal support and protection for continuing the practice of slavery. This exposed Southern dependence upon it as a basis for its economy and entire way of preferred life and wealth accumulation. Theorists such as John C. Calhoun and other notable Southern politicians began doing that thing that all politicians do, whereby issues are clouded behind intentional euphemisms that detract people from the core issues. Oh, sure, the South was worried about and fought for states' rights—states' rights to continue the practice of slavery in open defiance to what had been decided at the federal level over 60+ years of negotiations that continued to threaten Southern dependence on slave labor. Post-Reconstruction, this nonsense persisted to attempt to save face as the South reintegrated with the Union and federal government, and to shore up defenses for the establishment of Jim Crow. Today, this states' rights shit continues to get thought time in those who wish to continue the practice of defending indisputable discriminatory practices, engaging in revisionist history that needs to go away, and in those who, for whatever reason, refuse to accept that the Civil War never would have happened if slavery did not exist, was not defended throughout the South, and if Southern whites and their social, political, and economic leaders had read the writing on the wall, and admitted to the grave injustice they'd perpetuated against a whole group of people based solely on the color of their skin—and then began working to change the firmly entrenched racism that to this day continues to remain embedded in Southern thought and culture.
States' rights is a sham of an argument for the Civil War, and, too often, many other abhorrent practices today.
I see what you're saying. I don't disagree that there have been actions taken by states under the guise of state's rights that could be considered horrible. However, the true concept of states rights is more than something randomly invented by southerners. This idea is based on the 10th Amendment of the Constitution.
The comment I was responding to, and the particular matter I was addressing, had little to do with the 10th Amendment. Nor did I suggest the concept of states' rights as separate and important from those enumerated by the Constitution to the federal government was a concept invented by Southerners. I was quite specifically responding to the revisionist nonsense that the Civil War was a fight over states' rights, and a war of Northern aggression, as Confederate apologists today continue to like to suggest.
Instead of talking about setting safety and environmental impact boundaries (and allowing everything within them), people are screaming BAN FRACKING. But it gets worse. Instead of talking about banning specific resource extraction methods, people are talking about "community rights", which don't exist.
These people are ridiculous. Invoking the American revolution and then railing against "state and federal preemption" which was, in fact, very clearly set out by the Federalists who won most of what they wanted while writing the Constitution.
The states have all rights not explicitly given to the federal government in the constitution. Local communities are given all of their rights by the state. That's it. Trying to change that means burning down the constitution. Communities have no independent rights. They're clearly and deliberately misconstruing history to make woo woo "progressive" arguments.
The basic problem is that the activists are idiots who haven't taken the time or gotten the education to understand the problems they are trying to solve. National attention has no time for complex nuanced arguments, so the only arguments you hear are from fools. This applies to more or less every liberal cause in America, most of which I support in spirit.
> The basic problem is that the activists are idiots who haven't taken the time or gotten the education to understand the problems they are trying to solve. National attention has no time for complex nuanced arguments, so the only arguments you hear are from fools. This applies to more or less every liberal cause in America, most of which I support in spirit.
Too true. However, I'd say this actually applies to just about every social-political cause, period. Conservative and liberal. All nuance and depth of understanding is lost for emotional, myopic, black-and-white tribalism meant to divide the populace, fire up the troops, and get them firing at each other.
People say this, but they're being pedantic. Plenty of people cared a whole lot about slavery both in the human-rights sense and the economic sense. The war was fought over secession, but the states suceded as a direct result of the federal level's intention (and actions) to constrain and eventually extinct slavery and the southern slave economy.
It's something like saying my house actually burned down because it's made of wood, not because I let a kid play with matches.
I should just let this be down voted but there needs to be overwhelming repeated rebuttals to this very misleading framing.
This whole thing tries to use the fact that no southern states voted for Lincoln to frame it like secession was actually just because they felt their voice wasn't being heard. What that ignores is that slavery was the main(almost only) economic driver in the south. The election was about slavery. The north was done with it. The vote was a signal to the wealthy and powerful of the south that the north was going to abolish slavery and there was nothing they could do about it. Sucession was their last attempt to keep the massive amount of money being made via slavery.
