Lifestyle inflation refers to an individual increasing their spending as their income increases. This phenomenon can be triggered by a boost in income or a rise in short-term investment returns. However, it can also occur when a salary increase is received, often results in increased debit, often results in lower amounts saved, and may result in overspending.
Lifestyle inflation is a change in spending behavior directly related to an increase in income, meaning spending goes up every time income increases. It can lead to over-indebtedness and can affect people’s living standards if wages and salaries do not rise by a similar amount. Money market accounts typically have fixed interest rates, larger initial deposits, and the ability to write checks.
Inflation can cause people’s living standards to decline if their wages and salaries do not rise by a similar amount. Annuities provide no protection from inflation unless they are indexed. Lifestyle inflation can be detrimental to long-term finances and even result in over-indebtedness. To manage lifestyle inflation, it is essential to identify when you’re experiencing lifestyle creep and how to manage your finances effectively.
📹 Debunking the myth of the Lost Cause: A lie embedded in American history – Karen L. Cox
Examine the myth of the Lost Cause: a campaign created by pro-Confederates after the Civil War to promote the lie that they …
What is meant by true inflation?
In the context of economic theory, the term “inflation” is defined in two distinct ways. The first definition, as proposed by Johnson, pertains to an increase in the money supply that outpaces the expansion of real national output. The second definition, put forth by Keynes, posits that inflation occurs when the elasticity of output supply reaches zero in response to an increase in the money supply.
What is the lifestyle inflation?
Lifestyle inflation, also known as lifestyle creep, occurs when minor lifestyle enhancements, such as the acquisition of a new vehicle, an expanded residence, or a greater frequency of dining out, accumulate over time. This phenomenon has the potential to erode the financial benefits associated with an elevated income, ultimately leading to a diminished sense of satisfaction among individuals.
What is inflation in life?
Inflation is the rate of increase in prices over a given period, usually a year. It is a crucial economic concept that has led to long periods of instability in countries. Central bankers often aspire to be known as “inflation hawks”, and politicians have won elections with promises to combat inflation, only to lose power after failing to do so. Inflation was declared Public Enemy No. 1 in the United States by President Gerald Ford in 1974.
Measuring inflation involves government agencies conducting household surveys to identify a basket of commonly purchased items and track the cost of purchasing this basket over time. The consumer price index (CPI) is the most widely used measure of inflation, as it represents the percentage change in the CPI over a certain period. For example, if the base year CPI is 100 and the current CPI is 110, inflation is 10% over the period.
What is another name for lifestyle inflation?
Lifestyle creep, or lifestyle inflation, is a phenomenon where as resources are spent on standard of living, former luxuries become perceived necessities. This occurs when an individual’s discretionary income increases due to increased income or decreased costs, such as paying off a mortgage. As discretionary income increases, individuals can spend money on things that were previously unaffordable, such as expensive vehicles or second homes. Lifestyle creep can also be reflected in spending on things with ongoing maintenance costs, such as club memberships.
It is often insidious and difficult to recognize, making it a “silent inflation”. It can be contagious as people compare their own lifestyle with others. Signs of lifestyle creep include difficulty saving money and increasing debt. Making a budget and setting a limit on expenses could potentially limit lifestyle creep.
What is not true about inflation?
The correct answer is (d), which encompasses both price increases and decreases in commodities. The term “inflation” is used to describe an increase in market prices, whereas “deflation” is used to describe a decrease in commodity prices.
What is true about inflation?
Inflation is a phenomenon where the prices of goods and services increase over time, reducing purchasing power. It can be caused by various factors, including demand-pull and cost-push inflation. Understanding the root causes of inflation can help prepare for increased prices in areas like housing, apparel, food, transportation, and fuel. Inflation is a normal part of the world’s economic cycles, and understanding its causes can help protect finances as prices rise. It is essential to be aware of the effects of inflation and take steps to protect your finances as prices rise.
What factors are not included in inflation?
Core inflation refers to the change in the costs of goods and services, excluding food and energy sectors due to their volatile prices. It is typically calculated using the consumer price index (CPI), which measures prices for goods and services. Core inflation is crucial in determining the impact of rising prices on consumer income. It is measured by both the CPI and the core personal consumption expenditures (PCE) index, which represent the prices of goods and services purchased by consumers in the U. S. PCE is an important metric in determining inflation, as it measures the trend in rising prices. Both core PCE and CPI are similar and help determine the extent of inflation in the economy.
What things are not affected by inflation?
Inflation has significantly impacted the prices of various food items, with the U. S. Department of Labor reporting an average increase of 8. 5 in food prices from March 2021 to March 2022. The most affected categories are food, gas, and shelter, with food prices experiencing the largest increase of 8. 8 in the last 12 months. To help guide grocery habits during these trying times, the Department of Labor’s monthly Consumer Price Index reports are crucial.
These reports break down the impact of inflation on every food category, from baked goods to frozen fish and spices, both month-by-month and year-over-year. The five food categories most affected by inflation and the five that have experienced the lowest impact in the last 12 months are highlighted.
What is not counted in inflation?
Core inflation refers to the change in the costs of goods and services, excluding food and energy sectors due to their volatile prices. It is typically calculated using the consumer price index (CPI), which measures prices for goods and services. Core inflation is crucial in determining the impact of rising prices on consumer income. It is measured by both the CPI and the core personal consumption expenditures (PCE) index, which represent the prices of goods and services purchased by consumers in the U. S. PCE is an important metric in determining inflation, but both are similar and help determine the extent of inflation in the economy.
