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: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


So now I have to ask you, where is your evidence for this "states rights as cover for slavery" theory?

This makes no sense.

This is exactly the opposite of what we see in the freaking southern declarations you so kindly posted!

We see the confederate government directly listing slavery as the primary reason!

I contend the EXACT OPPOSITE is true, and it is the only logical position supported by the evidence. Slavery was a cover for states rights, and not vice versa.


1. Lincoln's comments support northern aggression strictly to preserve the union.
2. Lincoln's main general was a slave holder himself.
3. The main confederate generals were abolitionists
4. All personal correspondence indicates that the northern army fought to enforce federal domination over the south.
5. All personal correspondence indicates that the southern army fought to gain independence from the north.
6. We have an epic tariff war going on for decades prior to the fighting
7. We have the federal government up north taking southern tax money and spending it on their cronies



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




posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
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.


Ah yes, this argument again. Because the many northerns benefitted and supported slavery, all of a sudden this discounts the core reason as to why the Confederate states left. Right.


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


The Union could have ended war quicky by leaving Mexico and her Northern territories of California, Arizona and New Mexico. The Union could have left Texas alone, the Union could have left Hawaii alone, we should have just been seperate countries, ya know? Why oh why did the Union insist upon existing! Life is not fair, is it?


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?


Lincoln did care about slavery, but so much as he cared about the Union, and this is why he changed his tone to win the election and become president. As for his bloody war, the Southern states decided to leave and they know full well what was coming. Was it justified? Nope, but it should be expected, We lost thousands of men and woman during the war of independence against the Britian. We lost more during our wars against Mexico in an effort to expand territory. "Bloody war" has been a necessary part to the existence of this Union, and has been since the 18th century. Is it justified? Nope. Neither are the many many other events during that era.


To free the slaves?


Lincoln certainly did not go to war to free slaves, but he did declare all slaves free to increase the number of soldiers to his side, and it worked out well for him. In the end, slavery was barred from non-confederate states and Lincoln was the one that ended up declaring the slaves free. We can sit here and argue about agenda all day long, doesnt' change the fact.


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?


We did wage war against Canada in 1812. Well actually we declared war against British Canada, but you get the deal. As for today, well we are in a different time sent with a different mindset to society, are we not? Or are you assuming the apple did not fall too far from the 1800's?
edit on 13-1-2011 by Southern Guardian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Southern Guardian
 


Looks like I won this round if that's the best retorts you have to my arguments.

I shall let the community decide for themselves what the evidence clearly suggests.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1So now I have to ask you, where is your evidence for this "states rights as cover for slavery" theory?

This makes no sense.

This is exactly the opposite of what we see in the freaking southern declarations you so kindly posted!

We see the confederate government directly listing slavery as the primary reason!

I contend the EXACT OPPOSITE is true, and it is the only logical position supported by the evidence. Slavery was a cover for states’ rights, and not vice versa.


1. Lincoln's comments support northern aggression strictly to preserve the union.
2. Lincoln's main general was a slave holder himself.
3. The main confederate generals were abolitionists
4. All personal correspondence indicates that the northern army fought to enforce federal domination over the south.
5. All personal correspondence indicates that the southern army fought to gain independence from the north.
6. We have an epic tariff war going on for decades prior to the fighting
7. We have the federal government up north taking southern tax money and spending it on their cronies


mnemeth,

This issue is a very important one; I have made this very same arguments at many times before but people seem unwilling to see the truth about the war and it's causes.

To talk about the war being a noble cause on the part of the South is something foreign to people who have been indoctrinated over time in the schools to respond emotionally to anything involving race. Race is an emotional thing to begin with...

That fact in and of itself is why slavery was the convenient emotional issue to hang over the whole thing that made States rights folks seem evil and vile and the war more therefore more noble and palatable to the North who were all of the sudden hit with an income tax for the first time.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
What myths?

As with all wars...they break down pretty simple.

Resources.

Wether money, food, water, etc.

All wars are fought for control of the desired resource.

I don't think rich guys in the south gave two whoots about slavery (as a seperate issue) at the beginning. They were worried about their money.

