It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Five myths about why the South seceded

page: 1
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Five myths about why the South seceded




1. The South seceded over states' rights.
2. Secession was about tariffs and taxes.
3. Most white Southerners didn't own slaves, so they wouldn't secede for slavery.
4. Abraham Lincoln went to war to end slavery.
5. The South couldn't have made it long as a slave society.


Full Story at WaPo

I thought this was an interesting read. Like most things, open to interpretation but eye opening. I offer no stance either way but simply felt this was worth sharing. I'm focused lately on better understanding our rich heritage and history. I was fascinated to learn some of the original language in the Constitition prior to Amendments.
(ex. Slaves were considered 3/5ths of a person.) More

"If we can better understand the past, we can see through those who strive to alter it." - Me

ETA: It is a testament to the brilliance of our forefathers to provide mechanisms for revision as the Constitution is a fluid framework / document as opposed to having been "etched in stone." Some might have you believe otherwise
edit on 13-1-2011 by kinda kurious because: added content




posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   
have you seen this site Civilwar.com, it tells you all about the civil war, and it is a lot different than what the WP is saying, it seems as if some one is trying to change history.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


Somebody is always trying to change history and whichever version suits the conclusion you want is the one you pick as being "true."



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by bekod
 


Thanks. I will check it out.

I'm halfway through: "Team of Rivals" - Doris Kearns Goodwin
Pretty intersting.





edit on 13-1-2011 by kinda kurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


LOL

What a propaganda piece that was.

Indeed the war WAS about State's rights and any in depth look at the facts CLEARLY reveals that this was the case.

Hell, we can even read the soldiers OWN WORDS from their letters home.

www.karlonia.com...

Why the North fought:

In general, the primary reason for fighting given by the Union soldiers was the desire to preserve the United States as a unified republic and to prevent its dissolution by the “rebels” or “secesh”.


Why the South fought:

The South, meanwhile, had an even more concrete reason for fighting the war. For the most part, the Confederates were defending their homes and families from pillage and ruin, and indeed there was much property destruction and loss in the South, especially in the later stages of the war. Confederate soldiers often compared soldiers of the North to “Goths”, “Vandals”, “invaders”, and the like, and promised to defend their land to the death, which many of them did. Southern ideals of chivalry also prompted many of the soldiers to fight for the protection of their women, especially if they had wives or sisters. Probably the most important reason of all that the Confederates fought was for the ideas of liberty and independence. Most Confederates saw the Union as a kind of tyrannical government that no longer represented their interests, and they believed that the time had come to rebel against this government, and replace it with a Confederacy that would protect the rights of individuals and the states from overreach by the federal government. Many Confederate soldiers expressed the fear of being “subjugated” by the North. This sentiment, along with the desire for self-government, seemed to be the primary incentive that upheld Confederate morale throughout most of the war, even in spite of the Union’s military advantages. As in the North, Confederates also appealed to the heritage of the Revolution, and some compared their rebellion with that of the colonies against King George. Finally, since they were attempting to establish a new nation, some Confederates also developed a spirit of southern nationalism, although expressions of the concept of defending the nation as a whole were usually more common in the North.


Buy the actual book here:
www.amazon.com...

Now, you can believe a statist liar that writes for the WaPo (which never ceases to amaze me with its constant appologies for State tyranny) - or you can believe the actual soldiers who fought in it.

I personally believe the soldiers.

For a real history lesson on the civil war that isn't a bunch of lies, look no further:




Watch the entire lecture series here.

FURTHER

I would like to point out that Grant (Union General) was a slave owner prior to the war, while Jackson (Confederate General) was an abolitionist.

Jackson was trained at West Point, where the students were all taught that the states were sovereign and that the Constitution was a compact between states, which meant that all states retained the right to leave the union if they should chose to do so.

Hey, but what did Confederate General Robert E Lee have to say about slavery?


I am rejoiced that Slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interest of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this that I would have cheerfully lost all that I have lost by the war, and have suffered all that I have suffered to have this object attained.


What did Lee fight for?


With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword...


But my all time favorite quote has to be from Lincoln himself:


If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.


Which the WaPo article poo poos as if this is totally irrelevant because Lincoln said he would abide by his campaign stance. This is totally ridiculous. Lincoln is telling us EXACTLY what he thought about slavery and why he chose to do what he did.

The entire WaPo article reads like a rambling rant from a commie that has gone off the deep end - illogical, totally unsourced, and wildly inaccurate. Nothing more than lies for the masses. The article is so bad it actually makes me angry.


edit on 13-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Thank you. I will review ALL of the information provided in it's ENTIRETY!

Like I wrote in OP, I'm interested to learn more AND mentioned the article was open to interpretation. I'm treading lightly these days and learned quite a lot from your 'Drunk Driving' thread even though I initially didn't believe you or agree.