What are some signs, effects, or characteristics of lifestyle creep?
Lifestyle creep, or lifestyle inflation, is a phenomenon where individuals and families experience increased spending due to increased pay. This can be triggered by promotions, bonuses, or new job starts with higher salaries, leading to a heightened focus on material items. This may be stretching the budget beyond what is recommended for maintaining savings and achieving long-term goals. To avoid this, individuals should approach salary increases with a smart financial plan, as it is a positive milestone in life goals, but it is crucial to monitor expenses and maintain a balanced financial situation.
What is another type of inflation?
This article explores various types of inflation in the economy, including Demand-Pull Inflation, Cost-push Inflation, Open Inflation, Repressed Inflation, Hyper-Inflation, Creeping and Moderate Inflation, True Inflation, and Semi-Inflation. Demand-Pull Inflation occurs when aggregate demand exceeds aggregate supply, often due to an increase in money supply, income, or public expenditure. Other types include Repressed Inflation, Hyper-Inflation, Creeping and Moderate Inflation, True Inflation, and Semi-Inflation.
📹 10 Things You Didn’t Know About Japan #shorts
From eating raw horse meat, vending machines that have crab, to KFC during Christmas, here are ten things that you probably …
You are so correct, as a southern white male I believed the story of states rights, until I read the constitution of the confederate union, that states that all new confederate states must allow Slavery. The fact is that all slavery is wrong. And history should not be changed or forgotten. Thank you for pointing this fact out. Joe Bartolotta
I am now 57 and when I was young I was taught that the Civil War was about state’s rights. I grew up in Wisconsin. Over the years my cousin learned German and translated many of the letters of our ancestors who were German Lutherans. Our great grandfather fought in the Wilderness. In his letters he never mentions states rights, but talks a lot about the inhumanity of slavery. He was elected sergeant of their company. Fun fact, none of them spoke English, only German.
I guess I had a lot of good history teachers. We were taught everything horrible about slavery. The selling that seperated family members, the labour that sometimes exhausted those poor people to death, the punishments that they endured, and the dangerous jobs that sometimes left them with gruesome injuries. It makes me sad to hear that some schools didn’t teach this.
The funny thing about the states rights arguments is it leads to the question of why the Confederacy was worried about states rights and what particular States right they were worried about. Apparently that right was the right to regulate or prohibit slavery. It seems like the states rights argument’s logical conclusion was that slavery was the reason for the civil war.
So.. I’m a Canadian. I have a nephew who had high school in an Amercian school, some fancy academy in the South in around 2017 on a football scholarship. He had to leave the room when he got his history textbook referring to slavery as immigration from Africa. “Teaching this in a highschool would literally get you arrested in Canada.”
I attended school in a rural southern town in the 90s. The history being taught was very dependent on who was teaching. I definitely had teachers that tried to downplay slavery’s role in the Civil War, but I heard far more Lost Cause rhetoric from older members of the community. There are plenty of younger people that believe these lies because that’s what they were told by their family.
I grew up in the New England states, and they always taught that slavery was the cause. Until one day in high school, my U.S. history teacher said, “They don’t teach this to you in the north, but the actual reason for the Civil War was state rights.” I believed him for a long while until someone else brought up that it is state rights, but state rights to have slavery.
It’s crazy how history can be subjective to the ones writing it and teaching it. I grew up in NY and we were taught from a young age that the war was to end slavery. We were taught all the gruesome inhumane practices and it was a huge part of our classes. We even learned about slavery in other parts of the world like ancient China, Egypt, Rome and Mesopotamia, all the way back to the dawn of civilizations. They were definitely teaching to avoid repeating the mistakes human kind has made.
As a kid we were taught the Civil War was all about the south not wanting to give up slavery. Our small town even had some tunnels used by the underground railroad to help escaped slaves. We had field trips to underground railroad sites and there was never any talk about so called states right revisionist history. Even though I grew up in rural WI in a place where all kids looked alike (mostly blond hair, blue eyes, germanic ancestry) and not a single minority in our school. The education system in rural WI at least didn’t mince words about the civil war and taught about the atrocity of slavery in the southern states and their inhumane treatment of their fellow man.
In the 80s I was taught in public school that the Civil war was fought over slavery. That slavery was the foundation of the cotton economy and the states that were practicing slavery feared losing their economic and political power. I never even heard the idea of “states rights” until about 15 years ago. In a Ted talk or something where Texas was approving textbooks that called the KKK civic leaders, erased Thurgood Marshall from the curriculum, claimed that the Civil War was fought over states rights and referred to slaves as “imported labor.” The whole thing made my skin crawl.
The civil war was mainly about 11 states saying they had the right to form their own country, the CSA, The federal government of the United States said, “No, you don’t!” The civil war was mainly about preventing secession of 11 states and forcing them to stay in the Union. Slavery was a horrible symptom of the war, it was not the root cause of the war
I like how for a lot of deeply analyzed historical events, the answer actually IS that simple. Basic answer: The South seceded because they wanted to keep their slaves. Moderate answer: The South actually seceded because of a whole bunch of other things, of which slavery is just one part Deep answer: All those other things are either lies or just slavery in disguise, and the South DID secede because they wanted to keep their slaves. Edit: Anyone who wants to argue about this, please don’t it won’t help anyone. Even if you’re agreeing with me just don’t.