Ironically the north wanted said money...hence war.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Golf66
 


That is a SPOT ON assessment of what is going on here.

Nationalists can not bring themselves to face the fact that the embodiment of our current federal government killed half a million Americans simply to retain the southern citizenry as tax slaves.


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



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
So now I have to ask you, where is your evidence for this "states rights as cover for slavery" theory?


Right there in the declarations amigo. You seem to be reluctant to actually read the declarations made by the Southern states. Don't make me quote them all!


This is exactly the opposite of what we see in the freaking southern declarations you so kindly posted!


Can ya reference me the part of the Southern declaration quote you wish to make a point out of?


I contend the EXACT OPPOSITE is true,


Where? What do you think the those states meant by states rights at the time then? If you are to insist upon the tarrifs being passed in 1828, more than 30 years before the war, then maybe you can pick up where the other member left off and actually indicate to me where tarriffs are mentioned as the major reason in the souther declarations, and as to how significantly they increased.


1. Lincoln's comments support northern aggression strictly to preserve the union.
2. Lincoln's main general was a slave holder himself.


Yep.


3. The main confederate generals were abolitionists


Nope. You only referenced what? One general and his comment regarding the abolition of slavery some 6 years following the end of the civil war.


4. All personal correspondence indicates that the northern army fought to enforce federal domination over the south.


Yes, obviously. The South was critical to the preservance of the Union just as the conquest to invade Northern Mexico and expand territory. As for individual northerners, it'd be silly to argue they all opposed slavery or they all agreed with what the government was doing. Same for Southern citizens.


5. All personal correspondence indicates that the southern army fought to gain independence from the north.


Independence was made to preserve the blessings of slavery, hence the first batch of states leaving a month after Lincoln was elected, the first Republican. They did not buy the talk from Republicans about slavery.


6. We have an epic tariff war going on for decades prior to the fighting


I still do not have any references about this, from anybody. How did this factor again?


7. We have the federal government up north taking southern tax money and spending it on their cronies


Oh lordy, and those poor poor southern delegates and representitives with their slave money. For an anarchist you certainly have no issue wasting energy defending the South at the time and their preservance of slavery. It is interesting.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern GuardianWhat do you think the those states meant by states rights at the time then?


Here is my take maybe I can help out:

While slavery was a heinous enterprise and a very emotional one at that it was not THE reason for the war. It was about the fear in the south of them losing its influence in the affairs of federal government because of the way representatives were apportioned by population.

The presidential election of 1860 had resulted in the selection of Abraham Lincoln as president of the United States. Lincoln won because of an overwhelming Electoral College vote from the more populated Northern states.

Not a single Southern state voted for him. The election results demonstrated that the South was increasingly a minority region within the nation.

Soon Northerners might accumulate the voting power to basically dictate programs and policies to them regardless of what Southerners might desire. Can you see how scary that might be; it scares me now that the same thing is happening again.

A lot of the southern people saw that they were losing their voice in government and likely to be entirely subject to the whims of the Northern States desires regardless of what they might be.

Yes the issue at current debate was slavery; however, It was apparent to many that they would have little say in the affairs of state in the future regardless of the issue and then like now it’s almost impossible to repeal a legislative change action once it starts. Therefore the south was forced into a position of act now or loose influence in their own affairs possibly forever - losing the right of self determination was scary to many so soon after the Revolution.

I see a similar problem brewing now with it being possible to win the presidency with the east/west coast and Florida. The Middle Americans are losing their representation and will be subject to the whims of the “left coasts”. That is for another thread though maybe or I’ll hit it latter in this post.

Having a Masters in Military History I can say slavery, was not what motivated the average Confederate Soldier, who likely fought for ( if you read the first source or original source history from their letters, diaries and obituaries) other more mundane issues, I doubt you will find many Soldiers who mentioned slavery at all perhaps some of the Officers who were upper class but not the guy in the trench.

They likely mentioned patriotism for their home state, to protect their sovereignty and stop the unlawful Yankee invasion and protect their land/family (After the shooting started of course they were defending their homes and livelihoods.) .

