HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
Slavery as previously practiced by and supported by Northern states was the foundation of the agricultural industries that carried the South's economy back then. So, you have a US government that for a century did everything it could to help to supply the South with slaves suddenly trying to pull the plug on all the money. Good thing overall? HELL YES! But something that an entire society of Southern states could ever be expected to take lying down? Of course not. Y'all Yankees got your war of "righteousness". Y'all won. Y'all got your way, and the world has since been righted. Y'all raped and pillaged and punished. But apparently that still wasn't enough. The Union internet brigade of feeble wristed derision is evidently still waging its battle, 150 years down the line. Y'all should of course be proud of yourselves.
United States government choosing to intefere with the slavery laws of states That was actually the whole shebang in a nutshell...slavery versus freedom,.
Any nutshell explanation of the Civil War will be inadequate, but this is just revisionism.
The Civil War was fought to keep the South from seceding and to facilitate the transition to an industrial economy. Slavery was secondary to these issues.
Slavery as previously practiced by and supported by Northern states was the foundation of the agricultural industries that carried the South's economy back then. So, you have a US government that for a century did everything it could to help to supply the South with slaves suddenly trying to pull the plug on all the money. Good thing overall? HELL YES! But something that an entire society of Southern states could ever be expected to take lying down? Of course not. Y'all Yankees got your war of "righteousness". Y'all won. Y'all got your way, and the world has since been righted. Y'all raped and pillaged and punished. But apparently that still wasn't enough. The Union internet brigade of feeble wristed derision is evidently still waging its battle, 150 years down the line. Y'all should of course be proud of yourselves.
And you think Yanks are still mad? You sound like you're wearing a gray uniform and waving a sword around.
United States government choosing to intefere with the slavery laws of states That was actually the whole shebang in a nutshell...slavery versus freedom,.
Any nutshell explanation of the Civil War will be inadequate, but this is just revisionism.
The Civil War was fought to keep the South from seceding and to facilitate the transition to an industrial economy. Slavery was secondary to these issues.
It may have been secondary to the North, but it sure wasn't to the South.
HarveyCanal"a distraction from my main thesis." 13,234 Posts
BobDesperado said:
You sound like you're jamming a gray tape and waving a sweet around.
The argument that the Confederate army was just a bunch of dumb hillbillys who didn't know what they were doing doesn't fly.
Nobody here said they were dumb.
What's your take? That they were all educated, politically astute and bound by singular vision?
You're right people are just saying they were poor, uneducated, illiterate, and had little understanding of the war
It's a giant leap to equate that with dumb, huh?
I think the idea that most of the Confederates were unware that they were fighting against the US government, and thus commiting treason, is not true. I don't care how illiterate anyone says they were. You can't get hundreds of thousands of people to take up arms and risk their lives without giving them a reason, and I doubt that the CSA was some proto-police state in which guns were held to the heads hundreds of thousands of soldiers to make them fight.
And as I've mentioned on this site before, Dixie and its flag represented far more than just an endorsement of slavery.
True. Since the use and display of the Confederate battle flag saw a huge revival as a response to the Civil Rights movement it also represents murdering civil rights workers and setting dogs on peaceful protestors and bombing churches with little girls in them.
Far, far more.
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal. " - Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the Confederacy, telling the truth about his American Reich.
I think the idea that most of the Confederates were unware that they were fighing against the US government, and thus commiting treason, is not true. I don't care how illiterate anyone says they were. You can't get hundreds of thousands of people to take up arms and risk their lives without giving them a reason, and I doubt that the CSA was some proto-police state in which guns were held to the hundreds of thousands of soldiers to make them fight.
Also the notion put forward by so many Dixie defenders that most Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves and so had no stake in defending the system of slavery is so far beyond stupid it's astonishing. There were all sorts of jobs held by non slave owners that were directly related to slavery, as well as indirect enrichment due to the great wealth of Southern agriculture.
