South Seceded over White Supremacy and Slavery

I noticed a debate about the civil war and I only read the first post in which the poster stated the war was fought over taxes. Which is pure balderdash and revisionist history peddled by various organizations in order to legitimize their cause.


The fact is tariffs and taxes played little part if any in the reasoning behind the secession of the slave states. A tariff authored by a Southerner actually passed in 1857 and was hence known as the Tariff of 1857. The South found this very advantageous and this negates the argument that tariffs played any significant role in the secession of the slave states from the Union. In fact it was such a minor factor that South Carolina voted against mentioning it in their Ordinance of Secession. So that myth can be put to bed.


Another myth is the states rights myth. One can only argue this position knowing full well that the South was a huge proponent of suppressing states rights when it interfered with the institution of slavery. One can only say the states rights argument must be meant in the context of protecting the states rights to chattel slavery and the imposition of laws that made this secure in perpetuity.



The facts are the South left the union for two reasons. One was the perceived threat to chattel slavery with the election of a party that favored abolition and white supremacy by a party they referred to as "black Republicans". If one does any research at all, just a little research, you can read the words of the secessionist commissioners sent out to various legislative bodies throughout the South to spread to give reasons for secession. These men did not allude to unjust taxes, instead they explicitly referred to the threat of the white race to "amalgamation and equality with the inferior negro race", the spoke of the "unimaginable horrors upon our women" if the "black republicans" came to power to give "equality to negroes".
This fear was hammered home repeatedly and it was unmistakably clear, secede from the union or to be forced to live with the black race on equal terms, which was simply unthinkable. This along with their reliance on chattel slavery and the threat to this "peculiar institution" were the factors that caused the South to leave the Union.


I dare anyone to read the words of Ordinances of Secession for southern States and the words of the commissioners of secession and deny that white supremacy and chattel slavery were the reasoning behind secession.

I'd agree the biggest reason was slavery. Thankfully they lost, otherwise they might've gone ahead and turned all of us south of Rio Grande into slaves, which would've SUCKED, I must say.

__________________
"I will continue to be an impossible man as long as those men who are possible today remain possible." - Bakunin, letter to Ogarev.

"The ultimate aim of production is not production of goods, but the production of free human beings associated with one another on terms of equality." - John Dewey.

"It is embarrassing that the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council are responsible for the largest quantity of arms sales to the developing world. The very countries that should be maintaining world peace and security are the ones most responsible for promoting war and insecurity by producing and selling weapons." - Oscar Arias, 1987 Nobel Peace Prize Winner.

Agreed.

One in four families in the South had slaves, folks.

Human flesh was the largest capital investment in the South.

That's why, when the South felt threatened that the Northern industrialist masters might limit its expansion into the new territories, and worse, might eliminate it in the South altogether, they rebelled.

Follow the money, and history always makes sense.

Now imagine that you'd been born into that system, and imagine that you and yours were going to be financially ruined with the stroke of a pen in Congress.

While I loathe slavery, and I am not amused by today's revisionists who are trying to elevate the motives of the folks who committed treason to something loftier than what it really was, I can definitely understand why the South weren't thrilled with the prospect of the entire economy being ruined, either.

Sins of the Floundering Fathers, folks.

They knew without a doubt that slavery was wrong, but they were not prepared to destroy the South (and therefore not get the constitution enacted) in 1789.

Y'all are about as full of shit as it gets; especially, the originator of this thread. Every crap-ola point he tries to make has been debunked.

The most basic being blacks were not given equality until the Civil Rights Act. They were given freedom. Then treated like 2nd class citizens by this NATION, not just the South, for a century.

You can try and sell the US Civil War as some noble cause, but it certainly was not. It was about control of government, power, and money by the wealthy powerbrokers of both sides.

I see those same powerbrokers are STILL playing the ignorant for fools.

__________________
She helped me with my suitcase, She stands before my eyes
Driving me to the airport, And to the friendly skies.
Going through security I held her for so long.
She finally looked at me in love, And she was gone.
Just a song before I go, A lesson to be learned.
Travelling twice the speed of sound It's easy to get burned.

At least someone else seen through the B.S. of the this thread starter...
What history books are you reading?

Every war is fought for profit, power, and the furthering of ones own cause.

Lol...to free the blacks from slavery. What a fairytale story...