A very small proportion of the southern population owned slaves at all as they were an expensive investment in terms of 1860's dollars. Average price 450.00 some more some less based on productive value more were a lot more expensive based on their skills or a trade.

Current data is only available till 2009. In 2009, the relative worth of $450.00 from 1860 is:

$12,000.00 using the Consumer Price Index

So it’s like a car or small tractor in price I don't know how many you have but I have 1 car 1 truck and no tractor. That does not include the cost of maintenance (food, shelter, and clothing) and care too so it’s a large investment on the part of any estate.

Most white Southerners did not own slaves. In 1860 only ten thousand Southern white families owned more than twenty slaves, and only three thousand owned more than fifty slaves.

Still a pretty douche bag institution one has to admit but hardly the major motivator for fighting in the eyes of most southerners.

Far fewer people engaged in the practice than did and the average guy (likely a yeoman farmer); likely did not see the war in terms of “Hey lets die so rich guys can keep getting richer on slavery”.

More likely they thought the more populated Northern States taking away the rich guys way of life might lead to the future further decline of their own rights and therefore limit their ability to attain the dream to reach the same upper class lifestyle (however, unlikely) through their hard work, in which case I’d fight too….

Again, we may face this very problem again sooner than later if the debt riddled and poorly managed east and extreme left coasts continue to drive the political train and disenfranchise and isolate the more moderate fiscally responsible but lesser populated middle-states.

Many voters in the middle States are starting to feel that the financial mismanagement of the more liberally run blue states are becoming an unnecessary drain on their way of life and the polarized views on morality don't help.

I mean where I live we have a balanced budget, good schools, low crime and such, why should I bear the increased tax burden for years of mismanagement in NY or CA by giving them a bail out because their untenable political promises to their cronies have come due in full and they are broke? Not really my problem…

What I am saying is that at some point the people of (insert less populated state) or a (group of lesser populated states) are going to realize that they are paying for the debts and mismanagement of the more populated states and vote among their populations to secede from the union. I bet Texas will be first.

Look at the states with the highest taxes, crime, biggest entitlements and worst schools - who runs them? Liberal left.

When the people wake up to this fact there is likely to be another civil war. Perhaps it will be a shooting one, maybe not, but secession and breakup of the Union none the less.

It would not take much for a state to argue in court that the federal government is not upholding its end of the contract; they don’t protect the borders, they don’t enforce immigration law, they don’t tax all the states evenly or fairly etc. etc. They have imposed undue financial burdens on small States with mandates and regulations that they don't fund and the smaller populations cannot possibly fund through any amount of tax increases.

Why would the people of (less populated state here) today continue to be bound by an agreement made 200 or more years ago especially when the federal government is not keeping its end of the bargain? It is more of a liability than a benefit sometimes for them to remain in the Union.

Finally, despite the drama about the legality of secession; the US would be very hypocritical on the world stage to deny the states the right to do so after we encouraged and supported all the Balkan states and other states in the former USSR to become independent. We have been a big supporter of any/all the break-away states around the world for that matter.

A lot of other countries might see this as good for the world that the Union dissolve and help the states with their bid for secession so they could gain hegemony (China, Russia, even our buds in the EU.)

I would not count it out totally.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   
The people who had slaves didn't want to have slaves... They were forced and in some cases punched in the face
when they took the slaves and left them in other counties, this is why they were forced to succeed. Even though the successen was not successful it is clear that nobody had any choice as to the free labor they might have...
Fast forward to segregation and again it was those big city librals and the federal governments that forced people to
use different toilets and spoons even. I have a link here somewhere



