Nikki Haley-What was the cause of the Civil War

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-17-2024, 12:50 PM)Dill Wrote: As I explained while you were defending the Muslim ban, it had to be continually reworked to eliminate religious criteria for banning. 
Its intent was still to stem the flow of Muslim refugees from certain countries. They took out the word "Muslim" so apparently that fooled you.
So you were definitely running interference for Trump in that discussion. Still are, it seems.

Nevermind all the Dodds dodgery. My case was never that you don't agree with some liberal positions. 

My case is that you routinely, even obsessively, attack something you call "the left," while running interference for Trump, whom of course you are "on record" as disliking. 
 
Again, you spend a lot of time talking about how you feel about my post, without addressing the argument. Looks like your going to claim I don't listen, while ignoring the evidence presented. Got to run now. Maybe I'll finish this later.

Typical Dill post.  You found the one subject you could nitpick while ignoring your abject failure in the rest of the post.  Spare me, this has passed boring.

[Dill]

(12-28-2023, 01:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You shouldn't feel odd asking this question, because the main cause has shifted over the years.  Oddly enough the "needs" of left leaning academia is, IMO, the cause.  For most of my life the war was about slavery, either ending it or fighting to keep it.  Then around my college years (mid early to mid 90's) it changed to states rights, i.e. a federation or a confederation.  The US is an institutionally flawed, and most importantly racist, nation and would never go to war to liberate nonwhites. Then around 2016 (I wonder why?) the issue of slavery became the laser focus of the Civil War, because absolutely everything in this country must be viewed through the lens of race.  So your confusion is founded in reality.

Some further musings for anyone still interested in discussing the causes of the Civil War and a national politician's difficulty in answering questions about it.

Reading the above post got me to wondering "for whom" the cause of the Civil War has supposedly shifted, as well as whether, when and why?

First, irrespective of "cause," did most post-WW II Civil War historians think that slavery was the primary cause--the North trying to end it, the South trying to preserve it--until "early to mid '90s," when their consensus changed to "state rights" as a cause? Is that factually correct?  Or was there some other group able to shift the cause, and for whom--college students? The news consuming public? Public school teachers?

The above appears to say there is a group out there--"left-leaning academia"--whose "needs" required a shift in an existing consensus about the cause of the war.  It's not clear what those "needs" were though, or why a shift to "states rights" as a cause would satisfy them. Did this group need to think the Union would NOT go to war to "liberate non-whites"? 

But the North did go to war. So if not liberate non-whites, is their claim then that the North went to war for "states rights"? "Left-leaning academia" was large and powerful enough to change, what, the consensus of historians? Public discussions in the news or on the internet? Nikki Haley's views on the war? She did not seem to think slavery belonged in the discussion.

Also not clear for whom, around 2016, "slavery became the laser focus of the Civil War." That wasn't a "laser focus" during the early 90s when the great shift in explanatory cause occurred? From whom/where did that "laser focus" emanate? And how is that measured? Was it evidenced in books written, scholarly articles published, online forums, news commentary, government policy, or where?

(12-28-2023, 01:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Truthfully, I think it was largely (80%) about slavery, with the states rights issue hinging on, but limited to, that issue.  The interesting thing about that though, is that around 600,000 Union soldiers (almost exclusively white men) died fighting the Civil War to end slavery.  Which kind of complicates the whole white people are evil and the US is irredeemably racist argument.

According to The History Channel, about 620,000 Americans on both sides died during the war, but 258,000 of those deaths were Confederate. So it might be accurate to say that over 600,000 died fighting over the question of slavery, but it is not accurate to say that number died TO END slavery. 258,000 (exclusively white men) died trying to preserve it. https://www.history.com/news/american-civil-war-deaths

Also wondering who or what is the source for the "whole white people are evil and the US is irredeemably racist argument"? 

[*bengalfan74*]

(01-18-2024, 05:45 PM)Dill Wrote: Some further musings for anyone still interested in discussing the causes of the Civil War and a national politician's difficulty in answering questions about it.

Reading the above post got me to wondering "for whom" the cause of the Civil War has supposedly shifted, as well as whether, when and why?

First, irrespective of "cause," did most post-WW II Civil War historians think that slavery was the primary cause--the North trying to end it, the South trying to preserve it--until "early to mid '90s," when their consensus changed to "state rights" as a cause? Is that factually correct?  Or was there some other group able to shift the cause, and for whom--college students? The news consuming public? Public school teachers?

