South Seceded over White Supremacy and Slavery

[BrianH]

sillie me ...that war has been long over....why not concern ourselves with the two we are currently engaged in.

Read the category that this thread is under.....Hmmm....

 

[BrianH]

It appears that you wish to hang your hat upon the 10th Amendment and that despite more recent interpretations of that amendment that the state of the law circa 1860-61 was that secession was not an illegal act forbidden by the Constitution. I understand that I have restated your opinion there and please correct me if I have mis-stated it.

The Tenth Amendment provides:


The contention being that one of the powers reserved to the states was the power to secede. Although, the states, when they seceded took it one step further, they went through the same process as went they adopted the Constitution, that is by convention rather than act of the legislature. This shows an understanding by the secessionist leaders that there was a fundemental difference between the foundations of the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution. The latter bypassed the state legislatures to go directly to the people of the states. The secessionist leaders by calling a convention to vote for or against secession were basically holding a Constitutional convention in reverse. The reasoning being that if a state can opt in, it can opt out as well.

For this to be the case one of two cases must be the truth: that there is an enumerated power within the Constitution that provides for states which having been admitted to the Union, now wish to leave. Or, that it is an innate right of a state to secede and that right survives ratification of the Constitution by it. The former clearly does not exist, so it is the latter which needs analysis.

It is upon this point that the SCOTUS says in White that because of the way in which the states were brought into the Union by Constitutional convention by-passing the legislative processes of the sovereign states, they were essentially transformed and no longer sovereign. That this is proven by the very preamble of the Constitution when looked upon in the genesis of the Constitution. That the Constitution was created out of dissatisfaction with the Articles of Confederation and the very words of the preamble, ".... in order to form a more perfect union...." point directly to the fact that the Constitution was intended to weaken state power which had been so destructive to the union under the Articles. Further, that the while the Constitution provides for a way to get in to the union, it provides no way to get out of the union. Neither is there a method to have a state ejected from the union. In fact then, the union is a one-way door. Once in, a state may never leave.

However, this analysis does not address whether the state may have had a right to secession prior to adoption of the Constitution. SCOTUS's opinion in White side-steps this by saying the fundemental nature of the "states" changed when they ratified the Constitution and became mere sub-units of the the new sovereign nation-state (The United States of America). That opinion may bear more looking at. I think it is clear that the states had the right to come and go within the Articles, in fact this was an oft threatened act. It would seem to me however that whether a state could come and go would depend on the nature of the agreement entered into by the state.

It is clear from the genesis of the Constitution (to correct the defects of the Articles), from the method used to ratify the Constitution (direct convention of the people) and adoption (9 of 13 states) that the intention of the framers and adopters of the Constitution was exactly the opposite of increasing power of the states to leave the union. In fact, as shown above it was to weaken the states ability to do just that. This was not an oversight by the framers, this was directly in there mind, because this was a fundemental problem with the Articles. Silence within the Constitution therefore cannot be considered acquiescence but instead it should be construed as prohibition. Thus, the agreement or compact the states, or more correctly, the people thereof, entered into was not one from which they could withdraw. In fact, they knew or should have known that when the agreement was entered into as this was one of the direct issues meant to be addressed by the Constitution.

Returning to the question of states as mere political sub-units of The United States after ratification of the Constitution. I don't think it was the intent of the framers to so radically change the nature of the sovereign states so as to reduce them so far in their status. While it was clearly their intent to reduce their individual power as shown above so as to make the object of union possible. Some have argued that the Constitution was nothing more than a "treaty" between sovereigns. I believe nothing could be further from the truth, since when is a mere treaty accomplished by 13 plebiscites? There is no doubt that the fundemental nature of the several states were changed by the effect of the adoption of the Constitution. I would argue, specifically, that the right to withdraw was forfeited by the nature of the adoption and the bare words (or omission of words) providing method for adoption but not of withdrawal. If the framers wished to provide a way to withdraw, they would have written it. As I've stated before, this was not something that was far from the framers minds and had been threatened on numerous occasions under the Articles. Thus, by omitting the language allowing for withdrawal, the Constitution refuses to admit of the power to do it. And, as a pragmatic point, this like so many other issues in the Constitution was too hot to handle and was left to later generations to decide.

Calhoun argued for years for state nullification of national law. In the end, all of these issues got bound up with the wagonload of issues settled by the War of Northern Aggression.

I'm not quite sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me Tech? You post it as an argument, but then seem to say the same thing I have said.