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:21 PM
link   
I think as in most wars the few guide the many. It was a mercantile, industrial, and banking elite in the North, and a planter aristocracy in the South. This is generalized, but in each case these few guided political power. They influenced, and cajoled government to pursue their interests. Sadly, the average citizen north or south had little voice. The war was the powerful fighting the powerful. The citizen soldiers had to be sold a talking point that they would die for. This could be the idea of the sanctity of the union, anti-slavery crusade, states rights, defense from a conquering foe. It seems to me that the aristocracy of the US had split, and now differed on the interests they held. It reached a peak with Lincolns election. Whether the republic needed saving, or that saving it justified military aggression is questionable. The institution of slavery could not last long in the changing global economic system. Was this clear then? Maybe, or maybe not. If yes, then why fight except to centralize state power.If not, then why avoid abolitionist rhetoric until politically beneficial? It seems in my humble opinion the Northern elite decided they were fed up with the domination of the political process by southern planter aristocracy, and the southern elite were tired of forking up a cut to the north mercantile houses. The south especially saw the future of the aristocracy in jeopardy. This could not be allowed to happen.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Golf66
Therefore the south was forced into a position of act now or loose influence in their own affairs possibly forever - losing the right of self determination was scary to many so soon after the Revolution.


exactly

Let us not forget that the fathers and grandfathers of the generals that fought in this war were alive during the revolutionary war.

I know one of their fathers was actually a veteran of the revolutionary war.

The ideas of secession, self-determination, and revolution were VERY fresh in their minds.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:28 PM
link   
READ MY SIGNATURE!!

This article was written by a yankee retard.

There was a general in the Army of Tennessee named, "States Rights Gist" for crying outloud...

Seeing articles like this irritate the hell out of me, when it all boils down to it, this was our 2nd War of Independence...
edit on 13/1/11 by xstealth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by xstealth
READ MY SIGNATURE!!

This article was written by a yankee retard.

There was a general in the Army of Tennessee named, "States Rights Gist" for crying outloud...

Seeing articles like this irritate the hell out of me, when it all boils down to it, this was out 2nd War of Independence...
edit on 13/1/11 by xstealth because: (no reason given)


I'm a Yankee anarchist and it pisses me off too hahahaha

I hate liars.



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


South Carolina, the first state to secede, did indeed so so because of state's rights.

In specific, it seceded because it opposed the exercise of state's rights. You see, many northern states in the union were exercising their right to self-determination by acceding citizenship to blacks, even voting rights. other states, such as Pennsylvania, had passed measures that refused pay for Pennsylvanian police for time spent enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act.


The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.


That's from South Carolina's declaration of secession.

There's also this:


We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.


South Carolina seceded from the union in an attempt to preserve slavery for itself, and because other states in the union exercised their rights of self-determination to bar slavery within their own borders.

Every single state that seceded from the Union after South Carolina did the same thing in their own declarations of secession.

Mississippi:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.


Georgia:

The North demanded the application of the principle of prohibition of slavery to all of the territory acquired from Mexico and all other parts of the public domain then and in all future time. It was the announcement of her purpose to appropriate to herself all the public domain then owned and thereafter to be acquired by the United States. The claim itself was less arrogant and insulting than the reason with which she supported it. That reason was her fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity. This particular question, in connection with a series of questions affecting the same subject, was finally disposed of by the defeat of prohibitory legislation.

The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.


Texas:

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.

By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.

They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a 'higher law' than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.


Alabama:

Be it resolved by the people of Alabama in Convention assembled, That the people of the States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky and Missouri, be and are hereby invited to meet the people of the State of Alabama, by their Delegates, in Convention, on the 4th day of February, A.D., 1861, at the city of Montgomery, in the State of Alabama, for the purpose of consulting with each other as to the most effectual mode of securing concerted and harmonious action in whatever measures may be deemed most desirable for our common peace and security.


...And so on.

The south seceded over the issue of slavery, and in opposition to other states' rights to be non-slave. They says so in their own "dear john" letters!



posted on Jan, 13 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   
You know the world is messed up when the revisionists have changed something that happened just a few hundred years ago eh?

Now I don't know who is right in this case, I have not studied this at lenght. When I was growing up I was always taught it was a states right issue, combined with the tarrifs and the increasing pressure of the North to stop slavery, or to tone it down.

That was a long time ago though...

It makes me wonder how much actual truth lies in our history books.

~Keeper



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


That is a good summary of the problems the southern states faced in keeping slavery going.

