Poll: 4 in 10 Southerners Still Side With Confederacy

Originally posted by Golf66

Faced with a total change in one’s way of life is scary and a sure motivator for rebellion.

reply to post by Golf66

Golf66,

An amazing post.
Long, detailed, and accurate.
This is the closest I have seen anyone come
to the real issue that led to The Civil War, that being
The Great Compromise (or the Conneticut Compromise)

Which thing happened a mere eleven years after 1776.


David Grouchy

Originally posted by topdog30
This poll is meaningless. .....

Its like me going down to my local university which has an enrollment of 30,000+ and surveying 10 people. Once I get my answer from those 10 people I would then generalize the whole campus population off of those ten peoples answers. Its nonsense

In my town, there are billboards up all the time talking about how the majority of FSU students don't drink. OR they have less than 3 drinks in an evening.

The billboards are meant to convince the college students that they don't need to drink to fit in, but the polls are meaningless, because the students being polled, are the students on campus studying! If you poll the students at the library, or the students walking back and forth from class, then you get skewed results! What if the polled all the students in the bars instead???

Yes, polls are worthless. A certain type of person is willing to sit on the phone for 10 or 20 minutes and answer stupid questions. The results can never be accurate, because there is a whole population of people that will refuse to participate in the polls. That population is never represented, and the polls are wrong, and the decisions that wishy-washy politicians make are based on faulty numbers. It destroyed Charlie Crists political career in Florida. He made the mistake of changing his views to match the polls, without realizing his supporters don't participate in polls. So, he lost his voter base, and they moved on to Marco Rubio.

Polls are always misleading, and inaccurate, no matter the sample size, because a huge swath of America is too busy working, or too tired from working all day, or too busy with their family, or too disgusted and impatient with the system, and they will never participate.

Originally posted by agentblue

Originally posted by DarkKnight76
reply to post by Lemon.Fresh

 

because they weren't as powerful in the gov't senate due to low numbers of voting constituents versus the north.

Oops. The Senate isn't, and wasn't ever based at all on population. Each state, regardless of population, gets two.

We might not be the bi+ch of the British Israeli World Federation if the Confederacy won.

Stop globalists now. Stop eugenics NOW.

For anyone who needs clarification:

All four major leaders Lincoln, Grant, Lee, and Davis all stated in the first years that the war was not about slavery. Just type it into google you can find quotes from all four. If you choose to believe what your textbooks, which were written by professors who were probably born at least 75 if not 100 years after the war, and teachers, who were born probably 100 years after the war, in high school said and not what the leaders on both sides at the time have said then I am sorry and you are just another vessel to carry around liberal propaganda.

Lincoln was against slavery before the war but he did not change his statement until it was apparent that his precious Union was going to lose the war. He then declared that those slaves in the south that fought for the Union would be freed. Here is our little promise that sounds so benevolent right? To be freed to the Union who now owns them. There were waves of slaves who obliged and the Union used them as fodder. In return for swinging the tide of the war the now former slaves did not get rights for another hundred years.

Also, the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in the Confederate States. If the war was about slavery then why did Lincoln not free the slaves in the four Union slave states?

The war started when South Carolina seceded from the Union because of northern tariffs. Sorry, not slavery.

Note: I am not in any way saying that slavery is anything other than completely unjust. I am just tired of always hearing this century old propaganda used to strike a blow to the south. Why spread this false information? Because the southerners were more conservative at the time, so the politicians spread this after the war to gain support in the north and from the former slaves in the south. Notice how Virginia, the state in which the majority of presidents had come from until that time was no longer popping out presidents left and right. Another Virginian was not elected until Wilson.

Point proven...

reply to post by Juston


I think its because a few states said screw you federal government we are our own sovereign and make our own decisions in our own towns about our own people and not some bureaucrat a thousand miles away.

But of course the real American way of life was in the end snuffed out and is only now starting to resurface.

reply to post by Golf66

A very concise and well thought out post.If I were allowed to give applause you would receive it !! It is little known that the state tried to purchase Ft. Sumter from the union before the war was declared. Ft. Sumter fired the shots that started the war by firing on southern merchant ships.

Originally posted by cardicorona
For anyone who needs clarification:




The war started when South Carolina seceded from the Union because of northern tariffs. Sorry, not slavery.

