There isn't a both sides......

[Fau Teixeira]

Just like in many countries around the world as we speak, slavery was a means to an end. Profit plain and simple. Like most wars, the Civil War was primarily about money.

Right, it was about money produced by slaves. Pure and simple. Seeing as there weren't cotton-picking robots in the 1860s it was only ever keeping the economic status-quo. Therefore it was about slaves. Good thing you came around to it on your own.

[ArtieChokePhin]

Right, it was about money produced by slaves. Pure and simple. Seeing as there weren't cotton-picking robots in the 1860s it was only ever keeping the economic status-quo. Therefore it was about slaves. Good thing you came around to it on your own.

It was about the fact that the South was poor because they produced the raw materials and didn't get paid as much for them that the finished product was worth once it was produced in a factory in the North.  Therefore, by becoming a separate country, they could charge more for said materials.   

You're right about it being about money.

[Phishfan]

This is absolute bullshit. You don't have to succeed to raise prices. You do have to succeed to keep slavery long term though. The South also had plenty of money pre Civil War also. They were not poor states at all.

[Spider-Dan]

And here we go.

No matter how many Confederates directly stated that secession was specifically about slavery, conservatives 150 years later ignore their plain statements of intent and insist that no, the Civil War was actually about Economic Anxiety or some similar BS.

The Civil War was not about money... unless you mean the money the South was making from slavery.
The Civil War was not about states' rights... unless you mean states' rights to own slaves.
The Civil War was because ~25% of the country really, REALLY liked slavery and were willing to die to protect it.

But now, Republican states want to both sides the teaching of the history of American slavery, and try to whitewash those who perpetrated it.

[Dolphster]

But now, Republican states want to both sides the teaching of the history of American slavery, and try to whitewash those who perpetrated it.

They do?  The Governors or state agencies of Republican states are on record as stating that they want "both sides" of slavery taught and that they want to whitewash those who perpetrated slavery?  Or do you mean a small minority of  inbred yahoo citizens (not the state government) of Republican states want "both sides" of slavery taught and to whitewash those who perpetrated it as a lame attempt to legitimize their own racism?  If you can share links to legitimate sites that show where the governments of Republican states want to do that, I will be happy to look them up and will concede your point if they truly do support your statement. 

On this whole topic though, let's not pretend that the oh-so-moral northern states were not culpable to some degree for slavery.  The northern states were more than happy to be receiving raw materials and semi processed goods from southern states where they knew very well that those raw materials were being planted, harvested, etc. by slave labor.  You certainly didn't see Northern States boycotting those materials and goods in order to pressure southern states to stop using slave labor.  They feigned moral indignance while still being more than happy to make money off the things they bought from slave owners.  If the South had not seceded, the Union would have continued to "tsk tsk" at the abomination of slavery while raking in money hand over foot off the backs of slaves.  Slavery was of course a horrible thing.  But the winner of the war writes the history and the North conveniently painted themselves as the great saviors of the slaves even though they had no problem with bringing in materials to their northern factories that were made available to them at a cheap price by slave owning states. 

[Fau Teixeira]

The difference between exploiting labor in an unfair and racist capitalist system (the north) and chattel slavery (the south) on the grand arch of morality isn't comparable. There's no 2 sides to that situation. The north was bad, when compared to modern labor standards, the north was horrid. But still nowhere nearly as bad as owning people as property.  (Btw, another reason the bible as a moral guide is an abomination)

[Spider-Dan]

Apologies for length.

They do?  The Governors or state agencies of Republican states are on record as stating that they want "both sides" of slavery taught and that they want to whitewash those who perpetrated slavery?  Or do you mean a small minority of  inbred yahoo citizens (not the state government) of Republican states want "both sides" of slavery taught and to whitewash those who perpetrated it as a lame attempt to legitimize their own racism?  If you can share links to legitimate sites that show where the governments of Republican states want to do that, I will be happy to look them up and will concede your point if they truly do support your statement.

From 2015: Texas officials: Schools should teach that slavery was 'side issue' to Civil War (emphasis added)

Five million public school students in Texas will begin using new social studies textbooks this fall based on state academic standards that barely address racial segregation. The state's guidelines for teaching American history also do not mention the Ku Klux Klan or Jim Crow laws.

And when it comes to the Civil War, children are supposed to learn that the conflict was caused by "sectionalism, states' rights and slavery" - written deliberately in that order to telegraph slavery's secondary role in driving the conflict, according to some members of the state board of education.