We tried to avoid the conversation in school. This was taboo and worthy of being fired or expelled for being discussed. No different than abortion, non traditional marriage, religion, or WW2 Germany. It wasn’t until college, I could have these conversations and I got to hear arguments from all perspectives. Our school just cared about us excelling in sports and auto mechanics
I was taught that there were many reasons why the South seceded, but that the primary cause was that the South wanted to retain their institution of slavery and they were afraid that Lincoln, who was just elected, would try to implement abolition. And I was taught furthermore that the other reasons stemmed in some way from the interest of preserving slavery.
It’s been said that the North fought to free the slaves (wrong) and that the South fought for states’ rights (wrong). What I think is that it was actually the inverse: the North fought against a state’s right to unilaterally secede from the Union, and the South fought against the abolition they were sure would be forced on them if they remained in the Union.
MISSISSIPPI: “In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world.”
I grew up in central Indiana, started elementary school in the mid 60s, and I was taught that the civil war was about preserving the union first and ending slavery second. I didn’t learn the states’ rights argument till I went to college—and even then it was held up as an example of racism. I’m surprised to hear that my experience wasn’t the norm.
In elementary school, I was taught that the Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery. About 6th or 7th grade, I encountered the idea that it was about a state’s right to secede, and even then, I thought the idea didn’t make sense. After all, if the reason they wanted to secede was so they could keep slavery . . . then, wasn’t the root cause still slavery? Seemed pretty obvious to me.
Taught history for 30+ years. States Rights was an issue, but it was based on the demand to maintain slavery. Slavery was the root cause. Read the Mississippi Declaration of Succession. It spells it out clearly. Conversely, the North did not fight to free the slaves. It fought to preserve the Union. The slavery issue brought about the goofy Electoral College system and the Senate filibuster (among many other unfair laws and practices). We still suffer from the effects of slavery today.
In the 70s my history teacher stressed that the war was started over more than one issue, yes slavery and states rights being one of those but the forgotten and often erased issue was unfare trade and tax of goods between the north and south. As in most cases wars begin with more than one cause and end with resolution not always accepted by all . History books of today leave out the issues of fair trade and taxation and focus on slavery, I find it disturbing that we accept the truth being watered down to fit a narrative that seems aimed at keeping a racial fire burning. Slavery was wrong and still is today, but not printing the whole truth is shorting our kids of knowledge and content.
The most concise explanation of secession was by South Carolina Senator Laurence Keitt: “The anti-slavery party (Lincoln’s Republicans) contends that slavery is wrong, and the Government is a consolidated national democracy. We of the South contend that slavery is right, and that this is a confederate republic of sovereign States.”
As a historian, I 100% agree that the Civil War was about slavery. I don’t think it’s fair to say monuments honoring people who fought for the rebelling states (the Confederacy was never recognized as an independent nation by the United States, so why should I?) is necessarily a bad thing. I think it’s important to enshrine history and remind people that, hey, these people existed and did these things, some went on to do good, others not at all. I’m just tired of the lack of nuance I keep seeing in a lot of historical works and arguments.
It was always about slavery, until they lost the war, then it suddenly wasn’t. Tear down the UDC stuff, and teach a history as written by the victors, not the losers trying to make excuses for their poor choice to fight a war they couldn’t win (“There’s no cannon factories in the south” -Rhett Butler.)
The Republican Party was founded as an anti-slavery party in 1854. When their Presidential Candidate won in 1860 the South feared Lincoln would abolish slavery and so they rebelled to found their own country and keep the practice of slavery alive in the South It was not about “State’s Rights.” If it was, why did they rebel to found their own new nation? Sometimes the simplest explanation is the correct one
How educated ppl can read the articles of confederate states and still with a straight face say it’s not about slavery is mind boggling The idea of states rights… the states right to what exactly was the issue I ask and they want to skirt all around reality My response is Susan Smith must have been a prime example of the government attacking parental rights I guess 😳
The majority of Japan, mostly by right-wing groups, denying the Imperial Army’s war crimes during WWII is another similar case. History textbooks get rewritten or omitted, glorifying Japan’s Imperial Army being the pure, good guys that they were fighting for justice and peace when in fact, it’s the opposite. Also a sad reality that Emperor Hirohito’s words of saying remorse in a speech was omitted without his knowledge/permission by his trusted attendee/steward.
As a southern man, I understand the desire to want the Lost Cause to be true. No one wants to think of their relatives as having died for a bad cause. We can still respect and remember them as people and our family, but let us not glorify the war itself. It was a tragedy for the south of the highest order and it didn’t need to happen. Memorialize the fallen, but don’t memorialize the war itself.
Wow, are there really still people who think that this war was about states’ rights and not about slavery? That is a little scary. Lincoln’s views on race were complex for a man of his time. There is evidence that he did not view blacks as intellectually equivalent to whites and that he was, at one point, open to the idea of ex-slaves finding a new life in Africa. But he clearly found the practice of slavery repugnant and contrary to the young nation’s core principles of freedom and equality, and he was willing to go to war over it while also seeking to preserve the union. That is why he is our greatest president.