It's absolutely the case that the South was motivated to secede by the issue of slavery. It is not the case that the North was, they were motivated by the preservation of the Union. Lincoln said as much. Abolition was used by the Union as a weapon, not as a cause unto itself.
It's seen as revisionist to question the moral character of the US Civil War, but you have a President who said explicitly that he would preserve slavery if it would preserve the Union, and abolition that exempted Northern states.
Slavery was (partially[1]) abolished in the US not because there was some high-minded federal government that thought it was the right thing to do, but because abolitionists worked hard for generations to compel it. The fact that a war was fought over it only speaks to the fact that slavery was so entrenched in the Southern states that it considered the progression toward abolition an existential threat.
[1] Slavery was never fully abolished in the US, and we should be careful not to forget that. It's no mistake that the amendment to restrict slavery to punishment for crime also coincided with the beginning of a trend of criminalizing activities and lifestyles of former slaves and their descendants.
The problem is that minority can organize a street protest to protect its interest at the cost of interest of general public who is not that motivated to take it to the street on what is one of many (and often not in the category of the most important ones) issues for them.
One example is Uber. Everyone I know who uses it loves it, it's cheaper, more reliable, the service is better as well. Despite all of it there are protests because it hurts one group (taxi drivers) a lot. It really is a problem when special interest group can force their way at the cost of the public just because they are louder and organized enough to take the matter to the streets.
It really is a problem when special interest group can force their way at the cost of the public just because they are louder and organized enough to take the matter to the streets
Arguably, this is Uber's business model. Circumventing the public by ignoring their laws (some terrible ones that prevent competition, but others that do things like ensure transportation access for disabled people), and then worming their way out of it by buying politicians, intimidating journalists, and with slick marketing campaigns.
On the balance, I find it hard to believe that a street protest is more threatening to the outcome of trade negotiations than the wealth, organization, and political influence of corporations seeking sweetheart deals.
No offense, but in the case of uber it is alot more to it.
just one example:
In many european countries a driver needs a special insurance for human transportation. In case of an accident this insurance goes into effect, not having this is really bad for all people involved.
In case of ttip:
In europe we got high standards and good laws to protect people(consumers, workers, ...). Dont blame me for this, but this is not the case for the usa.
That's true, but I think that's only part of the problem. I always interpreted it as a precedent to circumvent existing regulation* in a demand-constrained market.
The market for on-demand-personal-transport-by-car doesn't necessarily equate to taxi companies (it USED to be, pre-disruptive-tech) and in that way it's a competitive advantage to Uber, because it does not (or did not) need to conform to that regulatory context. Had Uber been a taxi startup that launched the app there would be no such problem, though it's unlikely they would have been successful. It's true that taxi companies might try to influence regulation to their benefit and perhaps the Uber model is simply more suited to today's world. But I think it's wrong to state that taxi drivers are simply some small minority trying to stifle innovation because it benefits them, there's more fundamental issues at work in this case. And as a somewhat ambiguous precedent you can see politicians flailing with the idea, not having a ready made response. Uber was not outlawed simply because of taxi drivers.
* I'm blindly assuming that's the case in most countries.
Street protests are triggered by masses under the influence of people who have agendas. Given how the agenda for media outlets of today is mostly outrage generation (because it drives ad impressions), you can expect pretty much _anything_ that has any kind of meaning to be turned into a problem.
You don't have to look far for evidence - just turn on the TV. One good example that comes to mind is how anti-EU groups like to take benign, reasonable EU directives and paint them as proofs that EU is a dictatorship run by stupid bureaucrats. And then you have the whole population getting outraged over "straightening of bananas" or "labeling water", even though the whole thing is a purposefully manufactured piece of bullshit.
Now try to negotiate openly, when some group or another rallies public against you over every other issue.
I sympathize with the negotiators. I understand a need for having some room to discuss things before the mass idiocy ensues.
Sometimes what's right and what's popular aren't very similar. (but I'm not defending the TTIP)