[epynonymous]

that's just an awful part of world history, what allowed that to flourish? total evil in men's hearts, this was only 200 years ago, not that long ago, this isnt something that happened 1000 years ago.

and even though the confederacy was based on slaves being unequal to whites, the civil war was not necessarily about slavery only, it was more of a split in government between a pro-agrarian society, which required large swaths of slaves, and states vs federal government. sure there were people strongly against slavery in the north like abraham lincoln and abolishinists, but i imagine a large majority in the north didnt really see that as the largest issue, it was more the south wanting to leave the united states and.form their own government.

[maxerickson]

Lincoln was elected in large part because he was opposed to allowing slavery in new states (a popular position in the North) and secession followed directly from his election, because the Confederate States saw limiting slavery in the territories as an existential threat to their own practice of slavery.

It's also kind of funny to hand wave about how the war was about a "pro-agrarian society" instead of necessarily about slavery and then immediately toss in a mention that the pro-agrarian society "required" slavery.

[shawndumas]

“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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.” — Abraham Lincoln's Letter to Horace Greeley; August 22, 1862.

[bscphil]

As I said in a comment cousin to this one, the reasons that Lincoln entered the war aren't equivalent to "the reason the war happened". What you call the "cause" of the war depends on what level you're looking at.

The direct cause of the war was the Fort Sumter altercation.

The reason the Fort Sumter event occurred was that both sides were angling hard for a war they thought they could easily win.

The reason the Union wanted to fight the war was (mostly) that its leaders had strong political inclinations and economic incentives to reject the right of the Southern states to secede, and to use military force if necessary to maintain the union.

The reason the South seceded was primarily that they believed (mostly wrongly) that the North wanted to end slave ownership, which they viewed as both economically destructive and a violation of their rights.

While it's technically true that the story is more complicated than just "the war was fought over slavery", that doesn't change the fact that the existence of slavery was the most significant point of strife in the run-up to the war. But for slavery, the war would not have happened. There are few, possibly no other institutions in the America of the 1850s you can say that about. So it's absolutely correct to say that slavery was the reason the Confederates fought the war, even if it's not the reason Lincoln did. I think that gets you most of what people want to say when they say the war was over slavery.

[watwut]

> The reason the South seceded was primarily that they believed (mostly wrongly) that the North wanted to end slave ownership, which they viewed as both economically destructive and a violation of their rights.

The south was trying to expand slavery to territories and north.

[bscphil]

Even assuming that is true, it makes no sense as a reason to secede. Assuming the Civil War never happened, they would still have lost all political influence by seceding.

[watwut]

The whole conflict was about territories. It is not like north would care what happens to slaves in the south.

There was balance - half states slave states, half not. Territories being not slave states would disturb balance. They feared being outvoted. They feared that territories being not slave states would be addmission that slavery is wrong and put pressure on them to stop slavery.

Seceding makes you completely independent. You dont loose power, you gain it.

[0815test]

> The reason the South seceded was primarily that they believed (mostly wrongly) that the North wanted to end slave ownership, which they viewed as both economically destructive and a violation of their rights.

Well, that, and there was a popular perception that abolitionism was just the camel's nose under the tent; the shared mindset within the South was very much "okay, we may or may not like slavery but unless we put up a decent fight now, those busybody Northerners are going to screw us over completely, what with their control of the federal government. So we've been put in a position of having to defend slavery now, whether we like it or not." If you accept this point of view, you could even view the war as having been a success for the South; sure, they gave the North abolition, but it stopped there; their broader cultural specificity was nicely preserved, in a way that it might not have been otherwise!

[maxerickson]

Written after secession...

Note how my comment talks about why Lincoln was elected (and not how he talked about the war) and about how the Southern states responded to his election.

[shawndumas]

NB: I am against slavery and racism in all its forms and times. You may believe it ridiculous that I am stating this but one never knows so I wanted to be explicit.

I didn't mean that quote as a contradiction to your statement. Indeed Lincoln had a personal wish that all be free [1]. My point was that slavery was an ancillary issue to both the start of succession and the war to end it. If what powered the south's livelihood was--let's say for the sake of argument--oil and the north was looking to ban oil as reprehensible and to make it a legal obligation to use only renewable energy then the outcome would have been identical.

Yes, Lincoln being personally for renewable and himself anti-oil would certainly have affect voting blocks respectively. But I maintain that it was still only a component of what started and sustained the war; the south saw the north as an existential threat to their mode of existence. By disallowing new regions statehood unless they outlawed oil the north was severely disrupting the previous balance of power.

-------------------------------------------------

[1]: "I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free." -- from the same letter

[maxerickson]

So, uh, the existential threat was to which exact mode of existence?