There are some historically significant turns in the civil war that contribute to the “Lost Cause” narrative. Before the war began, Lincoln insisted that the federal government did not intend to take the southern states rights to slavery. In the early months of the war, the Confederacy appeared as though it would likely actually win, and the Confederate army was threatening invasion of Washington DC. At this same time, Great Britain and other European nations were on the verge of involvement, because the Union’s naval blockade was stopping their trade of cotton for war munitions and general goods that the South desperately needed to win a quick victory. It was at only this point that Lincoln claimed that the war was being fought to end slavery, with the Imancipation Proclamation. The idea of slavery was not popular in Europe, and indentured slavery based on race and skin color was considered outright immoral. The Imancipation Proclamation would stall intervention from European nations that wanted to continue trade with the South, and would have thwarted the Union’s only military advantage. The blockade intact, the Confederacy war effort was slowed and ultimately strangled, and the Union was able to eventually turn the tides. The South was always fighting to preserve slavery. The North was fighting first to preserve the Union. Abolishing slavery was added mid-way through the war. However, apologists will point to the waivering goals of the North and attempt to say that the war was not about slavery, in an argument based on fallacy.
Slavery was the reason, if it wasn’t then the confederates would’ve left behind their slaves during the war instead of making sure they stayed with them while everything else they say they fought for and was the reason the war started were all left behind during the war except their slaves, they made sure will all their efforts till the end of the war to keep their slaves
Most of the Southerners didn’t own slaves. Most of the Southerners didn’t like Plantations. Most of the people of the United States, identify by there State, Pennsylvanian, Virginian and so on. On both sides, Armies were raised in the States, The Army of Northern Virginia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and so on. When the North invaded the Southerners considered that the Northern States were invading the South. So as a Virginian they joined the Army of Northern Virginia, in order to defend Virginia.
I was taught the Civil War was caused by politics and economics (similar to divisions today). Because of westward expansion, the issue of whether a state would be pro or anti slavery was discussed and agreed on beforehand to keep roughly half the country pro slavery, and half anti. Then, a split in the status quo meant no more pro slavery western states (for anywhere except the South, the economic infrastructure didn’t depend on slavery, and it wasn’t really that beneficial comparatively). Because of this (meaning the South would lose power in Gov), the South ceded to form their own country. However, the North needed the South badly because of its agricultural and economic implications. Thus, they fought to “recapture” the South, or deny secession. So that Southern slaves (a large force) would fight for the North, Abe Lincoln did his Emancipation Proclamation—out of self-gain instead of altruism, contrary to what some imply. At least, that’s what I was taught in AP AH.
I never understood why the “states rights vs slavery” thing became a controversy. I grew up in the south and we were taught since elementary school that the civil war was fought regarding whether individual states have a right to decide if they would be a pro-slavery state or not–so, yes, it’s about states rights and slavery: a question of whether individual states have a right to allow citizens to own slaves. I don’t see why that’s controversial. That’s what the war was about. These two things are not conflicting. The North won the civil war and asserted that states must abide by an amendment to the constitution which freed all slaves from every state. The end. This isn’t that hard.
In 4th grade my lit teacher had us read a book that I’m pretty sure in hindsight was written by a Lost Cause sympathizer. They called the Civil War the “War Between the States” and said it was about “more than slavery”. Other than that we were luckily taught the real cause of the war. The perks of living in the North I suppose.
Well… you taught me something. I graduated HS in 1985… I thought it was mostly slavery, but also state’s rights. I just told my daughter this week that I never understood how families could be so divided, but now I’ve seen it happen. She didn’t know that “brother against brother” was a real thing. She thought it was jingoistic.
Certainly, no on in 1861 said “Hey! Slavery is a problem! Let’s have a war!” No major event has just one cause. But when you look at the myriad issues that led to the Civil War, almost all of them connect to slavery. Not the one sole cause, certainly, but it was a major cause, and you can’t remove it and pretend it wasn’t connected.
Good article. I’m from Italy, and I don’t understand why the people of Southern USA celebrate a war that they fought for the wrong reasons, and that they lost. People normally celebrate victories, or remember tragedies, but not mistakes. In Italy too we had a civil war, between 1943 and 1945, between those who supported Fascism and the anti-Fascists. The second ones won, and with them democracy, and no one here talks about “Lost Causes” but some groups of rightwings. Apology of Mussolini and his regime are a crime for the Italian law. Confederates fought against their country, to keep their slaves in chains and defend their selfish interest. They don’t deserve monuments or romantic speeches. They should be forgotten, and quoted only as the mistake they were.
I grew up in Nebraska back in the ’50’s. The one thing that was stressed to us was that the Civil War was not about slavery – it was about states’ rights. I don’t remember anything else that the teachers cared about. But they definitely wanted to make sure that we understood what the Civil War was “really” all about.
It’s worth noting that in reference to the “States’ Rights” argument, such an argument on the basis of a state’s right to allow or disallow slavery would favor the union more than the confederacy at the beginning of the war. The confederate constitution not only permitted states to allow slavery, but took it a step further, forbidding them from banning it.
Saying that the confederacy left because of “state rights” is bs. The government shot down Tennessee’s claim that they had a right to not pay a tariff that they thought would help the north but negatively affect the south. So the war was, on a macro level, about slavery. Individual soldiers could have and did fight for multiple different reasons, but the leaders fought for slavery.
