Only 8% of High Schoolers Can Identify Slavery as Civil War's Root Issue

[Baruch]

Everybody has a bias.  The bias of the South may not have been liberal, but it was barbaric.  But throughout history, there are people pointing to the future, and the South had these people too.  People who knew that slavery was an abomination, and contrary to the generalized pictures we paint of the South, these people were vocal, just as forward looking people are today.  They explained but they were ignored, as people on the right side of history often are.

I understand this.  I perceive it just as others do, and I understand what the South was doing, but you want me to perceive it in such a way that I condone it or at least see their point of view.  I do see their point of view, but I oppose it.  I would be part of that group of both South and North that saw the slavers point of view and knew it was wrong back in 1850, those who refused to take the point of view that forcing people into slavery was the moral high ground, but was nothing more than rationalization supported by the fallacy of a majority view and self serving convenience.

Those who opposed slavery in 1850, were not deficient in insight.  They understood the inhumanity and watched it up closer than you or I, and they condemned it.  Would you say they lacked the ability to understand another point of view?  No, they saw slavery for what it was, and were guided by their own conscience.

They didn't oppose slavery because of E O Wilson ethics of ants.  They did so because they were Puritanical Christians or Evangelical Christians.  There weren't so many atheists back then.

[Baruch]

You want me to remove my bias?  I can't do that for the South anymore than I can for Nazi Germany. It's possible that I don't get what you are trying to say.  If that's the case, there is not much more I can do.

In one of my vivid dreams, I was a German soldier in WW II.  And maybe I was.  If you are not just you, but have lived many lives, should your present "you" condemn the past "you"?  Yes ... I find Southern arrogance (that is what it takes to own people) to be horrible.  But I also consider Yankee arrogance not implementing OSHA in Northern factories to be horrible.  Part of what is going on here, is phobia of the past, a past that happened, so we can't escape it.  Jews know this very well.  Germans and Japanese do too, and to be fascist today they have to go thru mental gyrations to avoid the associated guilt.  Similarly Putin blaming all of communism on Stalin and Jews.  A lot of Russians thought that communism was a good deal, but it didn't work out so well for them.

[SGOS]

If you are not just you, but have lived many lives, should your present "you" condemn the past "you"?

Most psychologists would probably say no.  But I do condemn myself, and I'm not talking about me in another life.  I'm talking about me in this life.  I also experience regret for many of my actions.  Yee Gods!  What was I thinking back then?  A friend of mine once told me when I confided this that, "The problem was that you were NOT thinking," and while that was intended as a clever quip, he nailed it, not that this was an unexpected insight.  I already knew it.  But I'm also proud of other things I've done, so it's a wash, I guess, just not a perfect wash.

[Baruch]

Most psychologists would probably say no.  But I do condemn myself, and I'm not talking about me in another life.  I'm talking about me in this life.  I also experience regret for many of my actions.  Yee Gods!  What was I thinking back then?  A friend of mine once told me when I confided this that, "The problem was that you were NOT thinking," and while that was intended as a clever quip, he nailed it, not that this was an unexpected insight.  I already knew it.  But I'm also proud of other things I've done, so it's a wash, I guess, just not a perfect wash.

That is fair enough, we can limit to just this one life.  And yes, condemn yourself it you want.  It is a free country (as long as you pay your dues first).

[Draconic Aiur]

If we telescope history, then everyone, at every time in the past, should have been enlightened as we are, and are damned for not being so.  Now apply this to ourselves, as seen 100 years from now?  Not so comfortable.

There are admirable people in every generation, and monsters too.  Our present isn't the first generation to have compassion.

That is implying that back then they had modern day perceptions which they did not. They were still good people, its just that there morals were very different from ours today.

Present day we are more moralistic and more rational than we ever were before.

[PickelledEggs]

Wait. what is this conversation? Is Draconic saying that one of the biggest reasons for the civil war was the issue of slavery? or am i reading this wrong

[Baruch]

I don't see being moralistic or rationalistic as necessarily good things.  Muslim extremists are very moralistic, but not rationalistic.  Nazis are very rationalistic, but not very moralistic.  So Muslim Nazis are a good thing?

[SGOS]

Wait. what is this conversation? Is Draconic saying that one of the biggest reasons for the civil war was the issue of slavery? or am i reading this wrong

As the person identified as not getting anything of what he is saying, I think he's talking about there being no universal morality, and how we should not judge moralities that are vastly different than our own.  But I think his position on your question is that slavery was not the central cause of the Civil War.

[SGOS]

In thinking about causes of the Civil War further, it is obvious that not everyone perceives the causes the importance to be to the same degree.  It then occurs to me that some of this depends on which side of the war a person was on.  I don't think the politics of slavery were as important for the North as it was for the South.  I think the main objective of the North was to hold the union together.

