Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nash on August 24, 2005, 11:18:04 PM
-
Sue me - because I guess this could be considered as another troll....
But, it's an essential part of something I'm now trying to make sense of. I'm trying to get a grasp on how the Civil War continues to affect people today.
Simply - does it? Or is it long forgotten history that nobody cares about?
I've heard plenty of anecdotes etc., and they point to how that war still lives on, even now. Whether it's the passing on of old stories, or the passionate resurrection of the confederate flag, or the simple disdain for Washington and government.
Lets look at the numbers for a sec.
Lets imagine that there suddenly came into existence a new world. It was populated by all sorts of different types of people. An election was held, and the two candidates had different things to offer.
What would be the chances that the population would split exactly on a North/South axis?
Very slim. A mathematical improbability to say the least.
No - there's gotta be a reason. And nobody seems to be looking for it. So lets face facts. Why is there this arbitrary division - North and South - unless it isn't so arbitrary? And if it isn't so arbitrary, what then accounts for it?
My guess? The American Civil War.
But I don't know. That's why I'm asking.
How aware are you of the war in your day to day lives and in your upbringing, and what are your feelings about it? How much has been passed down to you about it? How much does the war weave itself into your cultural fabric?
-
It's a non-issue. Southerners are them that live in the Southeastern U.S., and have a funny accent.
-
It is probably less of a division that the Quebequios division in Canada.
Actually we have been divided by the 49th parallel for quite some time.
54 - 40 or Fight!
-
Bring it. ;)
-
First off let me say excellent question Nash. I don't see it as a troll, at all.
The Civil War has been politicized to the point not many people really know what it was about, and it wasn't slavery. The South was the agricultural base of the country and the North the industrial. The two depended on each other but the South was getting the short end of the stick financially. This financial imbalance was the root cause of the war.
The North really didn't care about the slavery issue. Unskilled slave labor wasn't of much use to them. They relied on skilled craftsmen and workers. Yes, they had slavery laws, but they were not a major issue at the start of the war. That came later when Lincoln was doing his best spin to maintain support for the war, which wasn't going that well at the time for the North. It has been continually spun since, as support for equal rights and an end to racism.
If you put 2 groups together and one does all the work while the other gets the money, they are going to fight.
-
Actually we have been divided by the 49th parallel for quite some time. - Holden
Actually, the idea of a US vs Canada war becomes a fascinating topic in light of the fact that, well it turns out, you can't even beat "gooks" or "camel jockies." Talk about over playing your hand - and don't think folks aint noticing.
Nah... I'm wondering about yer desire to beat up on eachother.
-
rpm - Thank you.
Is there still a grudge?
-
OUTSTANDING responce RPM
-
I'd say it's more like a college rivalry now.
-
Originally posted by rpm
The Civil War has been politicized to the point not many people really know what it was about, and it wasn't slavery. ...
Before This thread gets any longer, perhaps we should read the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union (http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/secession_causes.htm)
In this document exists the quote: 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.
Further in the document,
On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States
It seems the people of South Carolina thought it was about slavery.
-
Originally posted by Nash
How aware are you of the war in your day to day lives and in your upbringing, and what are your feelings about it? How much has been passed down to you about it? How much does the war weave itself into your cultural fabric?
As a Californian, I'm pretty much oblivious to the North vs. South issue. It's not part of our heritage or culture and it received little attention during our schooling compared to the states in the East.
As for the war, it's my opinion that the South made a HUGE mistake attacking Fort Sumter. Had they not done so, I doubt Lincoln could have rallied support for the war. In our history, we've almost always needed a spark before entering a conflict. Fort Sumter was that spark.
-
Slavery was an issue, but it was not the main reason. It was economic.
-
Think the people of South Carolina knew that their agrarian economy was based on slavery?
Next time somebody says Iraq was a war for oil I think I will paraphrase your last post, and say it was only a side issue, the issue was the economy.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Slavery was an issue, but it was not the main reason. It was economic.
Great post BTW. Don't forget about state's rights RPM. While slavery being one of the precursers and Economic being the fuel, alot of these were because of the souths beleif in the erosion of their state rights. "I don't want no damn yankee in DC telling me how to live my life".
The civil war was the bloodiest of all American wars. What's even more sad about it is the majority of the men who faught in it didn't own slaves nore could they care less if anyone did.
Is it still a devisive factor today?
Well yes and no. You have smaller groups now that get smaller year after year who still hold onto the past. There's those who wave a rebel flag as a symbol of their heritage. Theres those that counter that heritage saying it's evil because it invovled slavery. There's more so that veiw today's federal govt as the south did back then. It's intrusive and oversteps it's bounds. Back then states had ALOT more rights and the federal govt wasn't any were near the size it is today.
-
No, Iraq was for 9/11 and weapons of mass destruction. Remember?
Dead on, Guns.
-
While slavery being one of the precursers and Economic being the fuel, alot of these were because of the souths beleif in the erosion of their state rights.
The biggest state right at the time? .... Slavery
Proof: The first right mentioned in the SC Seccesion document other that the right to leave the Union....
In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused, for years past, to fulfill their constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own Statutes for the proof.
The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
Held in service, escaping to another... What state right were they worried about?
The foundation of the southern economy? .... Slavery
The reason written over a dozen times in the South Carolina declaration?... Slavery
Yeah I guess you guys are right... it was a side issue.
-
The south needed Slavery for their economy, so they both go hand in hand... plus don't forget the 2/3rds thing.....
-
Slavery in the antebellum South was not a monolithic system; its nature varied widely across the region. At one extreme one white family in thirty owned slaves in Delaware; in contrast, half of all white families in South Carolina did so. Overall, 26 percent of Southern white families owned slaves.
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.
Although slavery was at the heart of the sectional impasse between North and South in 1860, it was not the singular cause of the Civil War. Rather, it was the multitude of differences arising from the slavery issue that impelled the Southern states to secede.
The presidential election of 1860 had resulted in the selection of a Republican, Abraham Lincoln of Illinois, as president of the United States. Lincoln won because of an overwhelming electoral college vote from the Northern states. Not a single Southern slave state voted for him. Lincoln and his Republican party were pledged only to stop the expansion of slavery. Although they promised to protect slavery where it existed, white Southerners were not persuaded. The election results demonstrated that the South was increasingly a minority region within the nation. Soon Northerners and slavery's opponents might accumulate the voting power to overturn the institution, no matter what white Southerners might desire.
Slavery was an issue and to some it may have been THE issue but really it was state's rights and the north's oppression on souther states rights
-
does anyone find Ironic the posts coming from the Canadian known as Nash as of late? :cool:
-
I think he's takin a class down at the Community College.
-
"does anyone find Ironic the posts... "
How so?
I'm inquisitive by nature.
If something starts to act strangely, I'm gonna point my microscope at it.
Today? It's the American Civil War.
Pay attention to what happens in this thread, because that war never really ended. Listen, because you'll understand something you might not have yesterday.