When the northern states used the power of nullification to nullify federal slave laws, it made slavery in the south unsustainable because the slaves now had a place to run to.

Previously, the slaves could not run anywhere.

So here we have nullification being used by sovereign NORTHERN states to void federal slave laws.

HOWEVER - your assertion that they fought a war over this is wrong.

The southern states left the union, however they did not wish to engage the north in a war.

The southern states had no intention of invading the north and conquering Washington DC.

They only wanted to LEAVE the union, and the war that ensued was entirely because of states rights issues, not because of slavery. To the south, it was a war of independence, not a war of conquest.

If the north had simply left them alone, there would have been no war.

The NORTH wanted to CONQUER THE SOUTH TO ENSLAVE THE ENTIRE CONFEDERACY - WHITES INCLUDED

AND THEY SUCCEEDED.

edit on 14-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:02 AM
link   

edit on 14-1-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


That is a good summary of the problems the southern states faced in keeping slavery going.

When the northern states used the power of nullification to nullify federal slave laws, it made slavery in the south unsustainable because the slaves now had a place to run to.

Previously, the slaves could not run anywhere.

So here we have nullification being used by sovereign NORTHERN states to void federal slave laws.


Yep. The entire "problem" was that slaves had somewhere to run to. And they did so, in great numbers. Because slavery was about as close to a living hell as you could get. Incidentally, the northern states were fully in their rights to enact these nullifications, which is why southern states never won any suits, even though the courts at the time heavily favored southern interests.

So whether you're looking at this situation from a moral, or a purely legal standpoint, there's nothing wrong going on here.


HOWEVER - your assertion that they fought a war over this is wrong.


Please don't put words into my mouth. I said that the southern states seceded from the union because of slavery.


The southern states left the union, however they did not wish to engage the north in a war.


Understandable, since the southern states had absolutely no way to win such a war. They did not have the foundries that the north did to supply arms, and even if you count the slaves, the south's population was far smaller than the north's - and about a third of the forces the south DID muster during the war spent their time hunting escaped slaves and quelling uprisings from people who opposed secession.

Which brings us to the next point...


The southern states had no intention of invading the north and conquering Washington DC.


Maybe not. But opening fire on a federal fort full of federal troops was probably not the smartest idea in the annals of history.


They only wanted to LEAVE the union, and the war that ensued was entirely because of states rights issues, not because of slavery. It was a war of independence, not a war of conquest.


edit on 14-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


They wanted to leave the union so that they could keep people in perpetual bondage, and because the rest of the country opposed that notion. The war could be said to have several causes, but the southern state seceding was the major one; and htye seceded over the issue of slavery, as their own documents prove.
edit on 14-1-2011 by TheWalkingFox because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 


You are not getting the main thrust of my point, either that or you are avoiding it intentionally.

The north wanted to conquer the south in order to retain the southern citizens as tax slaves.

That is the ultimate cause of the civil war.

The south fought entirely to defend themselves from tax slavery.

The black slavery issue was an excuse for the south to secede, but in reality, the south did not leave because the north nullified slave laws alone, they left because in addition to nullifying the slave laws, the north was expropriating the south's resources (money stolen through taxation) for their own personal gain.

If the only thing the north did was nullify slave laws, the south would not have left the union.

If the south believed that the north would not retaliate for claiming independence, they never would have fired the opening shots of the war. However, the south DID know the north would attack. So they had no choice but to make the first move.

edit on 14-1-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


That post is worth 100+ stars and I would give them all to you myself, if ATS would allow me!


I've said this a million times on these boards, but I'll say it again... I'm a civil war reenactor. As a reenactor, I am one who seeks out the truth and the trash that has been taught to us over the years is not the truth.

I'm not going to jump into this debate, but I have read many heart-breaking letters to home from confederate soldiers and not one time was slavery mentioned. Ever.

That's all I'm going to say about that. Sorry if that doesn't add much to the discussion. I think those of you doing most of the posting are doing fine jobs on your own, so I shall just sit back and watch ya'll duke it out.

edit on 1/14/2011 by gemineye because: add info




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join