I do, however, disagree with your statements about the Articles of Confederation. Neither the Articles of Confederation nor the Constitution forbid states from seceding. 11 of the original 13 states seceding from the union under the AOC and adopted the new constitution. The main difference between people arguing about secession is:

People arguing that states did have the right to seced, us explicit interpretation.

People who argue that states did not have the right to secede, use implied interpretation.

(Simple as that).

Those who argue against the legal secession of the South, use an implied meaning of "a perfect union".--ignoring the fact that the definitions of "perfect" in itself is an opinion and is an implication.

Those who argue that the states had the right/power to secede, specifically address the powers reserved to the states....granted by the 10th Amendment. It's the same Amendment that gives states other rights....such as the death penalty, education, etc... They are not powers specifically granted to the U.S. government, nor are they prohibited powers. You cannot include one state power--using this amendment, and then exclude other powers that you may not agree with.

But like I said, I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me.

 

[BrianH]

These arguments that the 'South Seceded over White Supremacy and Slavery' is sickening revisionism and goes to show why we need to end the public education(i.e. centralized mandatory brainwashing) system which teaches this garbage to naive youngsters. Here is the actual truth.

The Civil War was a war about the philosophies of Karl Marx vs. the philosophies of Thomas Jefferson

The United States was founded as group of sovereign nations loosely bound by a limited federal government. The federal government was given the powers listed in the constitution and no more, the rest of the powers were left to the states to decide on. This is the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers, and the ones which the southern soldiers laid down their lives for.

Lincoln's legacy was to consolidate central power and destroy the autonomy of the states. Walter D. Kennedy and Al Benson Jr. assert in 'Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists' that Abraham Lincoln was influenced by communism when the Union condemned the rights of Southern states to express their independence. And it is well documented that Karl Marx was sending letters of praise to Lincoln and instructing German and other European communist refugees in America to support Lincoln’s invasion of the South. After the 1848-49 revolution great number of members of the League of Communists were forced to emigrate from Germany and later from France and Switzerland as well and most ended up in the United States. This is where they brought the ideas and influence that eventually held sway with Lincoln.

Lincolnian Totalitarians by Thomas DiLorenzo
The Ten Causes Of The War Between The States

I have read that there were more slaves in the northern states then the south. But our schools won't teach you anything about Northern slave-running. No they want to demonize the south. The vast majority of southern soldiers were ordinary dirt farmers, white men who owned small farms and worked the land themselves with their families, and the idea they were fighting to uphold slavery is absurd. They were defending themselves against tyranny. A tiny percentage of Southern men owned big plantations and slaves; they were very rich, paid high dollar for their slaves who usually lived a much easier life then the poor whites. Even Lincoln said the war had nothing to do with slavery. The emancipation proclamation only freed the slaves in rebel states and the northern soldiers rioted when they found out they were fighting to free slaves.

After witnessing the Iraq War some Americans are becoming wise enough to learn that wars are often not about what the powers that be tell you they are about. In general, wars are instituted by powerful bankers and the purpose is to indebt an entire nation to them. If you want to really dig down into the rabbit hole, read up about how the Rothschild family funded both sides of the Civil War, including Karl Marx’s propaganda, and many of the agents that were sent to the United States during that time period. Although Lincoln accomplished their goals, he was not a pure puppet and it is said that they arranged his assassination due to the greenbacks he printed at their defiance. The ultimate goal of the civil war of course was the creation of the Federal Reserve which delivered the country into the hands of a tiny banking elite.

Many argue that the Civil War never ended it turned into an economic war that continues to this day. Average Americans are taught to vilify the south which in effect helps them to rationalize offenses, and it’s not likely a coincidence that this is very similar to Hitler’s tactics to vilify the Polish, the Jews etc to help the Germans rationalize their offenses. Liberals held themselves up as superior to southerners in the same way Nazis held themselves superior. There is no difference. The southern hick jokes are the same as the Nazi’s Polish jokes. It is an effective technique because most lefties do not even realize the ugliness or end goals that they are perpetrating, just as most Germans did not realize the ugliness or end goals they were perpetrating.