-
rpm was right mostly in saying it was a war over economics. But you could just as easily say it was a war about power, and who had it (or didnt). If you look at the years leading up to the Civil War, in the early 1800s slavery was dying out all on its own. But then prices started to recover on Cotton. Soon prices were higher than they had ever been, and southern plantations couldnt produce it in enough quantity to glut the market. There was a renewed demand for slaves, but no way to get new ones. Slave owners were allowed to keep the slaves they had, and children of those slaves, but they couldnt bring them in from outside (not legally). The African slave trade was outlawed. Some still made the run, and risked being caught. But those numbers that actually made it through were relatively few. Abolitionists in free states made the issue worse by flaunting the fact when an escaped slave made the border. They hid them from collection agents, even from federal agents. When the new territories in the west started to open up, decisions over whether they would be free or slave states didnt just divide the country, it got downright ugly. Southerners were so desperate to expand their pool of slaves, they made several attempts at taking over Cuba, and even tried establishing themselves through a coup in South America. As the 1850s ground on, it became more and more apparent that they were going to get the short end of the stick in the new territories in the West, and the way they saw things, Federal laws favored the more industrialized northern states that didnt rely on slave labor for their economy. Add to that the fact that American farm produce was more in demand than ever, and money was to be made if only enough could be produced. The Crimean War in the mid '50s left Europe without a grain supply from Russia, and America was filling that void. Banks and stocks and bonds and such doubled in number. California's gold strikes were pumping millions of dollars into the economy. All of these were seen to put money in the hands of the northern states, while the South's chance for economic boom was being deliberately downplayed. Western lands were being opened to settlement, and the people were not necessarily open to slavery. Those lands were supplying much in the way of needed agricultural products, further spreading the wealth and reducing the chances for the South.
Brown's revolt at Harper's Ferry in 1859 set a spark to something that had been piling up for a long time. It smoldered until the political conventions of 1860. Stephen Douglas had been a dividing point for Democrats for years, and this was the one that broke all the straws. With the south asking for a platform that would mandate federal protection for slavery (not just legal protection), and the northern Democrats refusing to back down, the party was divided forever and the southerners left the convention. Meanwhile, the Republicans had no problem nominating Lincoln (an avowed anti-slavery advocate, although moderate in his politics). He united a large part of the new Republican party with some of what remained of the old Whig party. The remainder of them (the Southern ones) were pro-slavery but still not ready to join Southern Democrats. As a result of the hotheaded politics, we had a 4 way electios in 1860. Lincoln vs Douglas vs Bell vs Breckenridge. Lincoln and Douglas were seen as the "Northern" candidates, and both equally hated in the South. I think we know who won. Bitterness and anger over the elections that year took that smoldering spark and fanned it into the flames of secession.
The Confederate States of America organized itself, set up shop, and drafted a constitution within 3 months of Lincoln's election. On Dec. 20th 1860, S. Carolina's legislature voted 169 to 0 to secede from the Union. Mississippi joined on Jan. 9th 1861, Florida on Jan. 10th, Alabama on Jan. 11th, Georgia on Jan. 19th, Louisiana on Jan. 26th and Texas on Feb. 1st. After the fall of Ft. Sumter they were joined by Virginia, Arkansas, N. Carolina, and Tennessee.
-
geeze nash... hasn't anything interesting ever happened in canada?
Those who would wave a rebel flag or sympathize with the southern side of the war between the state these days tend to do it on the basis of states rights and... more importantly... on the basis of the feeling that the federal government... run by the city dwellers.... is getting too powerful.
even you must have looked at our election maps... the states are again indeed divided... it is not blue and grey tho... it is blue and red.
The same thing is happening... the people who huddle together in the filthy cities want to tell the people who live off the land or in the countryside.... how they should live and make rules that are federal in nature and favor the taxi riders.
for instance... banning or near banning of cars is no hardship for the sissy city dwellers who have never even rode in one that didn't have a meter on it... banning guns that friegten them affects those who live an hour away from a police or fire station...
It is basicly urban vs suburban... red vs blue... individuals vs socialists. The city dwellers have espoused big governemnt and womanly socialism and wish to inflict it on those who wish to remain individuals...
a rebel flag is good for a symbol until something better comes along... it is also heritage. The southerners fought as bravely ans any warriors have ever fought in any war... they should be revered. I doubt that more than a handfull of people on either side see it as a symbol of racism.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I doubt that more than a handfull of people on either side see it as a symbol of racism.
Only the ones that shout the loudest.
-
yes indy.... and they reside on either side of the issue.
lazs
-
Yes, the civil war does affect some people to this day. There are constant reminders at battle fields, persons (quite coherent and intelligent) who are reinactors, blood lines and families who have relics from that era. Over 500,000 Americans were killed then, more than all other conflicts added together in the history of the US. It was an incredible and tragic event which happened only 140 years ago, which is about 3 generations.
To some, it is a constant reminder behind the ideology of States rights versus Federalism. And those ideological differences can still be heard in the US Congress. Slavery was not the cause of the civil war. Ending slavery was a punitive measure resulting from the war and slavery would have probably continued another 40 years without a civil war. Not that slavery is good, it is bad. Just read roman history.
Or ask a black person (African American, etc) about how slavery, which ended 140 years ago, still affects them. The civil war was a 'big event' historically for people in the US.
Regards,
Malta
-
Originally posted by lazs2
yes indy.... and they reside on either side of the issue.
lazs
Well, the the vast majority of the time (99.9%+) I see the flag symbolism issue of heritage vs racism being argued... it's on bumper stickers.
on a completely different note, there is a picture of me on the wall in my parents house.. taken at one of those photo shops where they dress you up in period costumes. I'd geuss I was maybe 13 or 14 at the time. I'm decked out in a Confederate officer's uniform (hat, sword, the whole 9 yards). The part that always grabs me, is that every older person that sees it says the exact same thing: "Back then, they went to war at that age."
-
I have flown the Stars and Bars for a long time. To me it has nothing to do with racism and I frankly find those that support that theory to be completely ridiculous.
It is a proud symbol to me of my heritage
and family history and a tribute to the 13.
When I had my shop, which was right next to my house, it was located on a major highway. I erected a flag pole and flew the Confederate flag constantly. Only derogatory comment that I ever heard came from a white man.
Early one morning the president of the African Bandits MC had came to buy some
saddlebags, shirts, etc. We were standing directly under the Confedrate flag have a big BS session. It dawned on me, so I asked him if he found it offensive in any way.
His answer was "Hell no. That flag represents my heritage as much as anyone alive". Pretty well summed it up for me.
-
Having read the letters my great great grandfather sent home from fighting in the Civil War things dawned on me that I had not learned about from the history classes when I was in school. After having been taught that the Civil War was about slavery...well to a point that was incorrect. Slavery was an issue but not the main issue. To my great great grandfather it was about maintaining his land and rights as a citizen of the state of Alabama first and the United States of America up until he joined his regiment when his allegiance passed on to Alabama and the CSA second.
To see his words (written as eloquently as possible for a man with an equivalent 9th grade education) be written with the passionate feeling and heart while marching from one battle to the next or lying wounded in a hospital after a miniball passed through his neck really touched my soul. For him the passion was protecting his homeland and his new nation from an aggressor who in his view continued to want to destroy all he had worked for on his farm.
Then once the war was over and he was mustered out he continued to send letters home on his two year march back home. In that time he showed an almost instant reversal of feelings for the United States. I have been told that not only did he love his nation but he had promised to defend against any aggressor both foreign and domestic until the day he died. That was something he held closer than anything else.
So to answer does it effect me daily...not really but it is a part of my heritage and it will always be a part of my family no matter how far we get from that part of our nations history.
-
See Rule #5
-
well... here we don't live in iraq or germany... we also get a kick out of celebrating kicking the brits out and firing the shot heard round the world.... the beginning of the end of kings rule in the world.
I think most Americans also realize that states rights are very important and that it is not a bad idea to remind people that citizens will take on governments. In another civil war based soley on states rights the battle lines might be drawn more like the election maps of blue and red that we see and might have a much different outcome than our little conflict of 1860.