Slavery was a "side issue to the Civil War," said Pat Hardy, a Republican board member, when the board adopted the standards in 2010. "There would be those who would say the reason for the Civil War was over slavery. No. It was over states' rights."

From 2018: For 10 years, students in Texas have used a history textbook that says not all slaves were unhappy

On April 18, a class of eighth graders at the Great Hearts Monte Vista North charter school in San Antonio, Texas, received a homework assignment that would spark a nationwide controversy. A worksheet, titled "The Life of Slaves: A Balanced View," asked students to list the negative and positive aspects of slavery. [...]

But while the homework assignment may have been an isolated event, students at Great Hearts charter schools have been using a textbook that wildly mischaracterizes slavery for roughly a decade. Quartz found that Prentice Hall Classics: A History of the United States, published by the Pearson, includes this description of slavery (emphasis added):

"But the 'peculiar institution,' as Southerners came to call it, like all human institutions should not be oversimplified. While there were cruel masters who maimed or even killed their slaves (although killing and maiming were against the law in every state), there were also kind and generous owners. The institution was as complex as the people involved. Though most slaves were whipped at some point in their lives, a few never felt the lash. Nor did all slaves work in the fields. Some were house servants or skilled artisans. Many may not have even been terribly unhappy with their lot, for they knew no other."

As you may be aware, Texas schools use specially commissioned textbooks with content that has to be approved by the Texas Board of Education.  These "Texas textbooks" are often used by schools in other Republican states; states that choose not to use "Texas textbooks" frequently use textbooks approved for use in California, instead.

Now, it is true that after stories like the ones linked above, the Texas Board of Education has occasionally backed down and agreed to use less ridiculous interpretations.  But that certainly doesn't mean that the fight to minimize and whitewash slavery has ended...

From earlier this year: Republican state lawmakers want to punish schools that teach the 1619 Project

Republican lawmakers in Arkansas, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri and South Dakota filed bills last month that, if enacted, would cut funding to K-12 schools and colleges that provide lessons derived from the award-winning project. The South Dakota bill has since been withdrawn.

Some historians say the bills are part of a larger effort by Republicans, including former President Donald Trump, to glorify a more white and patriarchal view of American history that downplays the ugly legacy of slavery and the contributions of Black people, Native Americans, women and others to the nation's founding.

On this whole topic though, let's not pretend that the oh-so-moral northern states were not culpable to some degree for slavery.  The northern states were more than happy to be receiving raw materials and semi processed goods from southern states where they knew very well that those raw materials were being planted, harvested, etc. by slave labor.

You'll get no argument from me there.  I've said before that Abraham Lincoln was a committed racist who thought the idea of interracial marriage was laughable.  But the North DID lay down their lives to end slavery, while the South laid down their lives to defend it.  So while there is blame to spread, the lion's share of the blame should go to the lions.

If the South had not seceded, the Union would have continued to "tsk tsk" at the abomination of slavery while raking in money hand over foot off the backs of slaves.

Notably, the South did not believe this.
They believed that Abraham Lincoln's election forecasted an inevitable prohibition of slavery in the US, starting with newly admitted states and - when the number of new slavery-free states became large enough - aggressive action at the federal level.

[pondwater]

And here we go.

No matter how many Confederates directly stated that secession was specifically about slavery, conservatives 150 years later ignore their plain statements of intent and insist that no, the Civil War was actually about Economic Anxiety or some similar BS.

The Civil War was not about money... unless you mean the money the South was making from slavery.
The Civil War was not about states' rights... unless you mean states' rights to own slaves.
The Civil War was because ~25% of the country really, REALLY liked slavery and were willing to die to protect it.

No, it was about power and money for both sides. Economic and sectional rivalry between the north and south and the ongoing loss of power of the southern states.

You see, there was this guy with the nickname "Honest Abe" that said a lot of stuff when he was Potus. For instance:

My policy sought only to collect the Revenue(a 40% federal sales tax on imports to southern states under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861

Or maybe this little tidbit:

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

And finally, the last bolded part sums it all up:

My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union.

Then you have the Corwin Amendment which passed with two-thirds support in both the House and Senate in early 1861. It proposed to do 3 things.