I will take issue with the comment about the south being more racist. It is a proven fact that the more liberal an area, the more segregated it is. In any liberal city there is clearly a white part of town and a black and Mexican part of town. The white part of town costs 2-3 times as much to live in. So for instance the black part of town the houses may go for 200-300k on average and the white part of town it is 600-900k. Think about this. These city dwelling liberals are paying 500k over 30 years to live in the white part of town. With interest this is a million dollars over 30 years! Then they may pay extra to send their kids to white private schools, or live in gated communities to further segregate themselves. This amounts to city liberals paying 30-50k a year, much of what they work for is simply to segregate themselves. Obviously this makes many of them feel very guilty inside so they want to lash out at people they believe are more racist then themselves so they can feel morally superior to others. That’s my theory.

While I'm not quite sure I agree with your Karl Marx and Jefferson interpretation of the Civil War, I will agree that the South is villified in U.S. History. It's not uncommon to find other such examples in U.S. history books. Wars we've won, we villify the opponent. War's we've "lost" they become our friends...

What I've noticed here, is many conspiracy nuts always blaming the U.S. gov. of lying and righting revisionist and false histories, however, they don't view it possible that the U.S. gov, could have done the same thing back then. IMO, the Northern treatment of the Irish is almost as bad as slavery in the South. I couldn't imagine imigrating to a country, and being drafted into the military as soon as I stepped off the boat....They were really for people's rights weren't they....

 

[strollingbones]

I am sorry. I am new. I made a flippant remark without realizing all the divisions in here.
Again I am sorry to the thread starter and all of the posters. Just bare with me. I will get the hang of this. (I hope)

 

[BrianH]

I am sorry. I am new. I made a flippant remark without realizing all the divisions in here.
Again I am sorry to the thread starter and all of the posters. Just bare with me. I will get the hang of this. (I hope)

It's not a big deal. There are MUCH MUCH worse posters here. I'm sure every one of us can be a "bad" poster from time to time.

 

[editec]

The poorer Southerners did not own slaves, so the actual slave owners did, in general, have the money to pay the slaves.

One out of every four families in the South had one or more slaves.

It is also a gross generalization to say that Northerners hated blacks as much as Southerners did. How do you account for the abolitionists, or the men in the burnt over district of New York who actually raided jails to free runaway slaves?

It is a convenient (and probably meaningless) generalization that apologists of the Southern cause (that would be the one that went to war to protect slavery, FYI) like to use to mitigate the vile nature of their Southern heros.

 

[BrianH]

One out of every four families in the South had one or more slaves.






It is a convenient (and probably meaningless) generalization that apologists of the Southern cause (that would be the one that went to war to protect slavery, FYI) like to use to mitigate the vile nature of their Southern heros.

Editec, are you suggesting that historical facts are wrong...Everyone learns in basic history, that blacks were mistreated ALL around. Granted, the South did more to own slaves and there was certainly more racism and prejudice there, however, it is wrong to suggest that blacks were treated with dignity and equality in the North....

 

[editec]

Editec, are you suggesting that historical facts are wrong...Everyone learns in basic history, that blacks were mistreated ALL around. Granted, the South did more to own slaves and there was certainly more racism and prejudice there, however, it is wrong to suggest that blacks were treated with dignity and equality in the North....

I am suggesting that comparing the racism of the North to SLAVERY of the south is an appeal to lose of sense of perspective in order to say that the North and the South were the same.

Making any such comparison is absurd.

 

[BrianH]

I am suggesting that comparing the racism of the North to SLAVERY of the south is an appeal to lose of sense of perspective in order to say that the North and the South were the same.

Making any such comparison is absurd.

With all due respect, what do you think a comparison is?

No one, is justifying the South's treatment of blacks by claiming that the North did the same, or even remotely the same things. What is happening, is northerners tend to see black and white and percieve the North as "GOOD" and the South as "BAD". Which is certainly not the case.

Furthermore, we both know that the civil war was not fought based on slavery. Sure, slavery was an issue, but the issue could easily have been something else. Had the North not threatened to end slavery (i.e.-take away the sovereign power of the southern people) then the civil war would not have happened...when it did. The war was not set in stone until Lincoln--a member of the Republicans (staunchly abolitionist) was elected to the presidency. Even so, all the South did was Legally secede from the Union. I'll admit that both sides are responsible for the conflict...however, I will not concede to say that the South seceded illegally.

My point with mentioning racism in the north was to shed a little "light" on single-minded people who believe only ONE version of history. It's only natural though, for someone to pick a side. The history you read in the "history books" are not a confederate history. It is a northern history...and that being so, many posters need to wake up and smell what they are cooking. They will post and post about our government (today) lying to us and doing corrupt things, but then abandon this notion when talking about the civil war...as if all old and deceased historical individuals were kind, righteous, honorable, etc....

 

[glockmail]

Agreed.

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

And they were all Democrats. Many in the South were Republicans and did not support the Confederacy.

 

[editec]

Did you folks KNOW that the majority of Souterners did NOT support succession?

Did you folks KNOW that, if tens of thousands of Southerners had not fought on the side of the North, that is isn't likely the North would have won that war?


The noble South that most of you apologists believe existed, never existed.

Millions of Southerners did NOT support succcession, folks.

The folks in Northern Georgia, for example, were attemtping to outlaw Slavery in that state even before the rebellion.

The South drafted men, remember, just like the North had to?

Did ya'll know that by the closing days of the war, five our of 6 men in gray had deserted the cause, the cuase that many of them realized was not THEIR cause?

Of course ya'll don't know that.

Knowing THAT the South was divided on the issue of slavery might shatter your precious mythologies about the glorious nobility of the Southern aristocracy that some of you seem to think were men of honor.

 

[strollingbones]

people in the mountains , who did not own slaves did not want to fight in any war. check out the southern appalachians war history. Most declined the offer to fight.

 

[glockmail]

....Knowing THAT the South was divided on the issue of slavery might shatter your precious mythologies about the glorious nobility of the Southern aristocracy that some of you seem to think were men of honor.

They were Democrats.

 

[editec]

With all due respect, what do you think a comparison is?

I think making the comparison is specious on its face.

No one, is justifying the South's treatment of blacks by claiming that the North did the same, or even remotely the same things.

Nor do I think that is what they are trying to do. What I think they are trying to do is rewrite history...as we will see you TRYING to do in the following passages.

What is happening, is northerners tend to see black and white and percieve the North as "GOOD" and the South as "BAD". Which is certainly not the case.

How easy it is for you to assume you can speak for Northerners. I'm a Northerner, and I have made no such assinine simplistic statements.

Furthermore, we both know that the civil war was not fought based on slavery.

No... you think you know that. I know it was fought for nothing else but that.

I know perfectly well that the southern Aristos who controlled the state legislatures went to war for nothing BUT their right to keep slaves and more to move that slave-based economy into the territories.

Sure, slavery was an issue, but the issue could easily have been something else.

Absolute poppycock, sport. It was about the slave based economy.

There was no issue of such importance that would make the Southern Aristo class that dominated that society do something so catastropically foolhearty as declaring war on the Federal forces, EXCEPT to save THEIR SLAVE ECONOMY.

Had the North not threatened to end slavery (i.e.-take away the sovereign power of the southern people) then the civil war would not have happened...when it did.

You prove that you do not know your history, again.

The North did NOT threaten to end slavery. Lincoln did not threaten to end slavery, either. In fact he clearly stated he could live with slavery in the south and had no intention of freeing the slaves.

The war was not set in stone until Lincoln--a member of the Republicans (staunchly abolitionist) was elected to the presidency.

Lincoln did NOT threaten to end slavery. Get that LIE out of you head. Read your history and get back to me, okay?

Even so, all the South did was Legally secede from the Union.

Really? What steps did they take to legally secede from the union?

Please name those steps they took. I am unaware of any of these steps you believe they took, as is the rest of the world who studies that period in American history.

I'll admit that both sides are responsible for the conflict...however, I will not concede to say that the South seceded illegally.

Fine. I won't ask you to concede on something which is entirely a matter of your opinion.

I'll concede only that people refusing to allow slavery to expand into the territories was the prime cause for the Southern leadership deciding to go to war when it did.

My point with mentioning racism in the north was to shed a little "light" on single-minded people who believe only ONE version of history.

There is only one true set of FACTS and that is all history really cares about, sport.

History basically leaves all such moral judgements to other people like you and me to debate to our hearts content.

The only immoral behavior to history is to make crap up that isn't true.

It's only natural though, for someone to pick a side.

I choose to pick no side. The war between the states is long over.

All I seek is that the discussion about it be based on true verifable facts.

I have made it perfectly clear I understand the rock and hard place the South was in.

You assume that means I hate the South because YOU are the partisan here, not I.

The history you read in the "history books" are not a confederate history.

History, good history, doesn't have a side, sport.

History only offers us facts.

You have apparently been mislead about the facts at least two critical points, Brian. They are:

1. The North was going to outlaw slavery (it was not)
2. the South tried to legally secede (If that is true, I don't know a damned thing about it. Educate me)

And you make a claim that nobody can make because it is entirely an opinion: That there even was a legal way for a state to secede.

Here, I find no fault in your argument because the best legal minds in America cannot arrive at consensus about that issue, either.

It is a northern history...and that being so, many posters need to wake up and smell what they are cooking. They will post and post about our government (today) lying to us and doing corrupt things, but then abandon this notion when talking about the civil war...as if all old and deceased historical individuals were kind, righteous, honorable, etc....

Let's just say I trust the history that is over a century old, and vetted and revetted and vetted again by historians all that time.

You seem to be assuming I have absolutely no sympathy for the plight of the South.

I know perfectly well, probably far better than you do, what scared the bejeus out of the Aristos of the South.

I understand why they took such a desperate gamble as attempting to secede, too.

You assume I have no sympathy for them because I have made it perfectly clear I have no sympathy for slavery, I suppose.

But I DO have sympathy for a people born into a society which was built on slavery when they understand that ripping that slavery system out of their lives would destroy their society completely.

I even understand why the Soutern Aristos went to war when they did.

I understand that they thought it was NOW OR NEVER.

Apparently I understand the mindset of the Southern cause far better than you apparently do.

You believe myths, my friend.

A combination of real facts coupled with few critical untruths to make your mythological view of history more palatable for you.

You need to read the words of the people who lead that Soutern cause in DEPTH to understand that they were not fools.

You need to understand that these were people with their economic backs to the wall.

You need to understand that they scared to death that they were going to go SLOWLY bankrupt if they could not expand slavery into the territories.

You need to understand they also were also completely aware that they would lose the power they had in Congress if they could not transplant slavery into the territories, too.

But you ALSO need to know that the North did not start the war.

You also need to know that the North was NOT planning on ending slavery in the existing SOUTHERN states.

You need to know that the Northern industrialists (the Northern Aristos) was more than willing to watch slavery die a long slow lingering death by economics, and they would NOT have lifted a finger to end slavery IN THE SOUTH.

What the North planned and was trying to do, was keep slavery out of the territories.

The Southern ARISTOS couldn't stand that outcome because they really really needed NEW land. Cotton kills the vitality of land.

The southern Aristos saw the writing on the wall and they were deperate

I mean you do realize that the majority capitalization in the entire South was about 75% in human flesh,and the rest was the value of the rapidly dying land where they grew cotton, right?

The War between the States was a war about ECONOMIC SURVIVAL, sport.

Slaves were the issue because SLAVES were the source of the SOUTHERN ARISTO's wealth and slaves also represented their CAPITALIZATION, too.

And since ECONOMY of the leaders of the southern rebellion was inextricably tied to expanding slavery into the territories, they dragged the Southern people (many of themn kicking and screaming they didn't WANT to go) into their WAR.

If you truly love the SOUTH,and the SOUTHERN PEOPLE, you really and truly need to read your history.

The southern ARISTO screwed the average Southerner by starting war that the average Sourthern person really had NO reason to want to fight.

SLAVES kept the value of WHITE PEOPLE's labors down, amigo.

The three out of four Southern families that did not have slaves, had no vested interest in fighting to preserve that cause.

 

[BrianH]

Did you folks KNOW that the majority of Souterners did NOT support succession?

Which means what exactly?

Did you folks KNOW that, if tens of thousands of Southerners had not fought on the side of the North, that is isn't likely the North would have won that war?

You're point? That the South had more manpower? Which would insist that MORE people were willing to fight for the southern cause...with the exception of a some southern people?

The noble South that most of you apologists believe existed, never existed.
First off, no one is apoligizing for the South's behavior... however, people are in denial about the northern history of these events.

Millions of Southerners did NOT support succcession, folks.

Which simply means that the South had less to fight for their cause.


The folks in Northern Georgia, for example, were attemtping to outlaw Slavery in that state even before the rebellion.

The South drafted men, remember, just like the North had to?

Did ya'll know that by the closing days of the war, five our of 6 men in gray had deserted the cause, the cuase that many of them realized was not THEIR cause?

Of course ya'll don't know that.

Knowing THAT the South was divided on the issue of slavery might shatter your precious mythologies about the glorious nobility of the Southern aristocracy that some of you seem to think were men of honor.

As far as the rest, this simply doesn't do anything to prove that the South seceded illegally. Gore won the popular vote...remember? There are MANY things that the government does without full support of the people. We're in Iraq aren't we? You argue these points with the false assumptions that we are apolgozing for the South's actions. I have done nothing but argue that the South did not secede illegally--according to the U.S. Constitution. And also argued against the notion that the Union was this heavenly, honorable and nobel nation fighting for the good and equality of mankind. There are always two histories, but only the winner's history is what makes it into the history books.

 

[BrianH]

I think making the comparison is specious on its face.



Nor do I think that is what they are trying to do. What I think they are trying to do is rewrite history...as we will see you TRYING to do in the following passages.



How easy it is for you to assume you can speak for Northerners. I'm a Northerner, and I have made no such assinine simplistic statements.



No... you think you know that. I know it was fought for nothing else but that.

I know perfectly well that the southern Aristos who controlled the state legislatures went to war for nothing BUT their right to keep slaves and more to move that slave-based economy into the territories.




Absolute poppycock, sport. It was about the slave based economy.

There was no issue of such importance that would make the Southern Aristo class that dominated that society do something so catastropically foolhearty as declaring war on the Federal forces, EXCEPT to save THEIR SLAVE ECONOMY.



You prove that you do not know your history, again.

The North did NOT threaten to end slavery. Lincoln did not threaten to end slavery, either. In fact he clearly stated he could live with slavery in the south and had no intention of freeing the slaves.



Lincoln did NOT threaten to end slavery. Get that LIE out of you head. Read your history and get back to me, okay?



Really? What steps did they take to legally secede from the union?

Please name those steps they took. I am unaware of any of these steps you believe they took, as is the rest of the world who studies that period in American history.



Fine. I won't ask you to concede on something which is entirely a matter of your opinion.

I'll concede only that people refusing to allow slavery to expand into the territories was the prime cause for the Southern leadership deciding to go to war when it did.



There is only one true set of FACTS and that is all history really cares about, sport.

History basically leaves all such moral judgements to other people like you and me to debate to our hearts content.

The only immoral behavior to history is to make crap up that isn't true.



I choose to pick no side. The war between the states is long over.

All I seek is that the discussion about it be based on true verifable facts.

I have made it perfectly clear I understand the rock and hard place the South was in.

You assume that means I hate the South because YOU are the partisan here, not I.





History, good history, doesn't have a side, sport.

History only offers us facts.

You have apparently been mislead about the facts at least two critical points, Brian. They are:

1. The North was going to outlaw slavery (it was not)
2. the South tried to legally secede (If that is true, I don't know a damned thing about it. Educate me)

And you make a claim that nobody can make because it is entirely an opinion: That there even was a legal way for a state to secede.

Here, I find no fault in your argument because the best legal minds in America cannot arrive at consensus about that issue, either.




Let's just say I trust the history that is over a century old, and vetted and revetted and vetted again by historians all that time.

You seem to be assuming I have absolutely no sympathy for the plight of the South.

I know perfectly well, probably far better than you do, what scared the bejeus out of the Aristos of the South.

I understand why they took such a desperate gamble as attempting to secede, too.

You assume I have no sympathy for them because I have made it perfectly clear I have no sympathy for slavery, I suppose.

But I DO have sympathy for a people born into a society which was built on slavery when they understand that ripping that slavery system out of their lives would destroy their society completely.

I even understand why the Soutern Aristos went to war when they did.

I understand that they thought it was NOW OR NEVER.

Apparently I understand the mindset of the Southern cause far better than you apparently do.

You believe myths, my friend.

A combination of real facts coupled with few critical untruths to make your mythological view of history more palatable for you.

You need to read the words of the people who lead that Soutern cause in DEPTH to understand that they were not fools.

You need to understand that these were people with their economic backs to the wall.

You need to understand that they scared to death that they were going to go SLOWLY bankrupt if they could not expand slavery into the territories.

You need to understand they also were also completely aware that they would lose the power they had in Congress if they could not transplant slavery into the territories, too.

But you ALSO need to know that the North did not start the war.

You also need to know that the North was NOT planning on ending slavery in the existing SOUTHERN states.

You need to know that the Northern industrialists (the Northern Aristos) was more than willing to watch slavery die a long slow lingering death by economics, and they would NOT have lifted a finger to end slavery IN THE SOUTH.

What the North planned and was trying to do, was keep slavery out of the territories.

The Southern ARISTOS couldn't stand that outcome because they really really needed NEW land. Cotton kills the vitality of land.