Those (on either side of the issue) who make a racial issue of the confederate flag and such are simply pushing personal agenda's and really do know better
lazs
-
Funny that back then, the Democrats were the State's Rights advocates, and the Republicans the ones who believed the Federal rule was always the right one. Also funny that the Democrats were the ones most defensive of the institution of Slavery, while today they hold most of the Black vote. In the election of 1860, Lincoln was often shown by Southerners in effigy being held by a female slave, and saying things like voting for Republicans was voting for (insert racial "N word" epithet here) lovers. Nowadays the Republicans can barely field Black voters, let alone candidates.
People never cease to amaze me. Who needs TV? Real History is better than any soap opera.
-
Originally posted by rpm
...
The Civil War has been politicized to the point not many people really know what it was about, and it wasn't slavery.
...
Slavery was an issue, but it was not the main reason. It was economic.
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Although slavery was AT THE HEART of the sectional impasse between North and South in 1860, it was not the singular cause of the Civil War. Rather, it was the multitude of differences arising from the slavery issue that impelled the Southern states to secede.
It is more accurate to say that slavery was the fundamental issue behind the civil war and that the political spin is that it was all about states rights than vice versa.
You can make a valid point that it wasn't about slavery in the sense that southerners we all evil spirited people who enjoyed slavery and relished in dehumanizing an entire race of people. Rather, in fact, it was about preserving slavery because the economy of the south was largely dependent on it - so yes, it was economic. But slavery was still at the heart of the issue.
As for the confederate flag: I can see how many people see it as their heritage and don't believe there is anything racial about it.
But try to look at it this way:
We revere the United States flag not simply because it is our heritage, but because of all that it symbolizes - freedom, liberty, justice. To many, the confederate flag doesn't just represent a southern heritage, it symbolizes the principles and values that went into the creation of the confederacy and slavery was right up there on the list.
Can't you see that it's perfectly understandible how someone might take offence at the continued exhaltation of a symbol that represented a "nation" that was, by and large, formed on the principle of legalized slavery?
-
Originally posted by Samiam
It is more accurate to say that slavery was the fundamental issue behind the civil war and that the political spin is that it was all about states rights than vice versa.
In December 1860, that's what the South Carolina Legislature wrote down as their reasons for the action they took but apparently they didn't know what they were talking about.
-
Go up on USENET to alt.war.civil.usa and you can engage in a lively debate about the causes of the ACW (American Civil War).
My regards,
Widewing
-
Holden, did South Carolina delare for all the states, or just South Carolina? I can pull contextual quotes out of 1000 documents. It does not mean they are all 100% correct.
-
The civil war was not about slavery primarily. The CSA's constitution was almost an exact copy of the USA's. The CSA banned any import of slaves, but did not ban slavery.
The CSA did not require states to have legalized slavery. The main issue for the CSA was states rights.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Holden, did South Carolina delare for all the states, or just South Carolina? I can pull contextual quotes out of 1000 documents. It does not mean they are all 100% correct.
South Carolina declared for themselves. They had tried this before, but always tried to get a group together and do it all at once. Someone always chickened out, and they dropped it. This time they just did it, hoping the others would follow. And they did.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Holden, did South Carolina delare for all the states, or just South Carolina? I can pull contextual quotes out of 1000 documents. It does not mean they are all 100% correct.
Did you read their declaration? Read it and tell me that slavery wasn't the driving force in that declaration.
As South Carolina was the first to declare it seems that they were the leader.
Since no free states followed SC it also seems that should tell us something about the importance of the slavery issue.
-
I blame France.
-
I think the confederate flag should be respected as a sign of American bravery and a symbol of states rights. If you wish to make an issue of biggotry out of it then that is your problem... Why would a confederate flag not be considered "free speech" since so many here have told me that flags are speech...
burn em... wave em... are not both things covered in "free speech"?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I think the confederate flag should be respected as a sign of American bravery and a symbol of states rights. If you wish to make an issue of biggotry out of it then that is your problem... Why would a confederate flag not be considered "free speech" since so many here have told me that flags are speech...
burn em... wave em... are not both things covered in "free speech"?
lazs
Absolutely it's free speech. Nobody has suggested taking away your right to fly the stars 'n bars.
But your choosing to view it as a symbol of american bravery and states rights is your own personal politically correct spin.
Can you not unsterstand how, just as we view Old Glory as symbolizing the principles on which the US was founded - life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness - that some might view the flying of the confederate flag as revering the principles on which the confederacy was founded, the primary one being the right to keep slaves?
It a little like respecting the accomplishments of the Germans in WWII - the amazing engineering, superior tanks and aircraft, even battle tactics - and saying you're going to fly the Nazi flag to honor those accomplishments - not acknowledging that the Nazi flag may symbolize something else to others.
And you have every free speech right to fly the Nazi flag, if that's the way you want to present yourself to your neighbors (even if your intentions are strictly honorable, I'm guessing you'd have a hard time convincing people of that).
-
The south was wrong on the issue of slavery... It was very much right on the issue of states rights.
I think that the countless acts of honor and bravery that southern soldiers showed durring the civil war far exceeds any racial overtones of the war. I do not believe that most who fought for the North fought because they wished to abolish slavery. I believe that slavery was the PC reson for the federal government to take more control over the states.
lazs
-
First of all, I agree with much of what you say here, Lasz2, regarding the issue of states rights and the confederates. I'd like to play devils advocate on one point. You mention that the acts of bravery of the soldiers "far exceeds any racial overtones of the war". Can this same criteria be applied to the Nazis? German soldiers did many brave things. Look at folks like Otto Skorzeny, for instance. Crazy, yes. An SS bastard? You betcha. Coward? Hell no!
Do those actions mean make it so that a swastika should be flown with pride by those proud of the 'brave actions and accomplishments of a scrappy little country the size of Oregon that took on the rest of the world and almost won'?
If the answer is no, which it is to me, I think that it's not because of any inherent moral superiority of one group over another, but instead because not enough time has passed for the 'romantic notions' to fully take hold.
Ask a Yankee in 1900 about the CSA, he'd shake his head sadly and describe the treachery, horrific bloodshed, and attrocities of the war. Ask a Yankee today, and he'll describe the brave, honorable southerners who were misguided but just doing what they thought was right. 50 years from now, people will look back at the confederates with the same glowing admiration given to the 'noble savage', the way people think of native americans today.
50 years from now, I betcha we'll see swastikas in (flying?) car windows, not because there are a bunch of skinheads taking over, but because the 'romantic image' of the Nazis will be where the CSA is in our heads right now.
-
I'm with Chairboy, lazs.
Most German soldiers (and engineers) acted with astounding bravery and their only motivation was to preserve the Fatherland. They were not motivated by racial superiority or a desire to conquer. But most people today rightly view the Nazi flag as symbolizing the gastly principles of the Nazi regime, and not the skilled and honorable soldiers fighting for their fatherland.
Same for the confederate flag.
States right was (and is) a critical issue and many soldiers on the front were likely fighting only to preserve their right to choose their own destiny and not necessarily out of any racial malice. That does not negate the fact that the confederate flag strongly symbolizes the political and moral principles of the seceded states and these were largely founded on the right to keep slaves.
-
The comparison of the Nazi symbol and the Stars and Bars is gettin into the twilight zone.
The Stars and Bars are a big part of our country`ss heritage. The making, history and a very big part of the foundation itself. It is a tribute to the 13. The 13 states still exists and so do the decendants of those from that time in history.
The south is still a very proud and unique part of the U.S.
The symbol of the Nazis is a part of another country. In the U.S. the Nazi flag represents an enemy of the WORLD that was fought and defeated.
There is no American pride represented with the Nazi symbol.
Apples/oranges.
-
One last link and quote for you rpm...
Texas Ordinance of Secession (http://www.lsjunction.com/docs/secesson.htm)
The third paragraph says:
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquillity and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?