Rather than bicker over talking points, for the real causes of secession, let's look to the cause listed by official South Carolina records, like the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union", where it is stated, "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." and "The right of property in slaves was recognized by ...." and "they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery" and, finally, "The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, sunsite.utk.edu... (Bolding is mine The word tariff is not found in the document. The architects and founders of the confederacy were much more forthright than their modern day counterparts. They saw no reason to hide from the truth.

reply to post by 4nsicphd


You bolded the wrong part.
You should have bolded:
"The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government"
Again, stop glossing over the fact that the right to own slaves was the legal justification to secede. Just saying you don't want to pay the excessive taxes, give the union states nearly free crops and sick of them stepping on your toes wouldn't be Constitutional grounds for secession. The union trying to tell you you can't have slaves when clearly it was Constitiontal to do so, is a violation of said Constitution and therefore grounds for nulification of the agreement.

Originally posted by Juston
Source

In the South, 38 percent of respondents said they sympathize with the Confederacy, which lost the bloody war. More than 600,000 American soldiers on both sides were killed. Overall, the number from all geographic areas who said they still side with the South is less than a quarter.

I really, honestly wonder as to why 38 percent sympathize with the Confederacy. Is it pride? Racism? Ignorance? I'm not saying that they have no right, rather I'm just curious.

I was born and raised in "the south" and I think I already know the answer, only based on my experiences however. But if that number is correct...well...I dont know. It is terribly hard to pass judgement without knowing why.


Perhaps there are some ATS members who fall into that percentage who can, in a civil manner, shed some light on the subject for me.

Some additional info.

The poll also reveals divisions over what Americans see as the reason the Civil War was fought. Overall, 54 percent of respondents said they believe the war was over slavery, and 42 percent said that wasn't the main reason. Those percentages didn't change substantially when it comes to Northerners versus Southerners. But the issue of slavery was different for respondents from opposing political parties, and different races.

Sixty-five percent of respondents who described themselves as Democrats said they believe the Civil War was fought over slavery, while 45 percent of Republicans said so. The belief was strongest among nonwhite Americans as well. Some 66 percent of nonwhite respondents said they believe slavery was the main reason for the war, while about half of white people thought so.

edit on 4/13/2011 by Juston because: Clairity

How do 38% of 'Southerners' still support the Confederacy when half of most ex-Confederate states populations are Black?
HELLO??

Obviously this 'poll' was taken of white folks- and probably directed toward ultra conservatives at that.

If you read it actually says that South Carolina seceded because its agreement to be a part of the U.S. had been violated. Yes, as I stated Lincoln was anti-slavery before the war. Yes, the north was predominantly against slavery and in this article that is listed as one reason for which the northern states had violated the contract by choosing to incite rebellions and if you know about the time period then you would know that yes the north did impose tariffs to try to economically cripple the south. The secession was not about slavery it was about the broken contract between the fed and the state governments. It was about the realization by these southern states of what the fed was trying to be and the dominance they wished to impose. That is what this article is about.

The north won. Who knows whether this is a fortunate or unfortunate circumstance. One point stands out though. The north favored a national government. Hence, for better or for worse, we have the government that stands today.

reply to post by Stratus9


You assume blacks don't support the Confederacy?

I think that is another common misconception. A lot of the guys I ride with have Confederate Flags on their vests. Several of my close friends are fans of the confederacy.

Just like among whites, there is also a lot of misunderstanding among blacks, but by and large the 38% is probably the more knowledgeable swath of the population, while the other 62% is the indoctrinated part.

I would be surprised if the the poll showed a very large deviation from blacks to whites. There might be some, but I bet it isn't as much as you would expect.

reply to post by PplVSNWO


This is a very untrue assessment because of the difference of times and the views of what the Constitution actually means. It would be considered unconstitutional today, yes, but then it would not. As I have said the north broke the contract and therefore broke the Constitution.

reply to post by cardicorona


That's what I was saying, it was unconstitutional for the union to tell the southern states they couldn't have slaves. I think you need to re-read posts in this thread.

reply to post by PplVSNWO


My apologies. I guess I misunderstood. I think I have read too many posts today they are starting to run together..

Originally posted by daddyroo45A very concise and well thought out post. If I were allowed to give applause you would receive it !!

Thank you!

Originally posted by davidgrouchyAn amazing post.
Long, detailed, and accurate.

And thank you!