There is no greater revisionism than saying it was about "rights" or some nonsense.
I remember being young, and learning that it was about slavery.
As I grew up, I found out that the war was far more nuanced than that.
Now, that I'm older, I realize there are elements of the nuanced view. But, c'mon- the war was about Slavery.
Let's not overlook the obvious to make ourselves feel any better about "states rights" issues.
I gotta say as an african-american I really take issue with the whole civil war revisionist history that seems to be poppin' up more and more over the years in america. Although, the issue of ending slavery was not the only reason why this country had a civil war it is DEFINITELY a major reason why. Yes, many people died fighting for they believed and for what they were told was the reason, but a hell a lot of slaves and former slaves died for their eventual freedom as well! I studied history and sociology in college and went to grad. school for sociology; so I definitely feel I have a solid grasp of the history of the civil war. For many african-americans in this country, the civil war, the confederacy, the confederate flag, etc represent a very painful past to say the least! Therefore, when people speak the ignorant words that "the south shall rise again" or " I miss the good ole days when a person knew his place", I get heated. When I fly into the airport in Columbia, SC and see the huge confederate flag flying just outside the airport, I tense up cause that represents evil to me. In my opinion, there is nothing positive about the confederacy or the flag whatsoever! To say there is, is to be ok with oppression and inequality.
Eugenics was the "cutting edge" science of the day. Plenty of Yankee academics backed up some seriously suspect theories.
It was about money. If it was only about right and wrong, the powers to be wouldn't have incentive for war. Still don't understand why people dont get this.
There were several diehard abolitionists in politics, but they were drops in a bucket. If I recall correctly, one anti-slavery senator was actually beat unconscious on the senate floor.
All that old plantation money turned into big oil and war profiteering today. Same thing... Different flag.
Wasn't it the other way around?United States government choosing to intefere with the longstanding laws of states
That was actually the whole shebang in a nutshell...states rights versus federal mandates.
And as I've mentioned on this site before, Dixie and its flag represented far more than just an endorsement of slavery.
IMO, it was not the other way around.
Let's be clear and honest.
You are talking about slavery. Nothing else. So say it.
United States government choosing to intefere with the slavery laws of states That was actually the whole shebang in a nutshell...slavery versus freedom,.
If you want to argue that the states should have the right to enslave humans, then say it.
Dixie, the American South, is a great place. The confederate flag is a poor way to represent the South.
Wow. Just wow.
Like Harv, I'm from and live in the south, (well, texas gets a pass here) and I really shouldn't be suprised
y'all think this way, but my man, history refutes you here. Slavery was far from the only reason for the civil war, and
was only brought up as the main reason by politicians when things the death toll rose to staggering numbers
and popular support was wavering.
I understand this is what is taught in schools in the South.
I understand there are many nuances, and history is complicated.
I understand that there were economic forces at play.
But it was about slavery.
The only other reason than slavery that I have ever heard is "states rights".
But the only "states right" that was being threatened was the "right" to own slaves.
Was the right to own slaves a fight between states rights, and federal power? Yes.
Would the end of slavery hurt the South more than the North. Yes.
So yes, states rights and $$$$. The right of states and the $$$ from slavery.
Slavery.
Dan, I think you nailed on the head! The "states rights" issue was all about their right to own slaves! I would just add one more thing. What people fail to realize when some southerners say "I miss the good ole days" is that those good ole days were made possible in part by the slave labor that made it so you poor white southerner would not have to do such demeaning labor. Basically, those days were NOT good for black people!
The only other reason than slavery that I have ever heard is "states rights".
But the only "states right" that was being threatened was the "right" to own slaves.
Was the right to own slaves a fight between states rights, and federal power? Yes.
Would the end of slavery hurt the South more than the North. Yes.
So yes, states rights and $$$$. The right of states and the $$$ from slavery.
Slavery.
Yeah- heard some scholar today saying that the "assets" slaves represented was like $4 Billion - an immense amount then. And more than the assets of all other industry in the US combined.