Just to clear up: I don't believe that the North was being altruistic or anything at all, they didn't go to war to 'protect' the slaves, they went to war to keep the south. Just saying that the Southern States did secede because of the slavery issue, which was an ENORMOUS part of their economy. And they had a history of 'probing' south to see if they could claim some new fresh slave land (See William Walker). Just saying.

__________________
"I will continue to be an impossible man as long as those men who are possible today remain possible." - Bakunin, letter to Ogarev.

"The ultimate aim of production is not production of goods, but the production of free human beings associated with one another on terms of equality." - John Dewey.

"It is embarrassing that the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council are responsible for the largest quantity of arms sales to the developing world. The very countries that should be maintaining world peace and security are the ones most responsible for promoting war and insecurity by producing and selling weapons." - Oscar Arias, 1987 Nobel Peace Prize Winner.

Hey!

He did not say the war was fought to FREE the slaves.

He said the war was STARTED to insure that they'd remain slaves.

Nice try reframing the issue, though.

A flash of brilliance.

Thank you.

Hardly a conclusion I can take much credit for, though.

This debate is a well known one, and I am hardly the first person to arrive at the conclusion that the "The south fought the war for States' Rights" argument is little more than a misleading Southern apologist's revisionist history.

Now sit ubu sit.

It seems apparent that editec is the only person with reading and comprehension abilities.


*sigh*



Gunny, nothing Ive posted has been debunked if you have evidence to the contrary I would ask you to post it instead of going of on a childish rant because of your sympahty for traitors and scum that fought for white supremacy and chattel slavery. Im sure youve raised your whole life steeped in revisionist history and pray at the Stone Mountain to the alter of your heroes. This no doubt has clouded your judgement.



And Ive never said the motives for the North, Ive only stated the motives for secession for the South. This isnt really open for debate as Ordinances of Secession and the words of secession commissioners clearly outlay their agenda. You cant revise history and omit the very documents that are record.

Hey guys,

I really have no interest in getting mired in this silly debate, but I was wondering if you had ever read a book called "Guns of the South" by Harry Turtledove?

Spoilers below:

It's a pretty funny "what if" sci fi book, where South African white supremacists build a time machine, and go back in time to give Robert E. Lee's army AK-47s in the middle of the war. Hilarity obviously ensues. The south wins the war, negotiates a truce with the North, and then works to maintain the peace as new territories hold referendums on which Nation they want to join. Robert E. Lee defeats Forrest to become the next president of the CSA, and pushes a bill through congress to start a program of manumission. The newly badass Confederate troops also go down to North Carolina, kill all of the South African paramilitary fellows, and destroy their time machine. How's that for a revisionist wet dream?

End Spoilers. (Note: I wasn't really mocking, I'm a proud southerner and Robert E. Lee is a personal hero of mine.)


I think it's safe to say that all history is revisionist...us folks trying to sort everything out 150 years later can't really get a good bead on the attitudes of the time, and we often do our ancestors a disservice by assuming the world they lived in was somehow simpler than ours. The politics of the time were so complex, to say that "The Civil War started because of X" is silly.

Here's some food for thought, think about what historians and people on message boards will be saying in the year 2150, when they're discussing why the current Middle East conflict is happening.

No, he is 100% correct. Slavery was about white supremecy, and it continued into the post civil war era up to the 1960's with Jim Crow laws. And no, the north was not much better on the subject either.

You make a common argument that is wrong. Just because we argue the South fought for white supremecy doesn't mean the north fought for a more nobel goal. The South was afraid of slavery ultimate demise, but most northerners were not abolitionist. The South fear of racial equality led them to harm the entire country through disunion which the north would not allow. See how there is a difference? Two different war aims for north and south.

Ugh! I really dislike counterfactual history. So many people write "whay ifs" history. I just don't see that as possible. Way too many variables in history. So many unforseen events, leaders and surprises.

Except for the little fact we have Contemporary writings, opinions, letters, newspapers, legal Documents, military records, Government records, etc etc etc. Ya we sure can not know what happened in the past with all that paper trail.

__________________
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd. Indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.
-Bertrand Russell

Facts are stubborn things, but statistics are more pliable
-Laurence J. Peters

I never said that you had no right to have an opinion. I just said that it was, in fact, worth nothing.
-Maineman ( on 12 June 2007)