The Real Causes of The American War of Secession
Posted by freedomforall 4 days, 14 hours ago to History
Excerpt:
"Doug is a longtime member of a dinner club in Buenos Aires called The Round Table. The over 100 years old group is composed of eight Argentines, eight Englishmen, and eight Americans. Every month, one of them gives a paper on a subject they’re knowledgeable about and, after discussion, everyone sits down to a catered dinner. It’s one of the niceties of living in Buenos Aires.
This paper presents an underappreciated view of the American war between the states.
...
I wish to disabuse you of something you’ve probably believed since you were ten years old. Only a third of you have been subjected to the American public school version of history, but that version has permeated throughout the world. After all, the winners get to write the history books. What Americans are taught about their so-called “Civil War” is, in good measure, a fairy tale.
Let’s start by getting the terminology right. It wasn’t a “civil war.” A civil war is a conflict in which two or more factions fight for control of the same government. That’s not what happened. The South wasn’t trying to take over the North. Their sole objective was to leave the Union. That made it a war of secession. Calling it a civil war is propaganda—framing Southerners as rebels and insurgents rather than people who simply wanted to go their own way. Some call it the War of Northern Aggression, a name which might have stuck if the Confederacy had won. I prefer to be neutral, so I will call it the War Between the States.
The standard narrative holds that the noble North, led by the saintly Abraham Lincoln, fought the evil South to free the slaves. Full stop. Now, more than any time in the past, that’s the whole story as far as most Americans are concerned. It’s on a par with believing that Spain blew up the battleship Maine to start the Spanish-American War, or that World War I was fought to “make the world safe for democracy.” I’ll reserve comment on more recent wars. But good propaganda always contains a kernel of truth, even while truth is always the first casualty in a war."
"Doug is a longtime member of a dinner club in Buenos Aires called The Round Table. The over 100 years old group is composed of eight Argentines, eight Englishmen, and eight Americans. Every month, one of them gives a paper on a subject they’re knowledgeable about and, after discussion, everyone sits down to a catered dinner. It’s one of the niceties of living in Buenos Aires.
This paper presents an underappreciated view of the American war between the states.
...
I wish to disabuse you of something you’ve probably believed since you were ten years old. Only a third of you have been subjected to the American public school version of history, but that version has permeated throughout the world. After all, the winners get to write the history books. What Americans are taught about their so-called “Civil War” is, in good measure, a fairy tale.
Let’s start by getting the terminology right. It wasn’t a “civil war.” A civil war is a conflict in which two or more factions fight for control of the same government. That’s not what happened. The South wasn’t trying to take over the North. Their sole objective was to leave the Union. That made it a war of secession. Calling it a civil war is propaganda—framing Southerners as rebels and insurgents rather than people who simply wanted to go their own way. Some call it the War of Northern Aggression, a name which might have stuck if the Confederacy had won. I prefer to be neutral, so I will call it the War Between the States.
The standard narrative holds that the noble North, led by the saintly Abraham Lincoln, fought the evil South to free the slaves. Full stop. Now, more than any time in the past, that’s the whole story as far as most Americans are concerned. It’s on a par with believing that Spain blew up the battleship Maine to start the Spanish-American War, or that World War I was fought to “make the world safe for democracy.” I’ll reserve comment on more recent wars. But good propaganda always contains a kernel of truth, even while truth is always the first casualty in a war."
If that number is too big, consider,
What was the cost of the civil war?
The way to abolish slavery was already in place. It was not to be spread beyond the states where it already existed.
The slave owners, if left alone, were, in effect, given a competitive advantage in their industry of growing cotton and
no new state would be able to compete until it made economic sense. The problem (for the slave owners) was that
abolitionists, a small minority, would not leave slave owners alone long enough for technology to make slave owning
a losing business. Simultaneously the uncompetitive northern 'industrialists' needed corrupt government force to
enrich themselves by stealing from southern farmers.
(This has been repeated many times since by the banking cartel, Wall Street, the Military Industrial Complex and others.)
If the goal of Lincoln had been to end slavery it would have been much easier, simpler, and cheaper to buy them all
and deport them. At the time there were many frontiers where they could have been relocated as pioneers.
Instead Lincoln chose to fight a war to enslave everyone in America to the federal state and his generals Sherman and
Grant introduced total war against civilians for the first time to guarantee that slavery.
I think Casey is often wrong, but in this case, spot on. It is not an argument I have seen expressed in those words but it ties in with all other sources I've seen.
Not the first time an action, a war, for narrow interests has been justified on contrived moral grounds, Lincoln saw the chance and jumped in.
How he got the chance, as I see it-
The big economy at the time was England. Free trade was in fashion, in theory and it worked. Tie-in with The South was logical as their well-priced commodities suited English manufacturing industries. But the political pressure against support for The South were too strong. In England, there was strong anti-slavery sentiment. It cut across the economy and cost the government a big sum - slave owners in English territory, the West Indies for example, lost their slaves but were compensated, it was big money at that time. There were naval clashes with US ships carrying slaves.
So far, the English stance was all justifiable, but, one idea was not considered, no one wanted to eliminate slavery and maintain free trade concurrently.
The North was one-eyed about both, i. absolute no to slavery, ii. absolute no to free trade.
But ii. came before i.
The English banking and mercantile class lost out to the ideologues (again).
When the horrendous war ended, were the slaves free?
Free in law, yes, but in economic reality, nothing had changed. Well the economy was badly down.
The North, Lincoln, wanted to protect the northern manufacturers, destroying secession was the method.
Lincoln did not care about slavery, many quotes to that effect.
If there was a way to abolish slavery and negotiate on trade and protection, no one spoke.
Nice nuggets about the fuckery of the US Govt, and of course , like always the city of London’s Prussian banisters always funding both sides. WOW we are lucky to be here.