It is worth distinguishing, in any conflict, between actual causes for the war, and why soldiers fought. Most Confederate soldiers never owned slaves, and the institution of slavery would not be a particularly effective motivator. Instead, they were told what fighters in just about every conflict are told: “the enemy hates us and wants to change our way of life / take away our freedom”. That was not a notion which waited until the war had been fougth and lost. The “Lost Cause” argument may have appeared in its familiar form after the war, but it built on old justifications. It is the reason most rebels fought, but it was not the reason for the war itself.
I’ve legitimately heard people argue that the Civil War wasn’t about slavery but instead about the southern states wanting to self-govern… So I asked, what disagreement came up that they suddenly want to self-govern? (the abolition of slavery.) Oh, they wanted to be able to decide for themselves what was right and wrong? So what did they disagree with the Northern States about as “right” or “wrong”? (the legality of slavery.) Once the Confederate States were declared their own country, what did the run-away slaves do? (Flee to the northern states.) And what did the Confederates, as a sovereign country think ought to happen? (“Their property” should be returned to them.) And what did the Northern States think about that? (No, we aren’t sending your run-away slaves back to you because we don’t consider them slaves anymore and they are their own person.) THIS MEANS WAR. And you think this war wasn’t about slavery, how????
For those who think slavery was not a cause for the Civil War and the fit was about States Rights need to read the Confederate Constitution. Article IV, Section 2 outright prohibited states from interfering with slavery: “The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.” So much for States Rights. And for those who argue it was about property rights, what property were the Confederates fighting to have? It was slaves.
“Wasn’t about slavery, but the states right to choose slavery” How exactly is that difference significant, or wrong? The states were in fact fighting to protect an institution that was historically ingrained in the society. I don’t think they could of even imagined what a social structure without slavery would be like. That’s not to say it had merits, but it was the only life they would have ever known.
Wow first point of the article and it’s already missing all context and nuances . First counter to the narrative . The Fact that there were less abolishionist than there are libertarians today. Second counter to this argument is the existence of the Corwin Amendment. You should really do your research and not just regurgitate a post war Justification for a war that had very little to do with Slaves. Besides any open minded person who knows history would have to ask themselves if the war was over Slavery why did it take 3 years before the Emancipation Proclamation was signed and declared? Answer : because like most wars in history it wasn’t over Slavery from the beginning. It was over Economics specifically the Souths adversity to paying taxes. Aka the South didn’t want to pay Tariffs. This was the case in 1833 when South Carolina and other Southern States which later did Seceed first threatened Secession over Tariffs. Yeah its a boring economic war in which the tactical decision was made mid way through to free Slaves. But only in areas not under Union Control.. And in reality Slavery ended a year after the war. With the Ratification of the 13th Amendment. Oh btw the aforementioned Corwin Amendment passed congress and was in the process of ratification with 5 states that had stayed loyal already ratifying the Corwin Amendment before the other states Seceeded. Yeah look up the Corwin Amendment and then come back to this article. You will see how much of the ideal that the war was fought over Slavery is utter BS.
To paraphrase something I read in James W. Loewen’s book “Lies My Teacher Told Me”, there were two depictions of the South in popular literature: one by Harriet Beecher Stowe, and the other by Margaret Mitchell, and Mitchell’s depiction is the one that prevailed. I have no doubt that this was due in no small part to the efforts of the UDC.
“I love the flag and honor my ancestor’s sacrifice.” Sacrifice to what….? “They fought for their rights!” Rights to what…? “They’re rights to choose!” They’re rights to choose what….? “Their rights to secede!” They’re rights to secede under the reasons for what….? “The reasons for the government to stop over reaching on our rights!” Okay but now we are back at what rights were they reaching for…?
Many historians who moralize forget there is a difference to make between Justification and Understanding. The South depended economically and socially on slavery, and sought to defend such an atrocity. Although it is not by any means JUSTIFIED, it is UNDERSTANDABLE that they made war, but it doesn’t make it right. Even if they were defending state rights, it would make it UNDERSTANDABLE, but NOT JUSTIFIED. I don’t defend such an atrocity, and the key takeaway is that we are all capable of atrocity. By understanding the reason for rash decisions in history, we can find true justice.
The war was a blunder, and made inevitable by another blunder, the deal done to get all the colonies to join the union: Several colonies explicitly reserved the right to later secede if they chose. Eleven states eventually did…over slavery. Jefferson Davis was never tried for treason. Many think the reason was that he’d have been found not guilty based on both explicit and implied terms of the founding.
Some questions to ask when considering the subject of states “rights” vs slavery when considering the causes of the CW: Would the war have happened without slavery? When the war ended did slavery still exist in the form as before the war? What can we make of the fact that the popularity of secession was more pronounced in the large plantation areas of the South. What can we make of the fact that the western part of VA seceded from the state (when VA seceded from the Union) to form the free state of West Virginia? What can we make of the fact that most counties in the Appalachian Mt areas of the Confederacy, though not seceding from their states as WV did, sent more soldiers to fight for the Union that they did the Confederacy?
There were thousands of soldiers who fought for and died in the confederate army who neither owned slaves, nor ever would. Do you think they all fought FOR slavery? While slavery may have been the main issue, it was not the only issue. To ignore the other issues in favor of focusing solely on slavery is just as much ‘revisionist history’ as anything else.