*1st - Protect slavery by giving each state the power to regulate the "domestic institutions" within its borders. This was enticing for the south, stay in the Union and keep your slaves.
*2nd - To remove from Congress the power to "abolish or interfere" with slavery.
*3rd - To make itself unamendable by providing that "no amendment shall be made to the Constitution" that would undo the Corwin Amendment

Ironically it was ratified by the northern states of Ohio, Rhode Island, Maryland, and Illinois. "Honest Abe" also had an opinion of the Corwin Amendment:

I understand the proposed amendment to the Constitution - which amendment, however I have not seen -  has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service ... holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable

Also if I'm not mistaken, Lincoln offered the South 3 months to return to the Union (and pay 40% tariff) and keep their slaves. Lincoln made it very clear that he didn't give a shit about slavery. He wanted to preserve the union in order to preserve his influx of revenue from the southern states.

But now, Republican states want to both sides the teaching of the history of American slavery, and try to whitewash those who perpetrated it.

Because it's not really about both sides, it's about history. Yes, teach everyone that the Union offered legal, permanent, and irrevocable slavery to the south on a silver platter in order to preserve the Union. And teach everyone that anyone who supported the Corwin Amendment perpetrated slavery and that also includes Lincoln. Because you can't fight a war based on ending slavery while at the same time offering slavery to
the enemy to end the war. This idea that Lincoln and the Union were fighting gallantly for freedom for blacks is a silly fairytale. Both sides were fighting for the same thing, money and power.

[Spider-Dan]

pondwater, the 13th Amendment exists, and Lincoln was a vocal supporter who helped push it through Congress.
If he didn't care about slavery, why would he have done that?

In your telling of history, why did Lincoln take drastic action (the most drastic kind of action possible in our system: a Constitutional amendment) to prohibit slavery in the United States?

[pondwater]

pondwater, the 13th Amendment exists, and Lincoln was a vocal supporter who helped push it through Congress.
If he didn't care about slavery, why would he have done that?

Why did he on multiple occasions basically say he didn't really give a shit about slavery as long as he preserves the union and by extension his precious revenue? Why did he support the Corwin amendment that would have basically made slavery legal in the United States forever? The mere fact you're glossing over and ignoring everything that Lincoln said and did up to the end of the Civil War literally means that there are two sides.

So to answer your question, yes the 13th Amendment exists, but not in a vacuum. And just an fyi, to my knowledge The Corwin Amendment also still exists. It technically has never expired, remains outstanding, and state legislatures could still vote on its ratification today.

In your telling of history, why did Lincoln take drastic action (the most drastic kind of action possible in our system: a Constitutional amendment) to prohibit slavery in the United States?

In no version of my telling of history does the President have a constitutional role in the amendment process. Those are your words.

[Spider-Dan]

The mere fact you're glossing over and ignoring everything that Lincoln said and did up to the end of the Civil War literally means that there are two sides.

If I understand your argument correctly, the fact that Lincoln vocally supported and actively lobbied Congress (successfully!) to vote for a constitutional amendment that completely banned slavery in the United States does not mean that he was truly anti-slavery, because at the start of the war he said he was only fighting to preserve the Union, not to free the slaves.

Lincoln's actions to end slavery speak louder than his pillow talk about how ending slavery wasn't really that important to him.

But fine, let's entertain your point:

Yes, teach everyone that the Union offered legal, permanent, and irrevocable slavery to the south on a silver platter in order to preserve the Union.

First of all: the Constitution does not allow for an "unamendable" Amendment (<- this part is important).  You can always pass another Amendment to revoke the first one, which is probably why the Confederates weren't interested in it.

But if you want to teach about the Corwin Amendment, fine!  I'm in favor of it.  Just make sure that you also teach that in response, the Southern states said "Hell no" and commenced firing on Fort Sumter.

Because you can't fight a war based on ending slavery while at the same time offering slavery to the enemy to end the war.[/i]
The Corwin Amendment passed Congress on March 2, 1861.
The Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861 - the start of the war.
There was no offer of slavery after the start of the war.
Lincoln's eventual offer - the Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction in December 1863 - was conditioned on the Emancipation Proclamation remaining in effect.

[pondwater]

If I understand your argument correctly, the fact that Lincoln vocally supported and actively lobbied Congress (successfully!) to vote for a constitutional amendment that completely banned slavery in the United States does not mean that he was truly anti-slavery, because at the start of the war he said he was only fighting to preserve the Union, not to free the slaves.

Lincoln's actions to end slavery speak louder than his pillow talk about how ending slavery wasn't really that important to him.