Indeed secession was predestined when nullification was rejected at the Continental Congress; that in combination with the foundation of the Electoral College which instituted a sort of marginalization of less populated states and their rights. This problem has been further exacerbated by the passage of the 17th amendment which was not ratified in accordance with Article V of the Constitution which further eroded State’s rights.

The “people” are supposed to be represented by their representatives in Congress while the Senators were supposed to represent the States and their people; by being appointed by the state legislature they were supposed to be above the politics of popular election and sort of an “honest broker” that was not dependent upon funding from special interests to get elected.

I fear is this does not change and the problems with the Electoral College are not fixed we might indeed have another Civil War.

The problem with the lack of understanding in the causation of the war is the simplistic manner it is taught in schools along with the social engineering sought by the liberals who dominate the field of education. They have manipulated the belief of entire generations now into believing that Slavery was the prime cause.

The real reasons are not even looked into until one reaches the level of core classes in the actual work toward a BA in History at the 300 or higher level of academia. It is sad that even the required US History classes at the 100-200 level take the simplistic approach that slavery was the main issue.

However, when one delves into the 3-400 level or higher courses and original source material from the time it becomes quite clear that the average Southern Soldier wasn’t fighting for slavery but rather to protect his way of life and the freedom to determine it.

Further, many Soldiers in the confederacy considered the North to be an aggressor as they rampaged through the South destroying farms and homes in their path. A small percentage of southerner’s actually owned slaves and fewer still had them in large numbers.

The Slave System in the Nineteenth Century

In 1860, families owning more than fifty slaves numbered less than 10,000; those owning more than a hundred numbered less than 3,000 in the whole South. The typical Southern slave owner possessed one or two slaves, and the typical white Southern male owned none. He was an artisan, mechanic, or more frequently, a small farmer. This reality is vital in understanding why white Southerners went to war to defend slavery in 1861. Most of them did not have a direct financial investment in the system. Their willingness to fight in its defense was more complicated and subtle than simple fear of monetary loss. They deeply believed in the Southern way of life, of which slavery was an inextricable part. They also were convinced that Northern threats to undermine slavery would unleash the pent-up hostilities of 4 million African American slaves who had been subjugated for centuries.

Slaves were expensive propertt very much comparable to a small tractor would be today for farmers. Most large farms can afford many machines and specialized ones that are quite expensive but the small farms might have one multipurpose older tractor some even rent equipment.

If you read their diaries and letters most Soldiers never mentioned slavery at all; perhaps some of the Officers and other rich families did but not the average Southern Soldier.

Originally posted by JustonI really, honestly wonder as to why 38 percent sympathize with the Confederacy. Is it pride? Racism? Ignorance? I'm not saying that they have no right, rather I'm just curious.

I was born and raised in "the south" and I think I already know the answer, only based on my experiences however. But if that number is correct...well...I dont know. It is terribly hard to pass judgement without knowing why.

Perhaps there are some ATS members who fall into that percentage who can, in a civil manner, shed some light on the subject for me.

How about you explain to us why you WOULDN'T sympathize with the Confederacy?

Are you too ignorant to prevent yourself from believing the propaganda you are force fed by the Federal government?

Gotta say. I'm really satisfied with how this is going. I've learned quite a bit from just reading different, intelligent perspectives. Never again let it be said that intelligent discussion and debate is dead on ATS. Just gotta know where to look.(hint: my threads )

I suppose I see it as more of a pride thing then supporting slavery (although I'm sure there are plenty that do). However, I strongly believe slavery was the forefront of the war.

I only read the first couple of pages so excuse me for any details I may be lacking, but the North didn't go to war over slavery. The North disliked the idea of slavery, but didn't oppose it (they needed the cotton for their factories). However, when the South passed the stricter fugitive slave act FORCING Northerners to be on the lookout for escaped slaves and turn them in made matters worse. Also, when the Missouri Compromise was declared unconstitutional in the Dred Scot case it raised fears that slaves would appear in the North (tensions arise between slavery vs. anti slavery). Eventually this led to the South seceding and the North wanting to PRESERVE the Union, not just abolish slavery.

I think slavery was most definitely the cause of the Civil War. Many tensions arose because of it (John Brown's Raid, etc) and the South had a strong passion for it resulting in the Civil War.

I wish I was in the land of cotton,
old times there are not forgotten,
look away, look away, look away
DIXIELAND!