There is another aspect that needs to be considered. That of the effect of the Industrial Revolution (which started in 1630 in the Northern colonies) in regard to the loss of economic power held by the Southern aristocratic power brokers who kept Congress from discussing slavery until John Quincy Adams broke the gag rule in 1844. The effects on their economy by the Industrial Revolution had a far greater effect on their livelihood and would enable the North to outproduce them and grow in economic and political power since the South’s source of income and customer base was the Northern textile industry. Slavery began here in the 1500s and gave the South great power in the Connecticut Compromise of 1787 that created the structure of the U.S. Senate and the Three-Fifths Slavery Comprise of 1787 both gave the Southern states greater power than the Northern states until the Industrial Revolution took that power away.
There’s a confederate memorial right outside my college. They can’t take it down because the UDC made sure the memorial was placed on privately owned land, even though that land was surrounded by public property. The only thing the college and the town can do is ask the owners of the land to remove the memorial, which will probably never happen. VA is trying to bypass this hurdle by passing laws allowing municipalities to remove Confederate statues even if the land they are on is privately owned, but I’m not sure if or when it will be implemented due to fierce opposition.
Here is an exerpt of the dates which led up to the US Civil War: early in 1861 before Fort Sumpter, there was the raid on federal property Mount Vernan arsenal in Mobile Bay in Alabama by order gov. A. B. Moore via state militia; on Jan. 6 1861, Jacola, Florida, armed militia raided Federal property, seizing yet another arsenal by force; on Jan. 10, more militia men seized the federal property of Baton Rouge in Louisiana, thereby gaining more weapons by force; and the following day, they seized forts Jackson and St. Philip; on Jan. 13, armed Mississippians took control of the unfinished fortress at Ship Island; on Jan. 24, Georgia militiamen seized the Augusta arsenal; on Feb. 8, acting on orders of the Arkansas gov., militiamen seized the arsenal at Lithograph and escorted federal troops to a prison camp; on March 6, the Confederate congress authorized Davis to build an army of 100,000 soldiers for 12 months of conscription to wage war on the north; April 12, South Carolina militia fired on fort Sumpter which was under construction and on that same day, President Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to put down the rebellion. Ergo, it twas a war of Southern Agression over the expansion of and preservation of chattle slavery.
I grew up in washington state when it was very very conservative(still is in a lot of areas). We learned nothing about slavery at all. Our teacher skipped around a lot in history class. Learned nothing about slavery, nothing about the alamo, very little about civil rights movements, nothing about segregation or jim crow, rosa parks or MLK JR.
“Having swept away the counterfactual Myth of the Lost Cause, a historian may briefly state the history of the Civil War as follows. The eleven states that seceded and became the Confederate States of America did so in order to protect the institution of African slavery from a perceived political threat from the majority of the people of the United States who disapproved of the institution.” – Gary W. Gallagher, Alan T. Nolan “The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History” p29
It’s worse than this, the south were giving the opportunity to modernise their economic infrastructure to compete with the world in a post slavery era. They said nah we are sticking to an agrarian system held up by slavery, so their argument of that’s the only way we can compete cost effectively is bogus too.
Fascinating and enlightening, thank you. I tend to try and read older sources about historical events to avoid generational bias and censureship of latter sources, and so for years had inadvertently exposed myself to the “Lost Cause” ideology. Seeing how that train of thought came about and was spread has helped me recontextualize what I had learned previously, and hope it reaches more eyes and ears to help clear up this issue.
“The whole disturbance which prevails through the country has been caused by the efforts of the South to increase Slavery. They have pursued this policy steadily for some years past, covering its purpose by charging its opponents with designing to interfere with it where it now exists.” -The New York Times, November 5, 1860
The state rights argument was around from near the beginning of the civil war. Southern soldiers were not going to march to war so “rich landowners can have slaves”. They were sold the line that the north wanted to take away their rights. ( with what rights the North wanted to take away be kept purposely vague ) But for wealthy southern slaveowners this was definitely about slavery.
I would say it’s a strange American phenomenon, but I know from some of my german friends that something similar has/is occurring with World War 2 history within some regions of Germany. We never like to look at the past that makes us look like the villain and so we write a narrative that attempts to justify our actions in a more acceptable way. The issue is the great old adage “those who do not know their past are doomed to repeat it.” It makes you wonder, how much of what we are taught in History courses is a more acceptable adaptation of the truth that’s been passed down? When the reality or motivation was much different.
“The issue before the country is the extinction of slavery…The Southern States are now in the crisis of their fate; and, if we read aright the signs of the times, nothing is needed for our deliverance, but that the ball of revolution be set in motion.” – The Charleston Mercury, South Carolina secessionist newspaper, November 3, 1860
Weirdly the south nearly won, as Lincoln was very unpopular at the height of the war and was facing re-election. His opponent general Mcellen (can’t remember how to spell his name haven’t studied this for years) was opposed to the war and was ready to let the south have their own union. It was only after a series of highly publicised victories that Lincoln narrowly won
Also after the civil war, many confederates ran into south American countries where slavery wasn’t abolished yet, an interesting example was the Confederate colony of Americana in Brazil, the Brasilian empire will not abolish slavery until 1888 when the princes Isabel, daughter of Emperor Pedro the II, signed the abolition of slavery in the country. Also many other confederates moved to Cuba, and owned many sugar plantations of the island, that will not abolish slavery until 1880.