If by pillow talk you mean supporting the Corwin Amendment, an amendment that passed the house and senate and was ratified by several northern states. Otherwise most people would just call him a flip flopping politician that did what was politically advantageous at the time. Passage of the Corwin Amendment is irrefutable proof that the North and Lincoln supported permanent slavery in the U.S. regardless of how you want to spin it.

But fine, let's entertain your point:
First of all: the Constitution does not allow for an "unamendable" Amendment (<- this part is important).  You can always pass another Amendment to revoke the first one, which is probably why the Confederates weren't interested in it.

You'll need a time machine to go back and argue with the politicians from 160 years ago. However we do have Lincoln's own words regarding the Corwin Amendment: I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable. So basically Lincoln himself says that he has NO OBJECTION to permanent slavery in the United States. That means he accepted permanent slavery in the United States.

But if you want to teach about the Corwin Amendment, fine!  I'm in favor of it.  Just make sure that you also teach that in response, the Southern states said "Hell no" and commenced firing on Fort Sumter.

So you're saying the the Southern states said "Hell no" to Corwin Amendment/permanent slavery and proceeded to go to war with the Union. So if they turned down permanent constitutionally legal slavery, what were they fighting for? You just proved that the Civil War wasn't about slavery. Lincoln and the North offered permanent slavery which proves that they really didn't give a shit either way as long as they preserved they Union and Revenue. And the south rejected permanent slavery because their main goal was avoiding paying the tariffs and taxes that came along with remaining in the Union. That's not to say that the South didn't want slavery, however that wasn't the primary concern. If the South wanted permanent constitutionally legal slavery they could have had it.

The Corwin Amendment passed Congress on March 2, 1861.
The Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861 - the start of the war.
There was no offer of slavery after the start of the war.
Lincoln's eventual offer - the Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction in December 1863 - was conditioned on the Emancipation Proclamation remaining in effect.

It doesn't really matter when it was offered. The point is that the Corwin Amendment was created after succession to reconcile the Union and avoid further conflict. The fact is that permanent constitutionally legal slavery was supported by Lincoln and the North and offered to the South to rejoin the Union in an attempt to extort tariffs from the South. The fact that Lincoln flip flopped like 99% of all politicians do when politically advantageous means absolutely nothing.

Again, the very fact we're discussing this means that there are "two sides" as you call it. I just call it history. Like I said earlier, It's not as black and white as you make it out to be, it's a multifaceted issue.

[Spider-Dan]

You're right: this conversation is a literal example of "both sides." But not for the reason you claim.

You say the North was also complicit in slavery but that is rarely mentioned. So are you calling for schools to teach MORE about America's history in perpetrating the evil of slavery?  Are you in favor of work like the 1619 Project that exposes some of the uncomfortable history of slavery in America?  I doubt it.

Instead, y'all always pivot from "Well, this is why the North was also bad on slavery" to "Well, this is why the 1619 Project is wrong".  "Both sides are at fault" is a mechanism used to try to silence criticism by claiming that both sides have unclean hands, so we can't judge one or the other.

[pondwater]

You're right: this conversation is a literal example of "both sides." But not for the reason you claim.

You say the North was also complicit in slavery but that is rarely mentioned. So are you calling for schools to teach MORE about America's history in perpetrating the evil of slavery?  Are you in favor of work like the 1619 Project that exposes some of the uncomfortable history of slavery in America?  I doubt it.

Instead, y'all always pivot from "Well, this is why the North was also bad on slavery" to "Well, this is why the 1619 Project is wrong".  "Both sides are at fault" is a mechanism used to try to silence criticism by claiming that both sides have unclean hands, so we can't judge one or the other.

I'm not calling for anything. I'm simply weighting in on the "there isn't a both sides" nonsense perpetuated by this thread.

Hell, I don't even know what the 1619 project is. However, after a quick google search and 5 minutes of reading, I can surmise that teaching actual history in school without an agenda should be the goal. But pushing for nonsense like getting "white people to give up whiteness." And if not, obtaining reparations is "more realistic than, like, can we get white Americans to stop being white."

One is history and one is radical liberal identity politics.  

[ArtieChokePhin]

But pushing for nonsense like getting "white people to give up whiteness." And if not, obtaining reparations is "more realistic than, like, can we get white Americans to stop being white."

This is why I don't drink Coca Cola products anymore.