Was it the oil or was it the use of slaves? Go read the things the states said about secession!

For instance:

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.

They were just trying to protect their mode of existence!

[shawndumas]

I feel like there may be a misunderstanding.

I was not saying that oil was an historic reason for the civil war. I was trying to say that—for the sake of argument—oil and slaves are fungible with regard to the impetus for succession.

[epynonymous]

spot on!

[danesparza]

Reconstruction is where the US south shows their true colors in history. If there is any doubt in your mind about what the US Civil War was about, what happened in the years immediately following the Appomattox court house surrender should clear things up.

Please lookup Jim Crow laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws ,

"Lost Cause" history rewrite: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy

[wwarner]

Um, your theory of the civil war would've been news to Ulysses Grant who sent troops to many southern states to protect the voting rights of former slaves. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_S._Grant#Later_Reconst...

Until the Civil War, slavery was like a scar that refused to heal. What's strange is that the southern aristocracy led their fellow countrymen into a hopeless war to defend a completely corrupt and diseased economic model.

[msla]

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/cornersto...

> The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.

That's what the Vice President of the CSA said.

The states also issued declarations of causes. Let's look at a couple of them:

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati...

> Georgia

> A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia.

> Mississippi

> Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.

The CSA attempted to leave over the issue of slavery. Trying to say it was otherwise is to buy into the discredited Lost Cause narrative.

https://www.nps.gov/resources/story.htm%3Fid%3D217

https://daily.jstor.org/origins-confederate-lost-cause/

[pharrington]

Hopefully to crystallize what everyone else said,

The American Civil War was not only about slavery; however, slavery was the primary motivational reason for the War.

[bscphil]

A think a longer (but more clarifying) statement would be "slavery was the primary motivational reason for the War for the Confederates." Saying "the reason for the war" is already misleading because it assumes there was a reason than applied to both sides. On the contrary, the Union didn't conquer the South out of the goodness of their hearts because they were (mostly) fervent abolitionists. I think that's the misleading thing your summary implies.

[jandrese]

when I was in grade school I learned that the Civil War was all about slavery. In college my roommates educated me about the numerous reasons for the civil war. After researching it more I've discovered that the Civil War was all about slavery.

[gumby]

Thank you!

[epynonymous]

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/greeley...

[gumby]

Indeed that’s a famous letter but his implication is that his constitutional authority was to the union and as slavery was the driver of the war, the result was clear. A clever formulation, for a lawyer, designed to maintain maximum legitimacy for his actions.

His opinions, however, were clear, and that is part of why he was the republican party’s first nominee.

[epynonymous]

not trying to say that slavery wasnt an important topic at the time or trying to undermine slavery, just that sometimes slavery is being misconstrued as the only reason for the war, wars are complicated, there was a strong divide between the country at the time, and the most immediate threat was to the union separating.

this should not take away from the importance of the abolition of slavery or the fact that this was a heinous act, or the heroism of the people at the time and to this day, to some extent, of the heroes of our time still fighting racial prejudice.

[jandrese]

Ultimately when you boil away the other reasons why the South seceded you're left with slavery.

It's States Rights[1]! It's about new territories[2]! It's about economic imperialism[3]!

[1] To own slaves

[2] To open up new plantations with slaves

[3] Against slaveowning businesses

[zdw]

Freeing slaves had the effect of taking away "property" from people.

Any change to the status quo that affects someones finances, you'll see some level of opposition.

[gumby]

The federal government paid “reparations” to those former slave owners and they were wealthier by the 1880s than they had been before the war.

[zdw]

Only happened in DC for very few people, so I'm not sure your statement holds: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensated_emancipation#Unite...

[gumby]

Thank you, you caused me to dig up what I had read and I misremembered the causes. But within 15 years the rich were back on top.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019/04/04/how-sout... (original study: https://www.nber.org/papers/w25700 )

Slightly different analysis, on wealth mobility on a shorter timescale: https://voxeu.org/article/impact-us-civil-war-southern-wealt...

[invalidOrTaken]

>what allowed that to flourish? total evil in men's hearts

To believe this is to be deceived. It leads to the idea that "I'm not 'totally evil,' thus I'm not at risk for doing something like this." But there were kind-hearted Nazis and black-hearted Allies, Stalin was reported to be a doting father, and some slaves struggled terribly after emancipation.

If we don't see things clearly, we put ourselves at risk of repeating the mistakes of those we disparage, though perhaps in a different form.

[maxxxxx]

Agreed. Seeing people as completely "evil" or "not evil" is a big mistake. For example a lot of people think that if someone has nice family and goes to church he is a "good man". But plenty of these people have committed mass murder while being nice at home.