Texas only mentions 'slave', 'slave holding states', or 'slavery' 21 times.
It does mention the federal govt stomping on states rights at least once, it says,
The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretenses and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slave-holding States.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
The comparison of the Nazi symbol and the Stars and Bars is gettin into the twilight zone.
The Stars and Bars are a big part of our country`ss heritage. The making, history and a very big part of the foundation itself. It is a tribute to the 13. The 13 states still exists and so do the decendants of those from that time in history.
The south is still a very proud and unique part of the U.S.
The symbol of the Nazis is a part of another country. In the U.S. the Nazi flag represents an enemy of the WORLD that was fought and defeated.
There is no American pride represented with the Nazi symbol.
Apples/oranges.
So then it's OK if Germans wish to fly the Nazi flag because the Nazi regime is part of their heritage and they should be proud of that heritage and since the Reichstag still exists in Berlin it should sport the flag in support of the brave soldiers that fought to preserve the Fatherland?
German outlawing the swastika violates our notion of free speech, but I don't think any german should consider WWII - or at least the symbolism of the Nazi flag - a proud part of their heritage.
The south is certainly a unique and treasured part of the country, but taking pride in such a horrible war (on both sides) is creepy.
Again, can you at least understand how honoring the main symbol of south, who's motivations for seceding were primarily driven by the desire to preserve slavery, is offensive to some?
-
big part of our country`ss heritage
Freudian?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
It is probably less of a division that the Quebequios
Heehee, that sounds like Quebeckeeos.
Quebecois. ;)
-
Just to add to Holden's post above, something of note about the Texas secession. While Texas was the last slave state to join the Confederacy before the fall of Ft. Sumter, they were the only one of the original members to have a full public referendum on the issue. The rest were voted in by the legislatures.
-
chairboy... that is a fair question and I will say that most of the soldiers that fought for Germany in WWII were brave, skilled and honorable... they have nothing to be ashamed of...
you asked me about nazi's tho and nazi flags. Not that many german soldiers belonged to the nazi party... in fact... when questioned at the end of the war about being nazi.... it seems that only a dozen or so were nazi's... I am being facitious but... the reality was that most felt they were fighting under a german flag rather than a nazi one fairly early in the game.
The nazi flag does not represent anything of value in my opinion but I see no reason that it can't be used as anyone pleases.
In the north and south conflict... attrocities were done by both sides but the extreme bravery of the soldiers was admirable.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Samiam
So then it's OK if Germans wish to fly the Nazi flag because the Nazi regime is part of their heritage and they should be proud of that heritage and since the Reichstag still exists in Berlin it should sport the flag in support of the brave soldiers that fought to preserve the Fatherland?
Since you directed that to me , I`m assuming you you are asking my personal opinion.
My answer would have to be that would be up to the individual countries. I seriously doubt that many people in Germany wish to fly the Nazi flag.
What I am saying is that the Nazi flag, when flown in my country, is only a representation of a foreign enemy of the world that was fought and defeated. It has nothing to do with our heritage and making as a country. It represents no states and bears no history as far as the making of our country goes.
To simplify, I could care less if it is flown in other countries. That`s their problem, not ours.
German outlawing the swastika violates our notion of free speech, but I don't think any german should consider WWII - or at least the symbolism of the Nazi flag - a proud part of their heritage.
I don`t believe Germany is bound by our laws and or opinions. Don`t really know how you relate this to the subject.
The south is certainly a unique and treasured part of the country, but taking pride in such a horrible war (on both sides) is creepy.
Who is asking or suggesting that pride be taken in the civil war?
Again, can you at least understand how honoring the main symbol of south, who's motivations for seceding were primarily driven by the desire to preserve slavery, is offensive to some? [/B]
[/QUOTE]
The Stars and Bars represent the 13 states. They still exist. We`re still here and we`re still proud. If "the main symbol of the south" ,as you worded it, offends someone then I would have to say they either still have a problem and hold prejudices against the south or they are just plain ignorant.
If someone has an individual problem with me flying the Stars and Bars then it`s their problem, not mine. I can`t be held responsible for the ignorance and misunderstanding of others.
The comparison that is trying to be made is uncomparable in that it does not relate in any form or fashion.
Am I to take it, you Suh are a Yankeeee? :)
Before anyone`s BVDs gets in a wad.....that`s a l`il southern humor.
-
Slavery was an issue, but it was not the main reason. It was economic.
Slavery was the main issue. Convincing yourself otherwise is just trying to get too scholarly on the issue.
Economics, State's Rights, yadda yadda all point DIRECTLY back to slavery.
Slavery was the cause and the end of the Civil War.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Think the people of South Carolina knew that their agrarian economy was based on slavery?
Next time somebody says Iraq was a war for oil I think I will paraphrase your last post, and say it was only a side issue, the issue was the economy.
Ok, then...it's settled. 650,000 poor young boys died so that slavery for a buncha rich plantation owners might remain legal, because we KNOW how much the northerners loved and revered the African American sector of our population.
(Might'n it have a LITTLE bit to do with the south's voting minority in the House, which limited with whom they might do trade?)
-
yep... but it makes for a great martin luther king day parade.
lazs
-
"A Black Confederate Defends Dixie
Constitution/Conservatism Editorial
Source: Dixie Daily News
Published: 7/19/01 Author: Bob Harrison
Posted on 07/19/2001 13:31:38 PDT by shuckmaster
To Mike Ritter of the Arizona Tribune
Being a full-time husband and father of three wonderful little Rebels, I have little time for such squabbles, but this one bears a strong need for attention. Before I go into this issue at length let me explain a few things about myself.
MY name is Robert Harrison, and I am a professional historian and Research Librarian at SC State University, one of the oldest Historically Black Colleges in the country. Secondly, I am the descendant of TWO Virginia slave families so I am more than knowledgeable about the plight of slaves, NORTHERN as well as Southern. Firstly your claim that NO ONE is willing to show understanding towards the "feelings" blacks have towards the Battle Flag, is unfounded and completely false. Many Southerners of all walks of life have been VERY vocal about the fact that slavery was dark event in the history of our country. However, the "official facts" we are spoon fed through our so-called "official texts" and the media do not even begin to cover the WHOLE TRUTH on the institution of American Slavery.
There is VERY little told of black slave owners, and almost NOTHING regarding Northern slaveholders and their refusal to allow Thomas Jefferson to write into the declaration the freeing of the slaves. It was NORTHERN slaveholders that blocked this inclusion. I might also include that while there were SEVERAL black slave owners, most of them were WOMEN. I am sure you have heard of the phrase "putting your bellybutton back on the block." Well, where that comes from is the female slave owners. Quite often, either through loyal service or through payment they would earn their freedom and begin buy the freedom of their family members. These women, by law at the time, owned their husbands. If they caught their husbands cheating with another slave they "put his bellybutton back on the sale block." Personally I am very grateful for the courts today.
Granted modern hate groups such as the KKK and Aryan Nations have done great damage to dishonor and mislead others on the REAL meanings of these proud symbols. However, no one understands that plight more than we do. MANY Southerners, black and white, from such organizations as the Sons of Confederate Veterans, the League of the South, and the Southern Party, of which I am a member and staff writer have gone toe-to-toe with these same hate groups, the media which you are a part of is fearful of portraying the truth to the people of the South and the rest of the country.
A fine example of this is the fact that I and several other fine Southerners went to a Klan rally to protest the Klan and their misuse of our symbols and heritage. Folks like the Jerry Baxley drove HOURS OVERNIGHT to be there to join me in this fight. When we got there, the NAACP crowd and the Klan were yelling at each other like children til they saw me, in full uniform. IT was the NAACP, not the Klan that showed violence towards our presence. There is another example in Florida where SCV members stood toe-to-toe with the Klan in pouring down rain on this very issue. I politefully suggest that before you make such outrageous claims to first research it first.