Thanks for the input, your efforts were not wasted.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:10 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


Good, sorry if I came off like I was jumping down your throat personally.

My anger stems from the lies being told in that article.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:17 PM
link   
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


When people make the argument that the South seceeded because of states rights, they should really see the fine print. The South left because they viewed slavery as a states right just during the 60's when segregation was viewed as a states right. Southern representitives refused to recognize the rights granted by the constitution above those of state laws and this is why they left.

As for the other point about the high tariffs, the first 5 Southern states left the United states more than 30 years following the time when congress put tarrifs in place. They left a month after Lincoln won the election and Lincolns opponent, Brekinridge, joined the South to fight against the Union. This had little to nothing to do with the tarrifs. If people want to learn about the real motives of the South seceeding at the time, what better way than to go forward and read the declarations made by them upon seceeding. Simple google search should do.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


Are you serious? You decided to go onto a rightwing opinion piece on why the South left? Why don't you skip on over to the Southern delcarations? hmm? Lets take Georgia for an example:


The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

sunsite.utk.edu...

Oh theres plenty more in that link. If I wanted the opinion of a conservative on the matter, well, I've got you, I don't need a link. If you want to put forward actual evidence that slavery was not the core reason, simply ask the confederates themselves. You'll find them in that link above.

And yes, your argument about Northerners owning or benefitting from slavery at the time, this is just a fallacy to excuse the agenda of the South. It does not change one bit as to why the South left.
edit on 13-1-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Wow, great info thanks! That is excellent background info.

This onion becomes more interesting as the layers are peeled away.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


When people make the argument that the South seceeded because of states rights, they should really see the fine print. The South left because they viewed slavery as a states right just during the 60's when segregation was viewed as a states right. Southern representitives refused to recognize the rights granted by the constitution above those of state laws and this is why they left.

As for the other point about the high tariffs, the first 5 Southern states left the United states more than 30 years following the time when congress put tarrifs in place. They left a month after Lincoln won the election and Lincolns opponent, Brekinridge, joined the South to fight against the Union. This had little to nothing to do with the tarrifs. If people want to learn about the real motives of the South seceeding at the time, what better way than to go forward and read the declarations made by them upon seceeding. Simple google search should do.


That is not true.

Did I not just point out why Lee and Jackson fought for the south?

Did you not read what Lincoln said about slavery?

Did you not see what the soldiers were fighting for?

What more do I have to do here?

Slavery was at the rock-bottom barrel of reasons for the civil war.

Saying the civil war was about slavery is an affront to the men who fought and died in it.

edit on 13-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
reply to post by kinda kurious
 


When people make the argument that the South seceeded because of states rights, they should really see the fine print. The South left because they viewed slavery as a states right just during the 60's when segregation was viewed as a states right. Southern representitives refused to recognize the rights granted by the constitution above those of state laws and this is why they left.

As for the other point about the high tariffs, the first 5 Southern states left the United states more than 30 years following the time when congress put tarrifs in place. They left a month after Lincoln won the election and Lincolns opponent, Brekinridge, joined the South to fight against the Union. This had little to nothing to do with the tarrifs. If people want to learn about the real motives of the South seceeding at the time, what better way than to go forward and read the declarations made by them upon seceeding. Simple google search should do.


There were many issues involved in the secession of the southern states. Slavery was an issue,that affected nearly 6% of the white population. To the other 90+% it was a matter of self determination.(They didn't want the government telling them they had to do anything,or taking away someone else's choice).
While you are correct about cotton tariffs being placed in the 40's they were constantly being increased,to the point that to export cotton it would cost you one cent a pound more than it sold for. They would pay five cents a pound for cotton in England. The cotton tariff was six cents a pound to export. As opposed to the two cents a pound the northern mills would pay. Would that not make you want to go to war? Or maybe it would take American Naval vessels firing on American civilian merchant vessels before secession started,to raise your ire.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
Did you not read what Lincoln said about slavery?


I saw what Lincoln said about slavery, he was prepared to support it and during his presidential run, he made it clear that slavery was not on his agenda if he became president. However southerners did not believe him and this is why, a month after he was elected, the Southern states seceeded. This was not a coincidence, this was not about the tariffs that were passed 30 years ago, this was at core about slavery. Slavery was seen as a states right.


Did you not see what the soldiers were fighting for?


I am well aware of what many confederate soldiers fought for, they did so to defend their states. The agenda of the individual soldiers does not change the evident agenda of the confederate government at the time. Those soldiers serving in Iraq, are their personal agendas or views evident of why we are there in Iraq? What about afghanistan? Another fallacy.


Slavery was at the rock-bottom barrel of reasons for the civil war.


