wedrifid comments on Closet survey #1 - Less Wrong

53 [deleted] 14 March 2009 07:51AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (653)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: wnoise 14 April 2010 07:08:39PM *  5 points [-]

(If slavery was an issue, then the North should've just bought out the South - likely would've been much cheaper than the actual war.)

The North (well, congress) tried to buy out the South (well, slaveowners). The South rejected it. There were actually multiple attempts at this, some before the war, some during the war.

The thing is, the War between the States really truly was about slavery, nothing else. The dodge that it was about states' rights comes down to exactly one right -- the right to keep slaves. Compare with such travesties as the fugitive slave acts, which they pushed through congress, which actually did greatly infringe the rights of the northern states. The southern states, despite some of their propaganda, did not generally support the right of secession. Their Constititution explicitly forbade it. Every single article of secession passed by their state legislatures explicitly called out slavery as the reason for secession.

The odd thing is that slavery was not in any immediate danger. But with the election of Lincoln the southern states saw that their grip on the country was not as absolute as they desired, and they threw a tantrum, because they demanded not only the right to have slaves, but that the rest of the country not judge them for it.

Comment author: wedrifid 14 April 2010 08:37:59PM 4 points [-]

The thing is, the War between the States really truly was about slavery, nothing else.

Not about expanding or preserving the personal power of the most prominent decision makers? Wow. The war between the states sounds truly exceptional!

Comment author: wnoise 14 April 2010 10:38:21PM *  4 points [-]

Okay, sure, in some sense it was about that, just as we can talk about the cause of the war being the laws of physics plus the entire past light-cone.

But that's not usually what we mean by "cause of war". I don't see how this is a cause in any truly useful or predictive sense. Expanding and protecting personal power certainly is necessary for wars, but it's pretty much vacuously satisfied: the prominent decision makers almost always want to expand and preserve their power. Although it often leads to wars, it often doesn't. What made or let it lead to war this time, rather than more peaceful politicking?