As for how blacks feel about the physical presence of the flag and other symbols of CSA heritage, you are gravely mistaken. It is true that many blacks, who have been heavily influenced by the propaganda and money-focused agenda of the NAACP have been taught to believe that everyone flying a battle flag is the enemy and that White Southerners who choose to show pride in their heritage are evil hate-mongers. However, a vastly growing number blacks are beginning to look for themselves and sit down at the table of brotherhood with the white sisters and brothers and learning to understand that not only why these fine white folks love the CSA, but the FACT that the beloved Battle Flag also represents a long hidden and misused part of their own history; that of the Black Confederate.
Oddly enough MANY blacks already know of and EMBRACE this part of their history and vocally fight for it with unmitigated pride. There is Silas Chandler, who went to war with his childhood friend Andrew Chandler who showed great bravery and loyalty by helping save Andrew's leg from amputation. Silas's living descendant Bobbie Chandler, is a close personal friend of Major Michael Kelley, and is publicly HONORED by his ancestor's service to the CSA.
There is Nelson Winbush, whose ancestor Private Louis Nelson rode with General Nathan Bedford Forrest, whose name I am sure you recognize, from beginning to end of the war. Forrest by the way, freed ALL of his slaves BEFORE the war. US commanders such as Grant and Sherman didn't free their slaves until passage of the 13th amendment to our constitution 6 months AFTER the war ended. Even then these so-called "newly freed men" weren't recognized as full citizens til passage of the 14th amendment, which was passed 3 YEARS AFTER the war ended. SC State senator Robert Ford recently spoke on behalf of the flag saying it was not the flag that is the problem, but the black hearts of those who use it for bad purposes. The Reverend Charles Greene, Former Roanoke, VA chapter president of the NAACP who is now an associate member of the VA SCV division. "
Continued....
-
"Speaking as an African American historian and descendant of the slaves, and as my mother tells me, descendant of Black Confederates, this whole focus on slavery, reparations and white guilt is wrong and highly insulting. People of honor, white, black or whatever, do not judge anyone by the history of their families but by the content of their character. If the black community is to grow it must do three things.
Firstly it MUST find REAL men and women to be leaders and not a bunch of money and glory seeking perverts and adulterers.
Secondly it must lose the co-dependency where the Federal government and the Democratic Party in particular are concerned. We as a people need to realize that the reason those slaves and "free" blacks survived as well as they did was because they were family centered, SELF- dependent people who worked and earned everything they had and didn't bother waiting around for the so-called Negro loving unionists to bring them "Freedom."
Third and finally, if blacks are so gung-ho about remembering their history then this MUST include that of the Black CONFEDERATE. A growing number of blacks are realizing this and are beginning to embrace this proud ancestry and to open their minds and hearts to the fact that the Battle Flag does NOT necessarily equal Slavery, and racism. If that were the case then the Christian cross used for cross burnings, and Old Glory itself would have to be destroyed first. It was the US flag that slaves saw when they were shipped to America and NOT the Battle Flag. It was Northern money that financed the slave trade, with the FULL BLESSING of the Federal government that sold the slaves in America in the first place. Having written a thesis on the Ku Klux Klan, with information gathered from the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith, the KKK constitution clearly states that it is the US FLAG and Christian flag; NOT the Battle flag that is to be present at any and ALL Klan functions.
The point here is if this country disbands the use of any and ALL symbols that are even remotely tied to slavery, we would have no symbols whatsoever. Slavery and racism were equally present in the North as well as the South; perhaps more so in the North since most Southerners were too poor to buy basic food stuffs and most of the money, including Southern money was stuffed away into Northern banks and business at the outset of war...How convenient!
Many ethnicities suffered greatly at the hands of this "Freedom Loving" culture and government we have. The Native Americans, of which I have Cherokee ancestry for instance got the shaft big time. May I call your attention to all of those dams that the Tennessee Valley Authority built. Did you know and realize that they are built on top of the burial ground of the Cherokee people? I live not far from the Trail Of Tears where who families were dying of starvation and other horrible atrocities. How about the Irish who were greeted with this same discrimination and signs reading "Irish and Dogs not welcome" or "Irish need not apply."
It is time to stop the guilt trips and learn form our past instead of taking bits and pieces of it and using it to get money or to sell newspapers. BY the way most blacks really don't bother worrying about the flag since we as a people have much more pressing issues to deal with that plague our families like locusts; things like teen pregnancy, AIDS, drug abuse, domestic violence and deadbeat fathers.
As far as "official" state symbols and flags go, why can you not understand that the people of MS including a LARGE number of blacks voted to keep the MS state flag as it is. Why can YOU not allow the will of the people to put the issue to rest? Why do you think the NAACP fought so hard to keep the issue form coming to a referendum vote in SC and GA? Quite simply the people of SC and GA would have done the same thing as the people of MS. They would have voted to keep the flags as is, and it would have been a multicultural gathering of the citizens to keep it there as well. The point HERE is even the will of the people is being belittled because a handful of power mongers aren't being allowed to push their agenda of cultural genocide further down the throats of the Southern people.
Let me say now that your concern is one that obviously comes form your heart out of genuine concern for the feelings of others. However, pushing aside the bad parts of history doesn't make it go away. History is still history good and bad whether folks like it or not. When blacks embrace their WHOLE history and sit down to discussion with the white brothers and sisters, then everyone will be a lot better off!
Respectfully Yours,
Robert Harrison, Research Librarian-SC State University 2nd Sergeant, 37th Texas Cavalry, Company B, CSA "
-
Originally posted by Seeker
See Rule #5
__________________
The Dammed
Last edited by Skuzzy on 08-26-2005 at 01:05 PM
If Seeker was flame baiting, trolling, offending other members, I am Damn sure he did not do it intentionally and am personally upset to see a Friend/squadmate quit the game over the selecticism of who gets PNG, whose threads get edited and who brown noses the ones with power.
If you gonna lock someone out on the message boards, at least have the common courtesy to send them an email explaining why they have been banned/locked out of their BBS account.
This leaves a bad taste in my mouth, specially after all the other BS I see on these very same boards day in and day out.
1 ask a uestion on how something that happened many many moons ago still affects people to day in regards to one country, an outsider responds , prob not knowing he was actually flamebaiting or trolling because he is across the big pond in another country. Not making any excuse here, just think it was a matter of misunderstanding.
anyhow, looks like the Damned just lost another squad member, HTC just lost another longtime account holder / AH Community Member
Seeker
TC
The Damned
-
"The sole object of this war is to restore the Union. Should I become convinced it has any other object, or that the Government designs it soldiers to execute the wishes of the Abolitionists,I pledge to you my honor as a man and a soldier I would resign my commision and carry my sword to the other side"
-union general Ulysses S Grant in a letter to the Chicago Tribune 1862
"My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it"-Abraham Lincoln. in a letter to Horace Greeley,editor of the New York Tribune on Aug 22 1862
-
(http://www.jewishworldreview.com/walterwilliams.gif)
Walter Williams
The Civil War wasn't about slavery
THE PROBLEMS THAT LED TO THE CIVIL WAR are the same problems today ---- big, intrusive government. The reason we don't face the specter of another Civil War is because today's Americans don't have yesteryear's spirit of liberty and constitutional respect, and political statesmanship is in short supply.
