3 ms·

The US Civil War was way too long and bloody to claim it was just a war fought over a few federal installations.

SpicyLemonZest 9mo ago
Right, the Confederate leaders could easily have negotiated a shorter and cleaner surrender if they had wanted to. They didn't want to, because they were evil men who couldn't tolerate even the possibility that they might not be able to own other people.
- Jensson 9mo ago
  Lincoln refused to negotiate with them, so not sure what you mean. He only accepted unconditional surrender by them. The southern states tried to negotiate with Lincoln before the war broke out but he refused and never budged on that.
  - SpicyLemonZest 9mo ago
    I'm not sure where you've gotten this information, because it's completely untrue. For example, he made a quite famous offer to the southern states on September 22, 1862, in response to a major Union victory at Antietam. If any of them agreed to rejoin the Union before January 1, they would be welcomed back and allowed to keep their slaves under the pre-war status quo. But no state took him up on the offer, presumably because their leaders found it intolerable to live in a country where slavery might some day be banned.
    - Jensson 9mo ago
      > I'm not sure where you've gotten this information, because it's completely untrue. For example, he made a quite famous offer to the southern states on September 22, 1862 That offer was not to the confederacy, he refused to negotiate with the confederacy. Its very hostile if workers form a union and the employee gives a sweet deal to each of those workers to leave the union while refusing to talk to the union, its the same thing here refusing to negotiate with their representative is very hostile. > If any of them agreed to rejoin the Union before January 1, they would be welcomed back and allowed to keep their slaves under the pre-war status quo. But no state took him up on the offer, presumably because their leaders found it intolerable to live in a country where slavery might some day be banned. No, its because the states had formed a new union and they didn't want to betray that one. Lincoln refused to negotiate with them as a whole, he tried to negotiate with the parts. Its like telling enemy soldiers that they get a sweet deal if they betray their country and join yours instead, that will not get you many because most people refuse to betray their allies. If Lincoln hadn't refused to negotiate with the confederacy as a whole likely the war would be much less bloody or maybe even fully avoided.
      - lovich 9mo ago
        There was no reason to negotiate with the confederacy because these were US states. Them leaving was a non starter. You claiming he refused to negotiate with them is just saying "Lincoln didnt capitulate to the Confederacy on the _one_ thing that was non negotiable". > If Lincoln hadn't refused to negotiate with the confederacy as a whole likely the war would be much less bloody or maybe even fully avoided. Confederates shot first at Fort Sumter. If they hadn't started a war over their desire to own people, it would have been avoided. You can sign up for your local chapter of the Daughters of the Confederacy here[1] if you want to keep peddling these revisionist views. [1]https://hqudc.org/ https://hqudc.org/
  - phs318u 9mo ago
    Good for him! The time for negotiation is before the war, not after you've been utterly destroyed. For him to give in to the slave-owning south having won a civil war at such high cost, would have been snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
dragonwriter 9mo ago
It was fought by the South over slavery and by the North over federal power. Both sides were fairly explicit about this at the time. Of course, long after the fact, popular opinion on slavery has moved enough that people like to pretend the side that they prefer fought primarily for the opposite reason; the South over (opposition to) federal power and the North over (opposition to) slavery.
- true_religion 9mo ago
  The above might seem a little shocking to non Americans, but consider the Gettysburg Address and the Emancipation proclamation. The first was because fighting merely for the preservation of the union was not enough to bolster moral. Union forces had been losing or winning pyrrhic victories and the common solider didn’t want to fight to force their southern cousins into a nation they didn’t want to be a part of. So the stated rationale for the war was changed to be about ending slavey now. However the emancipation proclamation only ended the practice in states that were in rebellion, which is not what you would expect from a country who had wanted to end slavery from the start.

Right, the Confederate leaders could easily have negotiated a shorter and cleaner surrender if they had wanted to. They didn't want to, because they were evil men who couldn't tolerate even the possibility that they might not be able to own other people.

Jensson 9mo ago
Lincoln refused to negotiate with them, so not sure what you mean. He only accepted unconditional surrender by them. The southern states tried to negotiate with Lincoln before the war broke out but he refused and never budged on that.
- SpicyLemonZest 9mo ago
  I'm not sure where you've gotten this information, because it's completely untrue. For example, he made a quite famous offer to the southern states on September 22, 1862, in response to a major Union victory at Antietam. If any of them agreed to rejoin the Union before January 1, they would be welcomed back and allowed to keep their slaves under the pre-war status quo. But no state took him up on the offer, presumably because their leaders found it intolerable to live in a country where slavery might some day be banned.
  - Jensson 9mo ago
    > I'm not sure where you've gotten this information, because it's completely untrue. For example, he made a quite famous offer to the southern states on September 22, 1862 That offer was not to the confederacy, he refused to negotiate with the confederacy. Its very hostile if workers form a union and the employee gives a sweet deal to each of those workers to leave the union while refusing to talk to the union, its the same thing here refusing to negotiate with their representative is very hostile. > If any of them agreed to rejoin the Union before January 1, they would be welcomed back and allowed to keep their slaves under the pre-war status quo. But no state took him up on the offer, presumably because their leaders found it intolerable to live in a country where slavery might some day be banned. No, its because the states had formed a new union and they didn't want to betray that one. Lincoln refused to negotiate with them as a whole, he tried to negotiate with the parts. Its like telling enemy soldiers that they get a sweet deal if they betray their country and join yours instead, that will not get you many because most people refuse to betray their allies. If Lincoln hadn't refused to negotiate with the confederacy as a whole likely the war would be much less bloody or maybe even fully avoided.
    - lovich 9mo ago
      There was no reason to negotiate with the confederacy because these were US states. Them leaving was a non starter. You claiming he refused to negotiate with them is just saying "Lincoln didnt capitulate to the Confederacy on the _one_ thing that was non negotiable". > If Lincoln hadn't refused to negotiate with the confederacy as a whole likely the war would be much less bloody or maybe even fully avoided. Confederates shot first at Fort Sumter. If they hadn't started a war over their desire to own people, it would have been avoided. You can sign up for your local chapter of the Daughters of the Confederacy here[1] if you want to keep peddling these revisionist views. [1]https://hqudc.org/ https://hqudc.org/
- phs318u 9mo ago
  Good for him! The time for negotiation is before the war, not after you've been utterly destroyed. For him to give in to the slave-owning south having won a civil war at such high cost, would have been snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]

dragonwriter 9mo ago

It was fought by the South over slavery and by the North over federal power. Both sides were fairly explicit about this at the time. Of course, long after the fact, popular opinion on slavery has moved enough that people like to pretend the side that they prefer fought primarily for the opposite reason; the South over (opposition to) federal power and the North over (opposition to) slavery.

true_religion 9mo ago
The above might seem a little shocking to non Americans, but consider the Gettysburg Address and the Emancipation proclamation. The first was because fighting merely for the preservation of the union was not enough to bolster moral. Union forces had been losing or winning pyrrhic victories and the common solider didn’t want to fight to force their southern cousins into a nation they didn’t want to be a part of. So the stated rationale for the war was changed to be about ending slavey now. However the emancipation proclamation only ended the practice in states that were in rebellion, which is not what you would expect from a country who had wanted to end slavery from the start.