[thephyber]

It's also worth mentioning that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850[1] made it a crime for police and private citizens in slavery-illegal states ("the North") not to arrest and return slaves to the estate that they escaped from. In effect, the "good people" in the entire country were still culpable of the continuing existence of that "Peculiar Institution".

I wonder what an average Northern jury person would think of prosecuting another Northerner who was charged with harboring a runaway slave in a Northern state (where slavery was illegal at the time). If the law says that the jury can only consider the facts of the case, not whether the law is just or moral/ethical, what are we to make of our legal system?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Slave_Act_of_1850

[SllX]

The great thing about Juries is that Jury nullification necessarily exists as well.

Juries are one of the most powerful institutions in the country, but they also have an extremely narrowly defined scope. Whatever the law, and whatever the facts of the case, a Jury has absolute power to find the defendant guilty or not guilty.

[davidgay]

It's important to note that that power goes both ways, alas.

This quote from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States is very much on topic: "Fewer than one percent of lynch mob participants were ever convicted by local courts and they were seldom prosecuted or brought to trial. By the late 19th century, trial juries in most of the southern United States were all white because African Americans had been disenfranchised, and only registered voters could serve as jurors. Often juries never let the matter go past the inquest."

[SllX]

Any system of government is only as good as the culture of the people it governs. Angels don’t serve on Juries in Hell.

[thephyber]

Yup.

Reminds me of the Scott Warren case[1] from last month.

[1] https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900075129/how-giving-wat...

[microwavecamera]

https://blog.independent.org/2017/08/18/southern-state-seced...

[rdtsc]

> total evil in men's hearts, this was only 200 years ago, not that long ago, this isnt something that happened 1000 years ago.

Slavery is alive and well. Don't have to look 200 years into the past. This was just in 2017 in Libya.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-42038451

> "The footage released by CNN appears to show youths from Niger and other sub-Saharan countries being sold to buyers for about $400 (£300) at undisclosed locations in Libya..."

It's not at the same scale as before but the practice certainly hasn't ended. It's also important to ask what allowed it to flourish.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya

> "...More than 8,000 American personnel in warships and aircraft were deployed in the area. At least 3,000 targets were struck in 14,202 strike sorties, 716 of them in Tripoli and 492 in Brega.[87] The American air offensive included flights of B-2 Stealth bombers, each bomber armed with sixteen 2000-pound bombs, flying out of and returning to their base in Missouri in the continental United States..."

And here is ex Secretary of State Hillary Clinton cheerfully exclaiming "We came, we saw, he died" all laughing and giggling like it's a joke.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y

[roboys]

Well, there was no slavery in Libya until Team America decided to drop in.

[taneq]

> total evil in men's hearts

Who put it there, hmm?

[thephyber]

Seems like a reasonable question to ask.

I suspect the downvotes are because this appears to be either a useless question (because it violates dogma of the most common Christian sect in the US) or because it's seen as a "cheap shot" at those beliefs, but it still seems like an important question we need to continually struggle with. It's not like we have proven the null hypothesis.

[deckiedan]

I suspect you're just trolling - but in case you're interested in /a/ perspective from within the broader Christian tradition...

What is evil? What would "evil in men's hearts" mean?

Evil as a concept can only exist if there is some kind of definition of Good, or Anti-Evil as well.

If Good and Evil are both just arbitary made-up definitions by some supreme being with a control-complex, then screw everything, it's all a meaningless shitshow.

Equally, if there is no Good or Evil, just physical/chemical/quantum reactions in a purely mechanical universe, then equally, screw everything. Do whatever makes the happy-chemicals in your brain do their thing.

However, if there is some kind of absolute Good, and absolute Evil, and it's just figuring out what those are and mean that's the complex bit - now we have an interesting universe, and the potential for some kind of meaningful life.

We all argue about whether or not there is a God - or if there is, what He/She/It/They think is Good and Evil, both in our behaviour and in theirs.

But the concept of there being actions which are Good, or Right, and actions which are Evil or Wrong somehow seems baked into our outlook. We disagree about specifics, sure.

It could be that for there to be the potential for Good there is also the potential for Evil. Maybe it's impossible to have Good in our hearts if there is not also Evil.

So what would a supreme being want from us? To aim for good, and avoid evil, sure. We want that from each other too. And from ourselves.

But there are other things too. The bible trys to say God's desired interaction with us is closest understood by the analogy of a Father/Child relationship.

So as a Dad, sure, I want a bit of obedience, especially when they're young and learning... But I'd rather my kids choose Good themselves, and listen to me for advice, and decide for themselves whether or not what I say is Good. And if they disagree, but it's not going to hurt them (too much) or others, then I prefer them do something I think is wrong than them to blindly obey me. I can give them advice, direction, but the older they grow, the more what I really want from them is more and more towards a real friendship.