The South had written many declarations citing several reasons for secession, but slavery was always listed, and appeared to be the most unnegotiable grievance.  Even when the South offered to end the fighting when the outcome was clearly not in their favor, they offered to do so as long as they could still own slaves.  Many in the North would have taken that, but Lincoln, apparently sensing the kill, refused to allow any concessions.

[Baruch]

In thinking about causes of the Civil War further, it is obvious that not everyone perceives the causes the importance to be to the same degree.  It then occurs to me that some of this depends on which side of the war a person was on.  I don't think the politics of slavery were as important for the North as it was for the South.  I think the main objective of the North was to hold the union together.

The South had written many declarations citing several reasons for secession, but slavery was always listed, and appeared to be the most unnegotiable grievance.  Even when the South offered to end the fighting when the outcome was clearly not in their favor, they offered to do so as long as they could still own slaves.  Many in the North would have taken that, but Lincoln, apparently sensing the kill, refused to allow any concessions.

There was a plot, by Sec War Stimson, to make sure that when Lincoln met the Southern diplomats at Hampton Roads ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hampton_Roads_Conference

... that Lincoln wouldn't make too many concessions.  The Radical Republicans were more intransigent than Lincoln himself.  I don't think Lincoln was in danger, since he had Gen Grant there with him.  The passage of the 13th Amendment shortly before the conference ... hardened the Union position, as the Radical Republicans wanted.

[PickelledEggs]

I don't see being moralistic or rationalistic as necessarily good things.  Muslim extremists are very moralistic, but not rationalistic.  Nazis are very rationalistic, but not very moralistic.  So Muslim Nazis are a good thing?

Moralistic? Partially not necessarily good things. Rational? Never not good.

The only reason I say moralistic is not necessarily good, is because even today, we have relative morality. EVEN within small regions, like a state or town, morality differs.

The issue of health care is one big thing that is a good example for that: Republicans that are against universal health care don't want people to be unhealthy, they just don't want their money to pay for people's doctor's bills. It's a difference in how people want their money spent and it get's labeled as "immoral" from most liberals because it is seen as them not caring about people. It's different priorities for the greater good of the people. People have different views on what is the a better approach for the greater good of the people. But just because you have a different idea of how everyone is obligated to spend their money through taxes, doesn't mean you are moral/immoral.

Slavery is a completely different thing. It's something that is directly hurting another person and detrimental to their well-being. Slavery can objectively be seen as immoral. Many things in life are subjective. Slavery being an immoral act, is not something that is subjective. Especially if you understand that people that aren't light skin-ed are as human as the rest of us.

The reason I say morality not necessarily good, is that occasionally it gets in the way of rationality. You have seen this on the right for years, but recently, it has been more and more frequent and severe of a problem with the left as well. Where someone's self-professed supreme morals take control and override any sense of rationality or realism for how the world or human nature works.

[Draconic Aiur]

I don't see being moralistic or rationalistic as necessarily good things.  Muslim extremists are very moralistic, but not rationalistic.  Nazis are very rationalistic, but not very moralistic.  So Muslim Nazis are a good thing?

Sarcasm is not appreciated

Wait. what is this conversation? Is Draconic saying that one of the biggest reasons for the civil war was the issue of slavery? or am i reading this wrong

States right it is and arguing why the South  and North didn't think slavery was an issue bcause African American wre not human to them.

As the person identified as not getting anything of what he is saying, I think he's talking about there being no universal morality, and how we should not judge moralities that are vastly different than our own.  But I think his position on your question is that slavery was not the central cause of the Civil War.

Close but no cigar.

I'm saying their morals weren't as civilized as ours and in order to understand how they think and what happened to make them think like that we need to keep our biases out and look at them with a scientist's mind. I keep on saying the explanation over and over again its like i'm fucking talking to a wall.

[SGOS]

Close but no cigar.

I'm saying their morals weren't as civilized as ours and in order to understand how they think and what happened to make them think like that we need to keep our biases out and look at them with a scientist's mind. I keep on saying the explanation over and over again its like i'm fucking talking to a wall.

Yes, I heard that, but it was so obvious from the beginning that I didn't comment on that specifically.  Of course, historians should look past their biases.  But I'm not a historian and don't claim to be one.  I was just passing judgment on our past, like anyone else is allowed to do.

[PickelledEggs]

States right it is and arguing why the South  and North didn't think slavery was an issue bcause African American wre not human to them.

I'm sorry but I'm having a hard time understanding this sentence, as the grammar is broken beyond comprehension

Can you re-word this so I can understand it?

[Draconic Aiur]

I'm sorry but I'm having a hard time understanding this sentence, as the grammar is broken beyond comprehension

Can you re-word this so I can understand it?

The reason why the south states seceded ant went to fucking war was states rights.