Each generation views its past as they want 2. Right or wrong it’s what it’ll believe. But any revisions always leave something out important. I’m sure the regular guys fighting in that war had there own many reasons & not 1 singular 1. Either way the civil war was fought 4 wrong reasons. What’s astonishing is it took 150yrs 4 us 2 dispell a false truth. What’s even more astonishing, is how quickly the slavery issue was blacklisted & states rights replaced it. Makes me wonder…how quickly R we going 2 do the same with Jan 6th? It’s already started.
Pretty one sided report. Confederate Union had outlawed import of slaves seems to have been missed. The South couldn`t sell cotton to Britten or France. But was restricted to the gins of the north. Why were their no foundry’s in the south with its cheap labor? You also missed that in Louisiana 1/4 of all slaves were owned by blacks. History is messy, I`m just glad you keep one side alive.
To deny it was about state’s right simply ignores what Lincoln identified as the most important lesson about slavery in the United States. Of course the South voted to preserve slavery. But the mechanism by which they did so was to assert an implicit doctrine of popular sovereignty: that the majority of each state could vote anything they wanted, including the deprivation of the rights of a minority. As Lincoln pointed out, this doctrine was a grave threat to liberty even for the white majority, because it implied a majority could impose a dictatorship. The South’s secession was about preserving their right, through their state’s sovereignty, to keep slavery against the threat to slavery posed by an abolitionist party controlling the Federal government. Part of the political tragedy of slavery in America, in addition to its obvious brutality, was that the principles of freedom were used to justify the deprivation of liberty.
Is it possible that both are true? That the main issue in dispute was slavery while the issue took on importance with some groups because of the desire to maintain a union (including all its assets). It is hard to believe that all the northern soldiers were fighting for justice when there was such disparity in the treatment of blacks even during that war
Interesting. My AP US History textbook (AMSCO 2016) cites three reasons for the Civil War: 1) slavery 2) disagreements over federal vs state power 3) economic differences, e.g. the industrial North wanted more tariffs, centralized banking, and railroad subsidies, while the agricultural South didn’t think those things were important The evidence in the article certainly supports slavery as being a major motivator for the Confederates, but it makes me wonder, did the Confederate politicians state other reasons for secession besides slavery? Other economic reasons, for example? To be clear, I’m not supporting the secession lol. Even if they did have other reasons, slavery is slavery.
If you want to see the debate amongst the Northerners and especially out west, Indiana, Illinois. Look into the Lincoln/Douglas debates. It will tell you why the south succeeded because Abraham Lincoln ran on his beliefs and he and another man Douglas, not The confederate President but another influential man at the time debated from town to town arguing the topic of slavery. Abraham Lincoln took the anti slavery and Douglas took the pro slavery argument. History is there for you to find if you know where to look.
Never heard of the lost cause until this article. I always heard that the war was about slavery. It would’ve been great to hear about how the war wasn’t about how the government cared about slaves, but how slavery was making the succeeded states more powerful and they HAD to go to war. If it was about making things right, we’d be in a much different place today
Around 50,000 Scots, some second generation, fought for the Union Army in the civil war – while the Irish immigrants rioted in several cities refusing to be conscripted or join the military. Many American Presidents are descended from Scots ancestry and The Constitution was based on the Scottish Declaration of Arbroath . Yet the American Irish diaspora are given a high prominence and celebrated in America with Scots hardly mentioned. Weird how history works sometimes.
Defending slavery vs. defending the right to allow slavery is a distinction without a difference. Usually Lost Causers just say “states rights” with no elaboration. Tariffs are generally mentioned too. Southern states also wanted the right to “nullify” Federal laws within the borders of individual states if they did not agree with them.
Cotton was the number 1 export in the world and the south held a massive percentage of all the words cotton. The north put a heavy tax on the export played a huge role. And if it was slavery wouldn’t they have waited to slavery was actually illegalized before going to war? The war had already beeen going on for 3 years by the time Lincoln had it illegalized it 😂
The constitutional argument for states’ rights in permitting the practice of slavery was technically false, since the Fifth Amendment asserts that no one may be deprived of life, liberty or property except by due process of law – a guarantee that would be repeated shortly after the War in the Fourteenth Amendment. Slaves were obviously deprived of their liberty. So, while the Tenth Amendment properly restricts the excessive outreach of the Federal Government by guaranteeing that “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,” the question of protecting life, liberty and property is not simply left to the several states to decide.
For those with resources, vast tracks of land and money! I can see them talking about “states rights” ! All the poor southern people that had nothing to gain in any way! What exactly are you referring to when you speak of “states rights ” ? Did wealthy individuals promise you something no one knows about ? What did you stand to gain death, mutilation so rich people could keep what that had ?
I don’t disagree that the Civil War was primarily about slavery, not states’ rights. However, the confederate statue issue is separate. I’m a veteran, and I can appreciate the bravery and sacrifice of leaders on both sides. The statues should remain as part of our history. If a moral purity test is required for everyone who has a statue, there will be no statues left. If you feel strongly that a person doesn’t deserve a statue, then lobby to have a plaque installed next to their statute that puts that person and their historical contributions in context. Stop pulling down statues!
The issue most people have with the Southern reason for succession, is when descending generations try to justify a cause with a false narrative. Instead of using the excuse of states rights, or the North invaded (positive) why not honor the effort of their ancestors to defend their beliefs while acknowledging the reason behind the cause was flawed(slavery). I have ancestors who fought for both sides. For the confederate soldier I give him respect that he fought for his beliefs (of which there were many) but in no way would I ever honor the cause of the Confederacy, especially when defenders conveniently ignore the negatives while glorifying the positives.