The above appears to say there is a group out there--"left-leaning academia"--whose "needs" required a shift in an existing consensus about the cause of the war.  It's not clear what those "needs" were though, or why a shift to "states rights" as a cause would satisfy them. Did this group need to think the Union would NOT go to war to "liberate non-whites"? 

But the North did go to war. So if not liberate non-whites, is their claim then that the North went to war for "states rights"? "Left-leaning academia" was large and powerful enough to change, what, the consensus of historians? Public discussions in the news or on the internet? Nikki Haley's views on the war? She did not seem to think slavery belonged in the discussion.

Also not clear for whom, around 2016, "slavery became the laser focus of the Civil War." That wasn't a "laser focus" during the early 90s when the great shift in explanatory cause occurred? From whom/where did that "laser focus" emanate? And how is that measured? Was it evidenced in books written, scholarly articles published, online forums, news commentary, government policy, or where?


According to The History Channel, about 620,000 Americans on both sides died during the war, but 258,000 of those deaths were Confederate (and exclusively white men). 
So it might be accurate to say that over 600,000 fighting over the question of slavery, but it is not accurate to say that number died TO END slavery. Remember one side was fighting to preserve it.
https://www.history.com/news/american-civil-war-deaths

Also wondering who or is the source for the "whole white people are evil and the US is irredeemably racist argument"? 

You hit on an important point here. If you could go back and conduct a poll on the cause of the Civil war in 1875, you would probably get a little different answer than what you would in 1910, 1950, 1995 and so on. Times change, the lens that whatever is being viewed through changes.

And just for the record I'm not trying to say the Civil war wasn't about slavery. Just that it's very hard for us today to put ourselves in the shoes of someone in 1860. 

On the Civil war deaths it's very hard to put a hard number on. I believe about 6,000 were KIA at Gettysburg but Confederate numbers are hard to pin down. Moreover, how many that were wounded died a month later? a year later? and so on. How many reported "missing" were just blown to bits? 

Many historians believe the 600,000 number is probably quite low. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(01-18-2024, 05:45 PM)Dill Wrote: According to The History Channel, about 620,000 Americans on both sides died during the war, but 258,000 of those deaths were Confederate. So it might be accurate to say that over 600,000 died fighting over the question of slavery, but it is not accurate to say that number died TO END slavery. 258,000 (exclusively white men) died trying to preserve it. https://www.history.com/news/american-civil-war-deaths

Also wondering who or what is the source for the "whole white people are evil and the US is irredeemably racist argument"? 

The site I got my numbers from;

https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/civil-war-casualties

I failed to notice the blue bar was for all casualties, not just deaths.  So one internet point for you.  It doesn't detract from my point at all.  Hundreds of thousands of men, the vast majority of them White, were killed fighting to end slavery.

[GMDino]

Tapper: You really think as a historical matter America has never been a racist country? pic.twitter.com/pY1mr9d2cc

— Acyn (@Acyn) January 19, 2024

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[Millhouse]

(01-19-2024, 12:35 PM)GMDino Wrote:

Tapper: You really think as a historical matter America has never been a racist country? pic.twitter.com/pY1mr9d2cc

— Acyn (@Acyn) January 19, 2024

<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

The very sad thing is she is probably the only one in the POTUS ring I would consider voting for. That is an indictment of how disgusted I am by both parties and all of the candidates.

That being said, how dumb can she be when referencing racist history in the U.S. Another case of someone that could simply state the obvious response but instead sounds infinitely idiotic when trying to sound intelligent.

[GMDino]

(01-19-2024, 01:40 PM)Millhouse Wrote: The very sad thing is she is probably the only one in the POTUS ring I would consider voting for. That is an indictment of how disgusted I am by both parties and all of the candidates.

That being said, how dumb can she be when referencing racist history in the U.S. Another case of someone that could simply state the obvious response but instead sounds infinitely idiotic when trying to sound intelligent.

The problem is she is running as a republican.  She needs the MAGA vote and therefore cannot admit there is racism.  If there IS racism it all started with Obama and he caused it by hating white people.

Or something.

[Dill]

(01-19-2024, 01:40 PM)Millhouse Wrote: The very sad thing is she is probably the only one in the POTUS ring I would consider voting for. That is an indictment of how disgusted I am by both parties and all of the candidates.

That being said, how dumb can she be when referencing racist history in the U.S. Another case of someone that could simply state the obvious response but instead sounds infinitely idiotic when trying to sound intelligent.

I don't think she was "trying to sound intelligent." 

She was speaking to people who want US history and current politics disconnected from race issues. 

I.e., a Fox/Newsmax/Sky/OANN audience. 

So it's about being politically accurate for that audience, not about being historically accurate.