And I believe the same is true with our interaction with God. I believe God is more interested in a relationship with us, even if we're arguing and debating with Him/Her/It/Them, than in us blinding obeying. I believe there is the potential for a much more fulfilling life by pursuing meaning (and God) than by deliberately turning our backs on the idea.

Jesus said "seek and you will find, knock and the door will be opened to you". Seems like a good advice to me.

(If you want some links, Luke's gospel is an interesting place to start. Or "The Case for Christ" (The book by Lee Strobel - ignore the preachy movie) might be interesting.)

[pluma]

> Equally, if there is no Good or Evil, just physical/chemical/quantum reactions in a purely mechanical universe, then equally, screw everything. Do whatever makes the happy-chemicals in your brain do their thing.

This strikes me as extremely flawed reasoning, creating a false dichotomy between ${religion} and nihilism.

You don't need absolutes to exist in order for a concept to be meaningful. "Absolute Good" may be a contradiction in terms but that doesn't mean you can't judge whether something is good or bad (or make a more nuanced argument for why some aspects are good or bad in some ways). The same way as you don't need "absolute wet" to exist in order to judge whether something is wet or dry.

It's also a common parlor trick to talk about "evil" instead of "bad" as the antithesis of "good". Evil implies intent. But very few people would think of themselves as intentionally evil and take joy in that. Practically speaking "evil" is another way to say "sinful" and "sin" is a concept that only exists in religion because in most cases it describes genuinely "victimless crimes" as "crimes against God", specific religious codes of conduct that are imposed without a logical underpinning (e.g. "don't wear mixed fabrics" but also "don't kill people").

Religious morals generally don't care about good and bad, they care about adherence to a set of strict but arbitrary rules. Moderates in most religions pick and chose which rules are the "important" ones but they tend to base those decisions on social norms that have formed in the broader context their religion exists in, not some "inner truth" or unbiased intuition.

So in other words: "evil" is a distraction. It's how you perceive something but it says nothing about intent or cause. You can call someone an evil person, sure, but they don't get out of bed thinking "I'm so evil, I'm going to do a lot of evil things today", they just act in ways that actively harm people either out of disregard for other people's well-being or far more often out of a conflicting idea of what is or isn't harmful (or only empathising with a very narrow subset of the people they affect).

[deckiedan]

> This strikes me as extremely flawed reasoning, creating a false dichotomy between ${religion} and nihilism.

Possibly, sorry about that. I guess I've expressed it a bit extreme there - but even toned down, I still feel (yeah, feel. goodbye reason...) that there's some truth to the concept...

Defining "goodness" is difficult. There's a whole bunch of different attempts - logical positivism, utilitarianism, etc, but to me all of them eventually boiled down to some kind of "do whatever makes the happy-chemicals in your brain do their thing...". At some point you have to decide which other non-you-beings you want to compromise with, and which physical/chemical urges you want to cultivate, and which balance between longer-term-goals and instant gratification you want to achieve. Keeping humanity alive, wiping ourselves out to allow other species to survive better for a few more thousand years until something cosmic wipes us all out... It doesn't really make any difference in the end.

> You don't need absolutes to exist in order for a concept to be meaningful. <snip> The same way as you don't need "absolute wet" to exist in order to judge whether something is wet or dry.

Absolutely.

But some kind of definition of wetness, or dryness is probably helpful. :-)

>It's also a common parlor trick to talk about "evil" instead of "bad" as the antithesis of "good". Evil implies intent.

Ah, yes. I guess I'm not really using the right terminology at the moment. Terminology is complicated.

I guess so there should be a scale of "good occurances" and "bad occurances", with evil being intention of bad occurances? But to whom? Is a prison guard commanded to hurt his prisoners intending bad occurances to his prisoners, but intending good for his family being provided for? Is there any way to define whether hurting someone is good or bad? You could argue surgery or chemotherapy is very specifically hurting people with the intention of good for them later... But genocide has been justified under the same argument - but on a societal level. Is there any way to define which things are good, or bad?

I believe there is Good, and anti-good. And I believe that there is a being beyond of our limited perspective, God, who cares about that, and wants us to aim for Good, and if we're willing, will help us in that direction.

> Religious morals generally don't care about good and bad, they care about adherence to a set of strict but arbitrary rules.

Sad, but true.

However, from how I've read the bible, I don't think that's how God (if there is a God) really wants it to be. And if there is a God, and if that's all they care about, they're really not worth caring about.

[taneq]

I wasn't intending to troll, but I admit to being snippy - it's one of my pet hates when anything good that happens is attributed to God and then in the same breath anything bad that happens is blamed on people.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I'll look into the book you mention.