Twokinds ARCHIVE Forums

My knowledge on the topic is not encyclopedic, but I've had the entire story drilled into me so many times, I know the high points pretty well...

...and I'm so very curious to see how this thread will avoid turning nasty at some point...
o.o

I don't think people outside the US know a lot about it.

What I managed to piece together is that the South decided to break away from the Union, which was basically the fledgling form of the United States, because of something to do with slavery. After which the President [this part I gathered from newsweek] decided to pass the 'emancipation proclamation', or something like that, which eventually [i think] led to the end of slavery in America.

The rest is a haze of memories and recollections from the characters in various books I've read.

Sorry if I've messed up somehow... :? Is this topic a sensitive one?

That's a pretty good summary for someone that doesn't live in America; I'm willing to be it's more than some Americans know. ;)

Basically, tension over slavery existed from the founding of the country. While only about 5% of the South actually owned slaves, it was such a large symbol of wealth and heritage that it helped define the South. Plus, it meant cheap, infinite labor when the supply of white indentured servants (giving up 7 or so years of their life for a ticket to the colonies) ran dry.

Eventually, tensions became greater as anti-slavery movements grew in the North (don't mistake this for equality, though; Northerners were almost as racist against blacks as Southerners). With each new state that came into the Union being fought over as a free vs. slave state, things came to a head when the fate of Kansas came into play. Abolitionists and proponents of slavery rushed into Kansas, and fighting broke out. A Southern senator beat a Northern senator with his cane, Abraham Lincoln was elected president, and the South succeeded from the Union.

Now, the Civil War was not fought over slavery or to end slavery, it was over the question of whether states had the right to succeed from the Union and form a new government. It wasn't until towards the end of the war that Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation.

And then the rest I don't quite remember; it's early, give me a break. :P

You know...i recently migrated to USA from SINGAPORE to further my studies.

I learnt about American History since the founded by Columbus (SOOOOO much more interesting events happened in USA....rather than the dull history of SINGAPORE imo). The civil war thingy....i feel that you cannot blame the southerners and northerners to fight each other.

Reason?

I believe that it is hard to give up something that you've been relying for so long, and had been pass down for many generation. I know slavery is a bad thing, but they've help America to grow and prosper. Well....whaddaya know...USA is the superpower no.1 in the world.

You know....i wonder if initial settlers of america dont bring slavery here....i wonder how it would be like here.

whatever it is....I'm actually quite glad that there's a civil war in the past, (it has to happen at some point...>_>) so that the slaves would be free. Afterall, most of my friends in USA are African-Americans. I think AAmericans understand what it feels like being discriminated by others....

just my thoughts, if anyone find my thoughts offensive....please tell me, im gladly remove my post and keep my mouth shut... :lol:

Personally, and this is my opinion here so I hope no one is offended, I think the war was hardly about slavery. It was about money. Only the top 5% of planters in the South actually owned slaves, but it was a huge revenue source for them. They rallied the poorer southerners, few of whom even owned slaves, and convinced them to fight for a cause that barely had anything to do with them. The North saw the South as an easy money opportunity. If the North could break the Southern economy, they could go buy up all the land and sell it back for a huge profit. The South used Lincoln's election as an excuse to secede from the union, and that started the grounds for the war that the North wanted. As far as the Emancipation proclamation is concerned, that was a PR move more than anything. Britain showed concern about our civil war, and began suggesting that it would help the South. Well, if Britain helped the South, the North would be screwed. What few Americans seem to realize, however, is that Britain had slaves as well, and so Lincoln passed the EP, and made the war about slavery. This made Britain back off, because Britain didn't want to be involved in such a controversial war. The EP didn't do a damn thing for the slaves, since it only freed American slaves, and at the Time the South wasn't exactly under American jurisdiction. What REALLY freed the slaves was the 13th amendment, which was passed after the war ended. That's my two cents.