What people don’t talk about concerning the Civil War is that getting control of the vast resources of the south were the motivation, conveniently disguised as a social justice cause about slavery. The people that wanted that prize, and their politicians, couldn’t care less about slavery or the human condition of any race. They simply wanted the spoils. In these situations, it’s almost always “follow the money”. Not too different from selling out the border to cartels or encouraging a war in the money laundering capital of the world to get kickbacks of billions of our tax dollars given, unaccounted for. (Also convenient for laundering the cartel bribe money)
So this article rightfully points out what happened to the history of slavery thru the years. And then ends with a little dig at Christopher Columbus. Why do I get the strong feeling that, although one could easily apply this same line of logic to what we’re seeing today with antisemitism — especially all the protesters trying hard to erase Israel’s history — that this article producer would not see it that way?
Whereas slavery was certainly ONE of the issues and the most moral, emotional one, you cannot ignore other issues affecting and inspiring the rest of the populace to rise in rebellion. Very few people in the south owned slaves but those that did held wealth, power and influence. I doubt so many poorer southerners would go off to fight over an issue they had practically no stake in.
My educational system must have been different. It wasn’t until I was in the 11th grade that I heard other reasons for the civil war besides slavery. Even then slavery was considered the root cause for the civil war. I’m amazed to see that other people on this comments page were provided different perspectives than I was
Wouldn’t it have been a “state’s right” to have slaves if the Confereacy succeeded? Lincoln believed, rightfully, that the nation could not be one-half of one thing, and one-half another. If the South won, we’d certainly would have seen other states make their own independent decisions about whether to have slaves or not, but they could well have decided as to be their own country altogether along with their decisions about having slaves which could have made the country more like the Middle East than one collective nation. I’m not so sure one side or the other of these two views is entirely entitled to be declared the true reason for the war despite a few pronouncements from some politicians, but rather a complicated mixture of the two with equal footing, and reasonable opinions on both sides. I believe that the ability to remain one nation was just a bit more critical than the issue of having slaves, but can readily acknowledge the importance of that institution as a co-dependent fuel for the conflict.
I wonder if it’s only peculiar to America that the losers get to write the history? But then, often in the past, the “losers” were wiped out, even eradicated, so their ideas would die with them. Lincoln’s appeal to the “better angels of our nature” thus demonstrates a social downside. As a result, the fight over this particular cultural issue drags on and on…and on.
While several of the politicians then said it was about slavery, I don’t think the soldiers were fighting for slavery. Perhaps the excess of belief in the lost cause is due to most of the original Unionist belief that the war was to preserve the Union. Certainly, most of the soldiers didn’t own slaves. All stated, slavery is the one issue without which there would not have been a Civil War.
Lincoln was the greatest tyrant and despot in American history. In the first four months of his presidency, he created a complete military dictatorship, destroyed the Constitution, ended forever the constitutional republic which the Founding Fathers instituted, committed horrendous crimes against civilian citizens, and formed the tyrannical, overbearing and oppressive Federal government which the American people suffer under to this day. In his first four months, he Failed to call Congress into session after the South fired upon Fort Sumter, in direct violation of the Constitution. Called up an army of 75,000 men, bypassing the Congressional authority in direct violation of the Constitution. Unilaterally suspended the writ of habeas corpus, a function of Congress, violating the Constitution. This gave him the power, as he saw it, to arrest civilians without charge and imprison them indefinitely without trial—which he did. Ignored a Supreme Court order to restore the right of habeas corpus, thus violating the Constitution again and ignoring the Separation of Powers which the Founders put in place exactly for the purpose of preventing one man’s using tyrannical powers in the executive. When the Chief Justice forwarded a copy of the Supreme Court’s decision to Lincoln, he wrote out an order for the arrest of the Chief Justice and gave it to a U.S. Marshall for expedition, in violation of the Constitution. Unilaterally ordered a naval blockade of southern ports, an act of war, and a responsibility of Congress, in violation of the Constitution.
That’s true the war was fought for states rights. They just didn’t have any rights they wanted but the right for slavery. They didn’t fight for the right to own land, just people. By the way we still don’t have the right to own land, we own the rights of the land (mineral rights, timber, rights, rights to improve or occupy). But nobody fought for that
The planter class wanted to preserve slavery. The majority of southerners did not own slaves and had no vested interest in preserving the system. After Fort Sumter was bombed in Charleston Harbor, Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to put down the rebellion by going down into those southern states that had seceded and militarily occupy those states. The southern people saw that as a act of war and a invasion by a foreign power. Several more southern states seceded after that proclamation and things spiraled out of control. That is what propelled the people of the south to take up arms. Hot headed South Carolina (SC) authorities, when a surrender of the fort was demanded by them prior to the bombardment, Major Robert Anderson, the Union Army commander, told SC state authorities if they just waited a week they would have to abandon the fort because they would be starved into submission. Lincoln told SC that he intended to resupply Sumter and when a supply vessel arrived it was fired on and driven away. If Fort Sumter had not been bombarded and cooler heads had prevailed, I believe things could have been settled without bloodshed and the Union preserved.
This was well done. I live in the south. They believe all of this bologna. Many of them would bring back slavery if they were allowed. One senator actually said on tv that the south did much better when allowed to own people. They also feel that the confederate flag is just a symbol of the south not a flag of treason.