[*Nately120*]

(01-19-2024, 02:58 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't think she was "trying to sound intelligent." 

She was speaking to people who want US history and current politics disconnected from race issues. 

I.e., a Fox/Newsmax/Sky/OANN audience. 

So it's about being politically accurate for that audience, not about being historically accurate.

It's being politically correct, telling people what they want to hear.  Apparently liberals have preferred pronouns they ask you to use and conservatives have preferred versions of history they ask you to use.

[Dill]

(01-18-2024, 06:06 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: You hit on an important point here. If you could go back and conduct a poll on the cause of the Civil war in 1875, you would probably get a little different answer than what you would in 1910, 1950, 1995 and so on. Times change, the lens that whatever is being viewed through changes.

And just for the record I'm not trying to say the Civil war wasn't about slavery. Just that it's very hard for us today to put ourselves in the shoes of someone in 1860. 

Completely agree with the bolded.

I think 1890 was a turning point. As Union soldiers who actually fought in the war died off and/or went out of politics, it became more and more important to "unify" the country's history.  The historians who wrote US history texts for American high schools, from the 20s to the 50s, are now famous for presenting the war over slavery with no discussion of ideas and motivations which led to the war, for fear of offending and "politicizing."  Abolitionists like John Brown were presented as "fanatics." Texts for southern schools introduced the "states rights" interpretation to explain the "Great War of Northern Aggression." Slavery was often presented in them as rather benign and agreeable to the slaves themselves. The "states rights" cause was embraced by southern historians well into the 70s, but now continues to live on the internet in right wing blogs and websites, especially those making claims like "Blacks fought for the Confederacy too!"

"Left-leaning academics" began challenging that "neutral" history in the 70s and 80s, with partial success. Most of the people in this forum probably remember lots of "inserts" and boxes in their HS history texts--maybe one on Harriet Tubman and another on Frederick Douglas, and other minorities. Possibly also discussions sympathetic to the dispossession of Native Americans, as opposed to celebrations of manifest destiny which used to characterize such texts. There is still a lot of pushback against this kind of inclusion and balance though, as can be seen in current curricular battles in states like Texas and Florida. (See Dino's recent thread on the school bill up for consideration in Texas.)

Most professional historians now agree that slavery was the primary cause, but not simply so. Americans had tolerated or embraced slavery since the founding, and they had difficulty accepting legal equality of Blacks for a hundred years after the war. Also, "states rights" was not simply a southern issue; New England wanted to break with the Union over the War of 1812. So for historians today, the question is "why 1861 instead of 1855 or 1870"? What configuration of forces pushed the country war at that moment, not some other? That explanation has to include more than just slavery.  (C-Dawg gave an accurate overview of the current consensus in post #19.)

Haley's difficulty in answering a simple question about the "causes" of the Civil War is another indication of how much MAGA ideology has come to trump historical accuracy, as well as legal and journalistic. There is a strong push to deny that racism has been a shaping force in US history; for that denial to be politically effective, professional history--and the academy which produces professional historians--has to be de-legitimized. That is easier for folks who got their US history in high schools pre-1980, which certainly discussed slavery and segregation, but without connecting them to any explicit racist ideology or racism as a feature of American life and politics. All that bad stuff just happened somehow, and then stopped somehow--though not because of MLK and "the left," or yes because of MLK construed as a "conservative" who only wanted people judged for the content of their character and not their color.  

(01-18-2024, 06:06 PM)bengalfan74 Wrote: On the Civil war deaths it's very hard to put a hard number on. I believe about 6,000 were KIA at Gettysburg but Confederate numbers are hard to pin down. Moreover, how many that were wounded died a month later? a year later? and so on. How many reported "missing" were just blown to bits? 

Many historians believe the 600,000 number is probably quite low. 

Yes. The demographic historian J. David Hacker, examining population trends from the pre-war US, puts the number at about 750,000 total deaths. That's probably going to supersede the old 618,000 number. https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/science/civil-war-toll-up-by-20-percent-in-new-estimate.html

I would add that, regarding the old number, over 250,000 in that stat were from disease, not battle deaths. WWII is still the highest number there, with over 400,000. I believe there were 51,000 casualties at Gettysburg, counting both sides. ("Casualties" includes wounded and missing--any one no longer present on the muster roll.)

[Dill]

(01-19-2024, 03:35 PM)Nately120 Wrote: It's being politically correct, telling people what they want to hear.  Apparently liberals have preferred pronouns they ask you to use and conservatives have preferred versions of history they ask you to use.

Well said!