The war wasn't about slavery at all. Abraham Lincoln said himself that if he could save the union without freeing the slaves he would have done it. The Emancipation Proclamation was only made to free the slaves of the south. Not all slaves like many people believe. In addition to the part about slavery it also let black men join the army which added close to 200,000 to the north's army if I remember correctly.

What, you mean SINGAPORE's lack of war, political strife or relative lack of nonsense? I don't expect SINGAPORE to have an interesting history, because SINGAPORE's only been around for a while, but SINGAPORE seems to think I like learning more about its history, so I'm forced to read textbooks on SINGAPORE's policies and SINGAPORE's ministers. [If you can't tell, I'm a bit annoyed. But nevermind.]

As for the whole Slavery thing, what was the idea behind freeing the slaves? The whole country was essentially racist at the time, so why would they have cared?

[edit] Strangely as I was writing the first paragraph, the national anthem started to play on TV. I'm sick of that song...

While the Civil War often is seen as "the war that ended slavery" like many have already said, it really had nothing to do with slavery- that is just what its remembered as - a positive spin on a horrible and bloody war. But to say that everyone in America was racist back then is a bunch of bull, kinda like saying gay people are new to the world and didnt exist a hundred years ago.

SOME slave owners treated their slaves very well, gave them good living conditions, treated them like family, taught them how to read and write- but it was not the norm because there was a set idea as to how slaves were treated. Racism was basically popular. It was the "in thing". Having slaves made you a better person than someone without slaves. The more you have the better- but it cost too much to give them all a bed of their own- and so you get all the horrible things over again.

Some people even bought slaves to take them to the north and freed them, but you wont find many records or stories like that- why? The same reason you cant turn on the news and hear all about how a few nice people gave a bit of money to a charity- its all about murders and people getting abused - with one story about how a kid saved a puppy. When you talk about slavery- its not about how this one guy saved a man from working himself to death in a cotton field - its about a man that nearly died in a cotton field- escaped the hands of the evil Master and made it to a new life.

Like many people said befor me the US Civil War was a whole mix of reason of why it started and the "free the slaves" part was really just the Union's way of getting the moral high ground (since they were lossing)

also Texas becoming a state help start it, back then half the current states have slavery, the other half didn't, wend Texas became a state it didn't allow slavery blah blah blah

some fort gets attack,

just watch the history channel

I stand corrected on the issue of civil war America's racism. My mistake.

That's kind of sad, actually. Racism might not be the in thing anymore, but I think the very idea of something being 'in', which everyone tries to mimic in order to look cool is horrible.

well the conpest of racism is rathar minor in terms of history. Most nations didn't care what color you are, the only color that matters is gold. (based on what I know about multie Rascal nations, like Rome and Pursia)

india's caste system was base on what color you were until they threw religion in the mix

this of course change of the age of Imperism which have nations like France, Spain and England the belive that they were better, everyone else were savage and it's up to them to teach these savages how to be just like them (ei White man's burden)

I think history textbooks are kind of like a "best of" highlights of history. They mention and explain the most important parts, because that's all there's really time for to teach and room in the book to cover. Books dedicated to the study of the various events, people, etc. of history are the best and really only way to get a complete understanding of someone.

For instance, there was a guest lecture at my university a while back about Lincoln, and she talked about his presidency. And damn, he was ne smart man. He filled his cabinet of advisers with a range of incredibly intelligent, capable people - regardless of whether or not they belonged to his party, were his opposition, or even liked him. Because he didn't have "yes men" but people who would challenge and question his policies, he was able to more carefully consider situations from viewpoints he wouldn't have otherwise known.

Anyways, I think we can all agree racism = bad, slavery = bad, EP and end of slavery = good. It's sad racism lasted so long in the North and South. Reading about some of the civil rights era incidents like Little Rock, it's so sad that people can be so mean to each other. Hate like that poisons the soul. But then of course, there are nice people like Wynni, so I know the South ain't all bad. :wink: