South Seceded over White Supremacy and Slavery

[CatholicAtheist]

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.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

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.

 

[editec]

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.

 

[Gunny]

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.

 

[coolgeee]

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...

 

[Epsilon Delta]

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.

 

[editec]

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...

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.

 

[manifold]

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...

A flash of brilliance.

 

[editec]

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.

 

[manifold]

Now sit ubu sit.

 

[CatholicAtheist]

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.

 

[Voltaire]

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.

 

[Orange_Juice]

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.

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.

 

[Orange_Juice]

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.

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.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

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.

 

[editec]

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?

No but I heard it read in installments back when Maine public radio had a reading hour every afternoon.

It was a fun listen.

I think it's safe to say that all history is revisionist...

When history is revised based on new evidence, that's fine. When it is revised based on a wish and prayer (as in the State's rights apologies of those wishing to mitigate the vile nature of the Civil war) that's hokem, not history.

us folks trying to sort everything out 150 years later can't really get a good bead on the attitudes of the time,

Nonsense. There is plenty of hard evidence, newpapers editorials and news, statistics, private journals, speechs and debates in Congress that give us a very firm grasp of the various mind sets and motives of the time.

and we often do our ancestors a disservice by assuming the world they lived in was somehow simpler than ours.

Yes, I agree with that. Life was never simple. Not 6,000 years ago, and not now.

The politics of the time were so complex, to say that "The Civil War started because of X" is silly.

Silly if the question is framed that way, I agree.

If the question is framed, what was the primary motivation for the southern Rebellion, then the answer is clearly found in all the evidence I mentioned above.

The southern leadership feared the limitation of slavery in the new territories, and the eventual abolition of slavery in the Slave states.

They said exactly that enough times in print, and in Congress, too, that to deny that conclusion is to ignore the overwhelming evidence of history written in large part by the very people who lead the rebellion.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

(wall-o-text)

Why didn't you post this in the other thread?

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

Nonsense. There is plenty of hard evidence, newpapers editorials and news, statistics, private journals, speechs and debates in Congress that give us a very firm grasp of the various mind sets and motives of the time.

Yep, sure is!

(taken from an 1862 issue of Harper's, a pro-union publication)

 

[p kirkes]

If secession were successful then introduction of crop harvesting machinery after the civil war surely would have made the incentive for slavery moot because business, north and south, would have embraced it as more productive thus more profitable.

That should mean that the slave trade from Africa would dry up and those slaves residing in the south would begin to pass from the scene without substantial reproduction being permitted.

A separate South would soon become more industrialized as it eventually did in the middle part of the twentieth century assuming an amicable relationship between the Union and the Confederacy. What slaves remained would be largely confined to domestic work or other labor intensive projects.

The black population in the non-slave states would continue to expand somewhat as second class citizens and likely migrate to the west and joined by runaway slaves from the new machine based Confederacy. The slave owners would be glad to see them go as their upkeep expense is not longer necessary. Older slaves would serve as domestics and be replaced by the vacuum cleaner and other "labor saving" devices.

What a different world we would live in if John Deere had come on the scene sooner.

 

[CatholicAtheist]

Bigmeat, I never stated it was a war for abolition. Read my post again and attempt to decipher the meaning of it so you can make a rebuttal that addresses it.


Thank you.