Actually, the war of 1861 was not a civil war. A civil war is a conflict between two or more factions trying to take over a government. In 1861, Confederate President Jefferson Davis was no more interested in taking over Washington than George Washington was interested in taking over England in 1776. Like Washington, Davis was seeking independence. Therefore, the war of 1861 should be called "The War Between the States" or the "War for Southern Independence." The more bitter southerner might call it the "War of Northern Aggression."
History books have misled today's Americans to believe the war was fought to free slaves.
Statements from the time suggest otherwise. In President Lincoln's first inaugural address, he said, "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so."
During the war, in an 1862 letter to the New York Daily Tribune editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery." A recent article by Baltimore's Loyola College Professor Thomas DiLorenzo titled "The Great Centralizer," in The Independent Review (Fall 1998), cites quotation after quotation of similar northern sentiment about slavery.
Lincoln's intentions, as well as that of many northern politicians, were summarized by Stephen Douglas during the presidential debates. Douglas accused Lincoln of wanting to "impose on the nation a uniformity of local laws and institutions and a moral homogeneity dictated by the central government" that "place at defiance the intentions of the republic's founders." Douglas was right, and Lincoln's vision for our nation has now been accomplished beyond anything he could have possibly dreamed.
A precursor for a War Between the States came in 1832, when South Carolina called a convention to nullify tariff acts of 1828 and 1832, referred to as the "Tariffs of Abominations." A compromise lowering the tariff was reached, averting secession and possibly war. The North favored protective tariffs for their manufacturing industry. The South, which exported agricultural products to and imported manufactured goods from Europe, favored free trade and was hurt by the tariffs. Plus, a northern-dominated Congress enacted laws similar to Britain's Navigation Acts to protect northern shipping interests.
Shortly after Lincoln's election, Congress passed the highly protectionist Morrill tariffs.
That's when the South seceded, setting up a new government. Their constitution was nearly identical to the U.S. Constitution except that it outlawed protectionist tariffs, business handouts and mandated a two-thirds majority vote for all spending measures.
The only good coming from the War Between the States was the abolition of slavery. The great principle enunciated in the Declaration of Independence that "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" was overturned by force of arms. By destroying the states' right to secession, Abraham Lincoln opened the door to the kind of unconstrained, despotic, arrogant government we have today, something the framers of the Constitution could not have possibly imagined.
States should again challenge Washington's unconstitutional acts through nullification. But you tell me where we can find leaders with the love, courage and respect for our Constitution like Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John C. Calhoun.
-
H.K. Edgerton former president of the Asheville NAACP
(http://www.ashevilletribune.com/Jan%2016%202003%20No%205%20J%20Flag.jpg)
(http://www.geocities.com/tnudc/EDGERTON.jpg)
"If you want to ask me about my ancestral roots, I am a Confederate-American," Mr. Edgerton said. "I was born colored, negro, then one day somebody decided to make me African-American. Nobody asked me about that. Africa didn't want me then, and she certainly doesn't want me now."
"The attack on the Confederacy doesn't get the attention it deserves. These blacks today have no idea what took place back then. (Blacks) earned a place of dignity in that war. If it wasn't for Africans that war would have lasted four days, not four years. We made all of the implements of war, we fought, we participated -- not one slave insurrection happened during that period of time. They did not have whips and guns forcing them to be there. God and his infinite wisdom brought these people here. He brought about a love between master and slave that has never happened before. If you search this empirically then you will know the only one who cared about the African was the man in the south. But we don't want to face that."
Edgerton considers his crusade a “fight for civil rights” and says, “I’ve
fought for civil rights all my life and it doesn’t get any worse than this.
It’s high time to have education for black and white folks about Southern
history.”
Edgerton’s knowledge of the Civil War era differs greatly from what the usual
textbooks, which he calls northern propaganda, teach.
Edgerton instructs that secession was an act provided for in the U.S.
Constitution. No state had ever agreed to enter into a perpetual Union when
it ratified the Constitution, and the South was not the first to discuss the idea.
According to Edgerton, the New England states talked about secession during
the War of 1812, and in 1814 the New England Federalists even held a secession
convention in Connecticut.
Here are a few other insights Edgerton presented about the Civil War:
“Blacks fought for the South.”
“Lincoln fought the South to keep all the Southern tax money.”
"And as for President Lincoln, our American hero, who signed the Emancipation Proclamation. In march of 1861 Abraham Lincoln called all those black leaders in his office and he told them -- Even if I set you free you'll be inferior. You need to get out of the country because I will colonize you. Lincoln proposed the 13th Amendment, being the only President ever to do so. That amendment said Congress would never have the power to interrupt an institution of state. He told the southerners they could keep the slaves if they paid the North a 42% tariff. The South agreed to a 10% tariff but not 42%. So, who I am supposed to blame the institution of slavery on?
“Southern generals have been made out to be traitors when they were very
honorable men.”
“Blacks could certainly walk around the south, but not around Lincoln’s
Illinois.”
“America will never ever be great until the truth (about the Civil War) is
told.”
“The only thing Lincoln did was to pit black and white against each other”
"The Constitution is what started the Civil War - taxes and states’ rights -
not slavery.”
“Many blacks were free and they even owned slaves.” (This was documented in
an Asheville Tribune article about the 1800s Sulfur Spring Resort in West
Asheville.)
“Most white folks didn’t even own slaves.”
“The first legalized slave was owned by a black man.”
According to Edgerton, the greatest Union desertion rates occurred just after
Lincoln announced his Emancipation Proclamation. Edgerton asserted, “Union
Soldiers said they didn’t get into to this war to save the ******s.”
He believes the United States did a great disservice to the South after the
war. Edgerton points out, “We (the United States) rebuilt Germany and Japan
(after World War II), but we never rebuilt the south land. We need a
Marshall plan for the South and we need it now.” “If you want to understand
today’s race problems, you have to understand what went on during the
‘reconstruction.’ Anyone who knows nothing of that era is simply ignorant.”
Edgerton has his own ideas about reparations too.
“The idea of reparations (for slavery) is a joke. It’s a way to drive a
wedge between blacks and whites. The only hope they (the blacks) have is to
hold their white southern brothers’ hand and join in calling for Southern
reparations,” explains Edgerton.
“My ultimate goal is to seek reparations for all Southerners.” Edgerton is not
just talking about money either, but the South’s history that Edgerton says
has been rewritten by the victors - the North.
Edgerton talked about some of his exploits and told of when he was standing
on a bridge in Alabama with his Confederate Flag. He said a black woman
stopped, jumped out of a car, hugged his neck and told him that she could
now bring her grandfather’s uniform down out of the attic. It was a
Confederate uniform.
He notes that when his zeal was put to work in the black community, he was
called “a radical, loose cannon,” yet when he turned his attention to
defending his Southern heritage he is called a “lackey and Uncle Tom.”
“It’s ridiculous that a Nazi, Ku Klux Klan skinhead would use the Cross of
St. Andrew to try and intimidate anyone. That’s my flag,” states Edgerton.
Edgerton says that in the Southern heritage circles he’s been affiliated
with, “I’ve not run into one person who believes slavery was a good thing.”
When it comes to defending Southern Hertiage, Edgerton admits “Southerners
always will try to accommodate people because we are kind-hearted, but we’ve
backed up too far,” he says.
Edgerton, who says he’s been made a member of the “White Trash Society,”
says with a laugh, “It’s hard to be a white man 'cause we’re guilty of
everything bad that happened.”
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Ok, then...it's settled. 650,000 poor young boys died so that slavery for a buncha rich plantation owners ...
Actually Virginia was later than other southern "slave owning states" (as the Virginia put it) because there was a intrastate politics.
North western Virginia did not use slavery any where near the eastern part as the main industry was mining, not farming.