Owning slaves was considered valuable liquid assets that appreciated at a good rate, could be sold to raise funds, were considered 'inheritence', a part of a families' vast wealth.
The distasteful comparison he made to today would be to ask people to give up 401K's, bank accounts, inheritances, assets, etc. (distasteful in that the analogy compares 401Ks to humans in bondage. But it does illustrate the great financial incentive South had to protect their assets.)
It was clearly about states rights - to slaves.
It was clearly about $$$ - that slaveholding represented.
I think people are talking at cross purposes here.
I said that it was not primarily about slavery because I have the perspective of a Northerner, and to the Union it was not primarily about slavery - it was, as I said before, about keeping the South as part of the U.S. and paving the way for an industrial economy. While there was a lot of moral indignation about slavery in the North, there's no way they would have started a civil war for that reason alone at that time.
As BD already pointed out, it was about the 'right' to slavery to the South, however.
Secession does not equal "Violently Overthrowing" the government.
And that is why the Civil War began...Secession by the South.
Crimony, It appears I can no longer avoid opening the Soul Strut University of Common Knowledge due to the appalling amount of inaccurate historical information foisted on members here on a daily basis. Above would be exhibit A.
As you may all remember from your high school American History class, the civil war officially begins with the Confederacy firing on Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina in March of 1861. What was the CSA's beef? The biggest issue of the 1860 election was whether or not new states would enter the union as "free" states or slave holding states. Repubs led by Lincoln said no, Dems from the South wanted to continue the split agreed on by the Compromise of 1850, which allowed a mix of free and slave states. Why did the Southern states care? Because they feared that increasing the number free states would eventually lead to a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery everywhere, thus undermining the basis for their economy.
But the South only defended itself against the North (even though they attacked Union forts first) you say? Let's not forget that the CFA attacked the Union north in PA with hopes of capturing Washington DC and thus forcing the union to sue for peace.
In fact, Rich, the south fired first and secession meant overthrowing the govt with violence. And make no mistake, this was a war about slavery pure and simple, with many complicating issues thrown in for good measure.
Thus ends today's lesson. Next week we discuss the tax code, interstate commerce clause and Funkadelic's influence on my acid trips in college.
I think people are talking at cross purposes here.
I said that it was not primarily about slavery because I have the perspective of a Northerner, and to the Union it was not primarily about slavery - it was, as I said before, about keeping the South as part of the U.S. and paving the way for an industrial economy. While there was a lot of moral indignation about slavery in the North, there's no way they would have started a civil war for that reason alone at that time.
As BD already pointed out, it was about the 'right' to slavery to the South, however.
Two sides that had two different motivations.
I have heard a very different perspective. Basically, that to allow the south to secede, Lincoln was concerned that it would signify the failure of the experiment of democracy.
Also, the north also benefited from slavery, many of the raw materials that fueled their industry - textile factories, etc, was made possible by southern slave labor.
Some believe that the creeping in of the changing narrative over the years - from a war about slavery, to one about 'states rights', and financial issues - was to allow the reconciliation that was necessary for 'healing' and getting on as a unified nation.
This discussion quickly evolved from events of 150 years ago to a stereotype that the South is filled with racists in 2011.
The only difference I see betwen a Southern racist and one from Boston is the southern dude has a flag to wave as a warning signal.
I dare anyone to find a more openly racist, and verbally venomous place that rural mass.
How about Mississippi, where a new poll shows that 46% of Republicans think interracial marriage should be illegal?
And another 16% aren't sure.
That's 60% who basically agree with Alexander Stephens.
BobDesperado said:
Rockadelic said:
This discussion quickly evolved from events of 150 years ago to a stereotype that the South is filled with racists in 2011.
That would be true if anyone had said anything of the sort in this thread, but it didn't happen. Not even close.
What no one has done in this thread is defend racism, slavery or the Confederate flag.