The southern Aristos saw the writing on the wall and they were deperate

I mean you do realize that the majority capitalization in the entire South was about 75% in human flesh,and the rest was the value of the rapidly dying land where they grew cotton, right?

The War between the States was a war about ECONOMIC SURVIVAL, sport.

Slaves were the issue because SLAVES were the source of the SOUTHERN ARISTO's wealth and slaves also represented their CAPITALIZATION, too.

And since ECONOMY of the leaders of the southern rebellion was inextricably tied to expanding slavery into the territories, they dragged the Southern people (many of themn kicking and screaming they didn't WANT to go) into their WAR.

If you truly love the SOUTH,and the SOUTHERN PEOPLE, you really and truly need to read your history.

The southern ARISTO screwed the average Southerner by starting war that the average Sourthern person really had NO reason to want to fight.

SLAVES kept the value of WHITE PEOPLE's labors down, amigo.

The three out of four Southern families that did not have slaves, had no vested interest in fighting to preserve that cause.

Well, we've obviously proven who can type the longest version of bullshit on this thread.

LINCOLN...may have never directly stated that he was for ending slavery, however, his PARTY---DID. And I've already posted NUMEROUS quotes from Lincoln on his position on slavery. Granted, his views are the same as mine, but this statement that Lincoln had no intention of ending slavery is what you referred to as "poppycock--sport", considering that's exactly WHAT Lincoln did. Also, the South or North did not go to war, until the South attacked Fort Sumter when the North refused to leave...despite numerous warnings.

You are right about one thing, Slavery was the economic production means for the South...but an ENTIRELY LEGAL ONE. The problem comes about, when the republican party (i.e. ABOLITIONISTS) began pumping their intentions. The Northern Republicans were waging a political war on the Southern Democratic aristocracy and threatening to TAKE AWAY their only means of making money (granted, dishonorable indeeed)---but legal none the less. As far as Georgia, that's one state out of the entire Confederacy. The point is, if the North were trying to outlaw guns, in the nation, the result would have been the same. Simple as that. The South felt threatened, and took action. I suggest you read a little bit of historical fact yourself, instead of relying on curriculum based history books...

"Nobody has put it better than Frederick Douglas, the former slave and abolitionist leader, in a speech in 1876: "[Lincoln's] great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow countrymen.... Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."

Book Review: Father Abraham Lincoln's Relentless Struggle To End Slavery


Like I said before, SLAVERY was an underlying issue. Had the North been threatening to abolish something else, the result would have been the same. It just happened to be "the issue" in which resulted in the Souths threatened existence during this time. Other states (such as Montana) have threatened to secede over possible abolition of guns by the SCOTUS.
Montana Threatens To Secede If Supreme Court Rules Against Individual Gun Rights - Say Anything

This war was fought of the the threatened loss of popular sovereignty and states rights. Why don't you google some southern FACTUAL resources and see if they coincide with your opinion. I've done both...and I've read more history and studied more history than you can imagine, SPORT.

by the way, before doubting someone's intelligence on the subject....check your own. I have not once exclaimed that you have no sympathy for the South...which is certainly not the discussion here. You are, however, letting your personal emotions on the institution of slavery get in the way of FACT. Like I said, why don't you quite reading one-sided history instead of believing what mom says about dad. You're the guy that can't see that Hitler was one of the greatest leaders of all time--until a certain point, strictly because of hist motives. I don't like the guy either and I hope he's burning in hell, however, he's was man who brought Germany from ruins the most powerful nation on earth. But that's beside the fact.

 

[wayne]

Robert E. LEE is my hero too. You call him a traitor. Well is Jane Fonda a traitor. How about the weather underground and the liberals who supported the soviets during cold war are they traitors. If general Lee is a traitor then so am I.

 

[Inferno]

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.

I totally agree that the war for southern independence was fought over states rights. That is when federal government became so strong. The carpet baggers came on an raped the south. Slavery was dying.
After the war for southern independence was lost the freeman the slaves could hardly find a place in the north to live. In Illinois the could live only in one area in Chicago called Bronzeville. That was it.

 

[BrianH]

Robert E. LEE is my hero too. You call him a traitor. Well is Jane Fonda a traitor. How about the weather underground and the liberals who supported the soviets during cold war are they traitors. If general Lee is a traitor then so am I.

Exactly, which is precisley the reason that no confederate generals were tried for treason.