One reason why what is now West Virginia was pissed at the eastern part was because slaves were not taxed at the same rate as other property and they though the north western part was overtaxed as compared to the east.
Damn... there's that slavery issue again.
Virginia only came into the confederacy after Fort Sumpter was fire upon. The ordinance of Secession was adopted in June.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Damn... there's that slavery issue again.
Right along with that pesky money issue, huh?
-
Good post dred :aok
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Right along with that pesky money issue, huh?
I guess you didn't see that slavery had a special place in the Virginia property tax code...
Slavery was so intimately intertwined in the southern economy, tax code social fabric... an overturn of slavery would cause upheaval in nearly every facet in southern life.
The reason the war started was that the south was concerned that the northern anti slavery[\b] legislators would out number the slave states in the federal congress, and that slavery would be legislated out of existance.
Ask these questions to yourself...
If Slavery did not exist in any state since 1781, why would the south open fire on Ft Sumpter?
-
Holden, that point could be argued here to the point it would make The Voss Conspiracy look like a dime book. :)
-
Dred, usually I respect what you say.
But you just quoted a big pile of bull****, to put it straight.
I could go through sentence by sentence discrediting that guy, but I won't because I know I won't convince you.
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
Holden, that point could be argued here to the point it would make The Voss Conspiracy look like a dime book. :)
However anyone who disagreed with me would be wrong. :p
-
Slavery existed, that is a fact. South Carolina's explanation of their decision to suceed from the union was based on slavery, that is history. However, much like looking at a glimpse of history, that does not tell the whole story. The tarrif's imposed by the northern states on the south were not because of slavery. They were economic and some might say for control. However, to say that the civil war was caused by the southern states having slaves as the primary reason for the civil war is wrong. Alot of states at that time period had slaves and did not suceed from the union.
Not that the civil war reasons are some sort of logic problem, but South Carolina's reason (as written) for suceeding was drafted by lawyers. South Carolina tried working with the 'theory of nullification' 25 years before the civil war and voted to ignore federal tariffs. President Jackson worked to pass laws requiring State compliance with Federal laws and making any sucession of a state from the union illegal, because of South Carolina's actions. The South Carolina economy was severly affected by Federal tariff's and their economy was in a depression.
Not to compare South Carolina with Germany after WW1, but economic conditions provide strong motiviation. South Carolina's initiative and later lead in 1860 was followed by other (but not all) agricultural economy states. Slaves were property (as bizarre as that sounds today) and it was legal to own them. Much like making a proclamation that someone should be able to own land, South Caroling used owning slaves as the reason to suceed from the union, at least in print. After sucession from the union, South Carolina, as a sovern state, proceeded to annex and aquire Ft. Sumter because it belonged to South Carolina and not the Federal Government.
Regards,
Malta
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Dred, usually I respect what you say.
But you just quoted a big pile of bull****, to put it straight.
I could go through sentence by sentence discrediting that guy, but I won't because I know I won't convince you.
Which one? I used the words of 3 seperate people (all black)
1 is a college historian
1 is a professor
and 1 is the former head of a chapter of the NAACP
Or did you mean Lincoln and Grant? LOL
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Slavery was the cause and the end of the Civil War.
Bah... there's no way the north would have risen to free the slaves. Fort Sumter was the cause.
In any case, slavery didn't really end after the south lost. Hell... how long did the Jim Crow laws last, another century?
-
Slavery had a lot to do with the war. The issue was brought to the forefront by novels such as "Uncle Tom's Cabin" by Harriet Beecher Stowe. The book was widely read and very influential in advancing the abolitionist movement. Other "slave" novels of the day had great influence as well. This fueled the fire, so to speak, because zealous aboloitionist folks believed all slave owners were like Simon LaGree.
I do not believe this is true, however enough did to do something about it. But I'm undecided whether the novel started the Civil War. It certainly did move things along.
I think a lot of people try to judge history in today's light. It can't be done because we don't know the way it really was, unless some of us are over 150 uears old and in great health.
Point is. the argument concerning whether southern slave owners treated their slaves badly can only be determined from the writings of the slaves themselves. Some of these writings speak highly of the masters, and even say the masters paid them for their work. Now this was here in Mobile before the Civil War. Some domestic slaves chose to remain during and after Reconstruction because they were already being paid as slaves before hand. You may find this was the case in other cities. Mobile, being a port, was unique in that there was plenty of exposure to people from foreign lands, and perhaps folks got along or understood each other better. Just an opinion. Mobile was not a top priority target by Union forces mainly due to it's size. The entire fortress of Mobile was about 100 miles in diameter (50 mile radius) and couldn't be taken by land.
It's a lot easier being a slave. You don't have to make tough decisions being thrown into a situation of chaos, such as Reconstruction was. The occupying Northern forces sure didn't give a damn much about Negros, and treated them poorly, more than likely formenting racism to a level never seen in the South.
How was this done? Reconstruction was punitive in nature and one of the things the (white) Yankees did was place unqualified Negros in all the top administrative city offices. Let's not be pc about it for a change. By unqualified I mean these guys didn't have a clue about administering a city. Think for a moment the burden that would be . to just be placed in office, no vote, nothing. Not sure if they even had a choice.
I think most people of that era, white or black, would've thought that dictatorial and not in the best interest of the city..
Anyway this is mostly for Nash's benefit since he wants to know something about how the Civil War affects us today. True Confederates don't like Yankees much, but we tolerate them.
Les
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
However anyone who disagreed with me would be wrong. :p
:D
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Bah... there's no way the north would have risen to free the slaves. Fort Sumter was the cause.
In any case, slavery didn't really end after the south lost. Hell... how long did the Jim Crow laws last, another century?
The North did not rize.
Ft Sumpter was fired upon by southern forces. Lincoln made sure that the first shot was not fired by the Union.
The South fired on Sumpter beacuse it was a Union fort, and they wanted the Union out of SC and SC out of the union. They wanted the Union out because as stated in the SC declaration, the newly elected president Lincoln was "hostile to slavery" and stated himself in his house divided speech that our country could not survive half slave and half free.
So Ft Sumpter was the spark, but the reason Ft Sumpter was fired upon was the southern fear that slavery would be abolished by the federal government.
The states rights and economic arguments stem from the fear that slavery would be abolished by the federal government.
-
Yes, holden is correct. Economics, state's rights, expansion...
All of these point to slavery as the cause.
The southern states supported State's Rights because they wanted to believe it was up to the state to decide whether or not slavery should exist in that state.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Yes, holden is correct. Economics, state's rights, expansion...
All of these point to slavery as the cause.
The southern states supported State's Rights because they wanted to believe it was up to the state to decide whether or not slavery should exist in that state.
What about the states that had and supported slavery that stayed loyal to the north even after the war began?
Even after the Emancipation Proclamation Slavery was still legal in these border states. As it only freed the slaves in those states and in many cases only parts of the states that were currently in rebellion
If slavery was "THE" cause and reason. why did these states not join the south?
and if it were "THE" cause and reason. Why wasnt the proclomation made at the outset and why not include ALL states and not only those in rebellion.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Yes, holden is correct. Economics, state's rights, expansion...
All of these point to slavery as the cause.
The southern states supported State's Rights because they wanted to believe it was up to the state to decide whether or not slavery should exist in that state.
So I must presume from this statement that the North, with its voting majority, had already made slavery illegal, and that THAT's what the war was started about....hmm...wait, wasn't slavery LEGAL in the North (though obviously rare) when the war began?
If the ONLY issue was slavery, the succession/war wouldnt have happened, it was a big chunk of MANY issues which contributed to the final result.