I've lived in the North for almost half my life and in the South for the other half...there are racist fucks in both places and stereotyping the South as primarily racist in 2011 is as offensive as any other stereotype....I've never met a person who owned slaves nor have I ever met anyone who longs for the 'good ol days" of slavery, that they couldn't have possibly experienced in the first place.
Re-enacting any war is bizarre to my way of thinking but it's done all over the world and must have a meaning or attraction I can't comprehend.
Seven states attempted to secede from the Union........this secession attempt, took place during the transition of the Buchanan to Lincoln presidency......the ruling Republicans claimed the act of secession itself was treason, even before a single shot was fired..........it was deemed illegal by the Lincoln administration which led to the attack on Ft. Sumter in S.C. the very heart of the secession.......these states had many things in common, including slavery....not all the "slave states" were part of the original secession. The war started because of secession, secession was driven by many things with the most obvious being slavery. Ironically, Lincoln had stated he had no intent to end slavery where it already existed.
Comments
Thanks for that, I'd never read it before. It's a masterpiece.
Any nutshell explanation of the Civil War will be inadequate, but this is just revisionism.
The Civil War was fought to keep the South from seceding and to facilitate the transition to an industrial economy. Slavery was secondary to these issues.
And you think Yanks are still mad? You sound like you're wearing a gray uniform and waving a sword around.
It may have been secondary to the North, but it sure wasn't to the South.
There, fixed.
You're right people are just saying they were poor, uneducated, illiterate, and had little understanding of the war
It's a giant leap to equate that with dumb, huh?
I think the idea that most of the Confederates were unware that they were fighting against the US government, and thus commiting treason, is not true. I don't care how illiterate anyone says they were. You can't get hundreds of thousands of people to take up arms and risk their lives without giving them a reason, and I doubt that the CSA was some proto-police state in which guns were held to the heads hundreds of thousands of soldiers to make them fight.
Thank you.
Also the notion put forward by so many Dixie defenders that most Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves and so had no stake in defending the system of slavery is so far beyond stupid it's astonishing. There were all sorts of jobs held by non slave owners that were directly related to slavery, as well as indirect enrichment due to the great wealth of Southern agriculture.
The only difference I see betwen a Southern racist and one from Boston is the southern dude has a flag to wave as a warning signal.
That would be true if anyone had said anything of the sort in this thread, but it didn't happen. Not even close.
as a Yank, I agree.
I dare anyone to find a more openly racist, and verbally venomous place that rural mass.
I remember being young, and learning that it was about slavery.
As I grew up, I found out that the war was far more nuanced than that.
Now, that I'm older, I realize there are elements of the nuanced view. But, c'mon- the war was about Slavery.
Let's not overlook the obvious to make ourselves feel any better about "states rights" issues.
really, dude? I'm no apologist for the racist fucks that live around me in MA and NE and the USA but ... really?
It was about money. If it was only about right and wrong, the powers to be wouldn't have incentive for war. Still don't understand why people dont get this.
There were several diehard abolitionists in politics, but they were drops in a bucket. If I recall correctly, one anti-slavery senator was actually beat unconscious on the senate floor.
All that old plantation money turned into big oil and war profiteering today. Same thing... Different flag.
In terms of actual verbal hate, I've never heard worse, but hey... It's just an opinion, and I'm just one person.
Plenty of racist pricks in the south, but they seem to be a bit more tounge in cheek.
I understand this is what is taught in schools in the South.
I understand there are many nuances, and history is complicated.
I understand that there were economic forces at play.
But it was about slavery.
The only other reason than slavery that I have ever heard is "states rights".
But the only "states right" that was being threatened was the "right" to own slaves.
Was the right to own slaves a fight between states rights, and federal power? Yes.
Would the end of slavery hurt the South more than the North. Yes.
So yes, states rights and $$$$. The right of states and the $$$ from slavery.
Slavery.
Not really grasping the concept of tongue-in-cheek racism.