And yet you provide no evidence as to core reasoning other than the fact Lincoln was a slavery apologist. You'd have to do us favour here and fill in that 30 year gap between the tarrifs being passed and the states leaving a month after Lincoln was elected to make sense.
edit on 13-1-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


So you are making the claim that

1. Lincoln went to war over slavery, even though he was an admitted racist that didn't give a flying crap about slavery.

2. Even though the southern soldiers said they fought for state independence, that doesn't matter because the confederate government claimed slavery as the primary reason. Therefore what the entire Confederate Army felt they were fighting for is totally irrelevant.

3. That an entire book of soldiers personal letters along with multiple quotes from abolitionist confederate generals adds nothing to my point.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
Here is a little snippet written by Charles Dickens,quoted from wikipedia.

Many prominent British writers condemned the Morrill Tariff in the strongest terms. Economist William Stanley Jevons denounced it as a "retrograde" law. The well known novelist Charles Dickens used his magazine, All the Year Round, to attack the new tariff. On December 28, 1861 Dickens published a lengthy article, believed to be written by Henry Morley,[14] which blamed the American Civil War on the Morrill Tariff:

" If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? …Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived … The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union … So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils... [T]he quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel."



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by daddyroo45
There were many issues involved in the secession of the southern states. Slavery was an issue,that affected nearly 6% of the white population


There were an estimated 3,950,546 slaves. The population of the United states at the time was just over 31 million people. I think it influenced and affected well over just 6% of the country at the time, especially when single out Southern States.
mapserver.lib.virginia.edu...

North Carolina alone held an estimated 331,000 slaves, it's total population at the time was just over 700,000. 1 in 70 folks in the United states was a slave holder in 1860:
freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com...
and again I talk of the entire United states, that ratio jumps down when we single the source to southern states.

Just 6%? Where'd you get that stat, please oh please.


While you are correct about cotton tariffs being placed in the 40's they were constantly being increased,


Congress passed the tariff act in 1828. Now do you have the stats of how significantly tarrifs increased over that period? And can you also tell me where in the Southern declarations were tariffs mentioned as the core issue?



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:10 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


You keep pointing to the southern declarations, but you are totally ignoring the NORTH.

It takes two parties to do the tango.

The North could have ended the war immediately by allowing the south to walk away.

So tell me, since Lincoln was an admitted racist that didn't care about slavery, why in the hell did he engage the South in a bloody war that cost over 600,000 American lives?

To free the slaves? LOL

You are also ignoring what the freaking entire Confederate Army personally espoused as their reasons for fighting!

By your logic, if the American Federal government declared war on Canada today, you would logically expect the federal military to blindly follow the orders into battle? As if the federal government has the power to motivate people to their own deaths simply by decree?


edit on 13-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:12 PM
link   
Someone once said "There's 3 sides to every story: yours, mine and the truth, and nobody's lying."

Slavery was a huge issue contributing to the war. Just a look at what was being debated in Congress around that time is sufficient. If that doesn't help, look at the actual secession documents. A few of the seceding States drafted their own "declarations of independence", many of which discussed slavery. You can find them with a Google search.

At the same time, slavery or no slavery, the North came in and pillaged. Many parts of the South even today (Atlanta comes to mind) are still pissed about what they believe was unnecessary violence against civilians and property. In the minds of the soldiers, they probably were defending their homeland and families against barbarians. Especially the poorer soldiers that didn't even have slaves to begin with.

Permit me a radical suggestion. Force in your own mind the idea that the objective of debate is to get yourself closer to the truth, not to "win" whatever side you started out on. When you do that, debate becomes a mind-expanding learning experience rather than an anxiety-provoking battle, and in the end you can only marvel about how much more complicated any issue is than you once thought it was. It's quite a rewarding attitude to have.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
1. Lincoln went to war over slavery, even though he was an admitted racist that didn't give a flying crap about slavery.


Nope, I stated that Lincoln was a slavery apologist. He was prepared to settle for slavery and made numerous comments justifying it in order to win the election and maintain the Union. Didn't say he went to war because of slavery, where did I say that? What I did say was that the Southern confederate states refused to believe him, hence in the declarations, african slavery was the first issue to crop up for each state. States rights was a cover for efforts to preserve slavery by the confederacy.


Even though the southern soldiers said they fought for state independence, that doesn't matter because the confederate government claimed slavery as the primary reason.


Exactly, because the confederate government made it clear that they had no intention of ending slavery and freeing some 2 million Americans. The confederate soldiers who fought for this made no issue to the fact. Their government as far as these soldiers saw it, represented the best interests for their country and their way of life. It is not hard to understand.


That an entire book of soldiers personal letters along with multiple quotes from abolitionist confederate generals adds nothing to my point.


The quote you referenced from the confederate general came about in 1870, Some 6 sorry years after the confederate states lost their independence to the Union. It was not made during the war and Robert E Lee did not object to the agenda of the confederate government at the time. Yes I am well aware that he made mention of defending his state, because slavery in his eyes was a state right regardless of anyones views.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Funny how a lot of Yankees fail at history.


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



new topics

top topics



 
6
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join