(And Lasersailor184, Walter Williams is smarter than EVERYONE else here put together...I wouldnt want to debate that man on whether the sky was blue, much lesss this stuff:D
-
What about the states that had and supported slavery that stayed loyal to the north even after the war began?
Even after the Emancipation Proclamation Slavery was still legal in these border states. As it only freed the slaves in those states and in many cases only parts of the states that were currently in rebellion
Politics. I would have thought you could put that together Dred.
If those states have left, the war movement would have probably failed.
If slavery was "THE" cause and reason. why did these states not join the south?
Because they were not as radical and would have soon gotten rid of slavery (had the war not happened). While some factions in the border states wanted to keep slaves (no where near the amount the true south had), they would not come anywhere close to seceding. But you don't want to poke the pit bull in the balls if you don't have to.
and if it were "THE" cause and reason. Why wasnt the proclomation made at the outset and why not include ALL states and not only those in rebellion.
Politics again. You claim your greatness after a success. Otherwise you just sound stupid.
I.E. A Boxer doesn't yell out, "I'm the greatest!" after having the bloody pulp beaten out of him.
So I must presume from this statement that the North, with its voting majority, had already made slavery illegal, and that THAT's what the war was started about....hmm...wait, wasn't slavery LEGAL in the North (though obviously rare) when the war began?
Slavery was made legal because of a Supreme Court Ruling. Property is Property no matter what state you are in. This put any previous laws about slavery to the wind. It was also another coal in the fire.
If the ONLY issue was slavery, the succession/war wouldnt have happened, it was a big chunk of MANY issues which contributed to the final result.
No, Slavery was the only issue. All those other "Chunks" you talk about are subtopics of slavery.
And Lasersailor184, Walter Williams is smarter than EVERYONE else here put together...I wouldnt want to debate that man on whether the sky was blue, much lesss this stuff
It's not your fault that you didn't know. But no one is smarter then I am.
-
If slaves would have counted as population in the south instead of property (by the Federal Government) the south would have had more representatives in congress. The tariff's and laws leading to the civil war may not have happened. I don't think the Northern states really cared at that time, imo. South Carolina and other agricultural states were cash cows for feeding the North expansion. If machinery were available instead of slave labor to grow the crops, the outcome would have been the same.
Regards,
Malta
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The North did not rize.
Ft Sumpter was fired upon by southern forces. Lincoln made sure that the first shot was not fired by the Union.
The South fired on Sumpter beacuse it was a Union fort, and they wanted the Union out of SC and SC out of the union. They wanted the Union out because as stated in the SC declaration, the newly elected president Lincoln was "hostile to slavery" and stated himself in his house divided speech that our country could not survive half slave and half free.
So Ft Sumpter was the spark, but the reason Ft Sumpter was fired upon was the southern fear that slavery would be abolished by the federal government.
The states rights and economic arguments stem from the fear that slavery would be abolished by the federal government.
Exactly... The North did not rise and they wouldn't have either if Sumter wasn't fired upon. The Union would have just let the Confederacy go. In their worry over SC, the Confederacy lost their entire nation.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The North did not rize.
Ft Sumpter was fired upon by southern forces. Lincoln made sure that the first shot was not fired by the Union.
The South fired on Sumpter beacuse it was a Union fort, and they wanted the Union out of SC and SC out of the union. They wanted the Union out because as stated in the SC declaration, the newly elected president Lincoln was "hostile to slavery" and stated himself in his house divided speech that our country could not survive half slave and half free.
So Ft Sumpter was the spark, but the reason Ft Sumpter was fired upon was the southern fear that slavery would be abolished by the federal government.
The states rights and economic arguments stem from the fear that slavery would be abolished by the federal government.
I'd think that someone so knowledgeable of our nation's history would know how to spell "Ft. Sumter"
-
Originally posted by Samiam
It is more accurate to say that slavery was the fundamental issue behind the civil warand that the political spin is that it was all about states rights than vice versa.
You can make a valid point that it wasn't about slavery in the sense that southerners we all evil spirited people who enjoyed slavery and relished in dehumanizing an entire race of people. Rather, in fact, it was about preserving slavery because the economy of the south was largely dependent on it - so yes, it was economic. But slavery was still at the heart of the issue.
As for the confederate flag: I can see how many people see it as their heritage and don't believe there is anything racial about it.
But try to look at it this way:
We revere the United States flag not simply because it is our heritage, but because of all that it symbolizes - freedom, liberty, justice. To many, the confederate flag doesn't just represent a southern heritage, it symbolizes the principles and values that went into the creation of the confederacy and slavery was right up there on the list.
Can't you see that it's perfectly understandible how someone might take offence at the continued exhaltation of a symbol that represented a "nation" that was, by and large, formed on the principle of legalized slavery?
Amazing you type all of this, and are incorrect within the first sentence.
The United States Civil War was based on the Issue of State Rights. But, this can go around and around. I'm just glad I read and COMPREHEND.
Karaya
-
The United States Civil War was based on the Issue of State Rights.
No, they wanted it to be states rights for the sole reason they wanted to be the one to choose whether or not slavery was legal.
Slavery.
-
My apologies bj229r...
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
No, they wanted it to be states rights for the sole reason they wanted to be the one to choose whether or not slavery was legal.
Slavery.
As stated previous, I comprehend what I read.
Karaya
-
So, does it continue to effect our lives , as previously asked?
I`d have to answer yes, to a certain degree.
It`s quite evident in this thread that not even the cause and or causes of the civil war are agreed upon to date.
To lighten things up a bit for those old enoung to remember the Clampetts....Granny stated numerous times that the reported winning of the war by the north was nothing more than a Yankee rumor. I tend to agree. :)
-
yep... I would say that the states rights aspect does indeed continue to affect our lives.
It is chicken and egg... if you say that all economic factors that caused the civil war were slavery based then you would also have to admit that even if that were true... it was not the lasting cause or the lasting affect of the civil war... today... it is only the issue of states rights that has survived... that is still an issue and that is the thing that lasted...
some day soon it may become again... and the less perceptive will blame it on whatever other cause is ancillerary to it.
lazs
-
Originally posted by TequilaChaser
If Seeker was flame baiting, trolling, offending other members, I am Damn sure he did not do it intentionally and am personally upset to see a Friend/squadmate quit the game over the selecticism of who gets PNG, whose threads get edited and who brown noses the ones with power.
If you gonna lock someone out on the message boards, at least have the common courtesy to send them an email explaining why they have been banned/locked out of their BBS account.
This leaves a bad taste in my mouth, specially after all the other BS I see on these very same boards day in and day out.
1 ask a uestion on how something that happened many many moons ago still affects people to day in regards to one country, an outsider responds , prob not knowing he was actually flamebaiting or trolling because he is across the big pond in another country. Not making any excuse here, just think it was a matter of misunderstanding.
anyhow, looks like the Damned just lost another squad member, HTC just lost another longtime account holder / AH Community Member
Seeker
TC
The Damned
Seeker
Sorry to see ya go bud. This keeps up and we're gunna have to find somewhere else to play.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Actually, the idea of a US vs Canada war becomes a fascinating topic in light of the fact that, well it turns out, you can't even beat "gooks" or "camel jockies." Talk about over playing your hand - and don't think folks aint noticing.
Nah... I'm wondering about yer desire to beat up on eachother.
HOw can one person slip by continously posting things like
well it turns out, you can't even beat "gooks" or "camel jockies."
while another person:
Originally posted by Seeker
is PNG..............
I do not get it.............
TC
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
One reason why what is now West Virginia was pissed at the eastern part was because slaves were not taxed at the same rate as other property and they though the north western part was overtaxed as compared to the east.
And I thought West VA was only pi**ed because they weren't allowed to have broken down cars on blocks in front yard:D