Probably has something to do with what southerners refer to as the "uncouth" culture of the north.
eyeroll
Owning slaves was considered valuable liquid assets that appreciated at a good rate, could be sold to raise funds, were considered 'inheritence', a part of a families' vast wealth.
The distasteful comparison he made to today would be to ask people to give up 401K's, bank accounts, inheritances, assets, etc. (distasteful in that the analogy compares 401Ks to humans in bondage. But it does illustrate the great financial incentive South had to protect their assets.)
It was clearly about states rights - to slaves.
It was clearly about $$$ - that slaveholding represented.
No way to deny it. It was about slavery. Period.
I think people are talking at cross purposes here.
I said that it was not primarily about slavery because I have the perspective of a Northerner, and to the Union it was not primarily about slavery - it was, as I said before, about keeping the South as part of the U.S. and paving the way for an industrial economy. While there was a lot of moral indignation about slavery in the North, there's no way they would have started a civil war for that reason alone at that time.
As BD already pointed out, it was about the 'right' to slavery to the South, however.
Two sides that had two different motivations.
Not really. More like it devolved to, "The Yanks are still mad, ya'll".
Crimony, It appears I can no longer avoid opening the Soul Strut University of Common Knowledge due to the appalling amount of inaccurate historical information foisted on members here on a daily basis. Above would be exhibit A.
As you may all remember from your high school American History class, the civil war officially begins with the Confederacy firing on Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina in March of 1861. What was the CSA's beef? The biggest issue of the 1860 election was whether or not new states would enter the union as "free" states or slave holding states. Repubs led by Lincoln said no, Dems from the South wanted to continue the split agreed on by the Compromise of 1850, which allowed a mix of free and slave states. Why did the Southern states care? Because they feared that increasing the number free states would eventually lead to a constitutional amendment to abolish slavery everywhere, thus undermining the basis for their economy.
But the South only defended itself against the North (even though they attacked Union forts first) you say? Let's not forget that the CFA attacked the Union north in PA with hopes of capturing Washington DC and thus forcing the union to sue for peace.
In fact, Rich, the south fired first and secession meant overthrowing the govt with violence. And make no mistake, this was a war about slavery pure and simple, with many complicating issues thrown in for good measure.
Thus ends today's lesson. Next week we discuss the tax code, interstate commerce clause and Funkadelic's influence on my acid trips in college.
How about Mississippi, where a new poll shows that 46% of Republicans think interracial marriage should be illegal?
And another 16% aren't sure.
That's 60% who basically agree with Alexander Stephens.
Also, the north also benefited from slavery, many of the raw materials that fueled their industry - textile factories, etc, was made possible by southern slave labor.
Some believe that the creeping in of the changing narrative over the years - from a war about slavery, to one about 'states rights', and financial issues - was to allow the reconciliation that was necessary for 'healing' and getting on as a unified nation.
What no one has done in this thread is defend racism, slavery or the Confederate flag.
I've lived in the North for almost half my life and in the South for the other half...there are racist fucks in both places and stereotyping the South as primarily racist in 2011 is as offensive as any other stereotype....I've never met a person who owned slaves nor have I ever met anyone who longs for the 'good ol days" of slavery, that they couldn't have possibly experienced in the first place.
Re-enacting any war is bizarre to my way of thinking but it's done all over the world and must have a meaning or attraction I can't comprehend.
Seven states attempted to secede from the Union........this secession attempt, took place during the transition of the Buchanan to Lincoln presidency......the ruling Republicans claimed the act of secession itself was treason, even before a single shot was fired..........it was deemed illegal by the Lincoln administration which led to the attack on Ft. Sumter in S.C. the very heart of the secession.......these states had many things in common, including slavery....not all the "slave states" were part of the original secession. The war started because of secession, secession was driven by many things with the most obvious being slavery. Ironically, Lincoln had stated he had no intent to end slavery where it already existed.