• DrDeadCrash@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t really disagree with anything you said, I still say that it all boils down to “slavery” as the (root) cause.

    The war was caused by the federal government refusing to […]

    Inaction isn’t the “cause” of an event, so what was the action?

    I’d say: Providing (to runaway former slaves) the same safety and protections everyone else was already getting from the state (ex. Wisconsin).

    What “actions” do you think were the cause of the civil war?

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      27
      ·
      1 year ago

      I still say that it all boils down to “slavery” as the (root) cause

      And I say that’s a reductionist view and makes it sound like the point of the civil war was the federal government outlawing slavery. Which likely wouldnt have happened for a long time if not for the civil war happening.

      What caused the civil war was the Southern states seceding from the US.

      The reason they started it was the federal government said while they wouldn’t make slavery illegal federally, they also wouldn’t force the non-slave states to treat escaped slaves as slaves once they made it to the North.

      • ThunderWhiskers@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You keep saying that the war wasn’t started over slavery because this that and the other, then immediately follow with cause being due to the south seceding, the reasoning for their secession was due to the fact that the federal government would not enforce southern slavery laws.

        So, by your own reasoning slavery was SPECIFICALLY the reason the war was started. Details matter, but what you are dealing in is called pedantry which only succeeds in confusing the issue in favor of those who support slavery.

      • DrDeadCrash@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And I think people use this whole argument to confuse the issue.

        While the federal government wasn’t the “savior of the slaves” in the way that it is often explained in elementary school, that does describe well the dichotomy of morality that existed at that time between slavers and non.