Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
No, Admiral, the truth is fine. It's the lies and hatred that hurts.
The Confederacy was about slavery. There is no way around that.
"When Sherman brought the war to Atlanta's doorstep, there were several men of northern birth in the city. A few were dealt with harshly although they had served the Confederacy and there was little evidence of treason. On one occasion a rebel soldier invented the charge that a bookstore had a copy of Uncle Tom's Cabin in stock. A mob attacked the store and the owner only avoided being tarred and feathered when the assailants failed to find Mrs. Stowe's hated book." From War So Terrible
If the south weren't interested in slavery then why would a mob go crazy over an anti-slavery book? It's little things like these that I randomly encounter in books which convince me more and more that slavery was the primary cause of the breakup of the Union.
Quote:
That isn't the problem. The problem is the people interpreting the Constitution.
"a : supreme power especially over a body politic b: freedom from external control"
Are the states free from external control or possess supreme power? No they don't because they are answerable to the US Constitution.
Article VI:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
Quote:
It is estimated that they represented about 3% of the Southern population.
What is your source?
Quote:
Ah, so you too, hold up the exception as the rule.
Field hands didn't have a pleasant life.
I'm sure Denmark Vesey and Nat Turner rebelled because they loved being slaves.
Lincoln said it best that if slavery wasn't wrong then nothing is wrong.
Quote:
I agree that would be an asinine statement, if that is what I had said. I did not say only Southerners understood African Americans. I said that those who have never lived in close proximity with blacks do not understand the relationships and bonds that formed between the races in the South.
Again you are stating that white southerners understand blacks better than anyone else in the nation.
Quote:
It's more likely that Mrs. Spencer very conciously praised the blacks for the excellent job they did of keeping the Southern homefront going while the men were gone to war, in spite of the fact they didn't have to. They could have easily overpowered the women, yet for the most part, they behaved like the decent and civil people they were.
Or they had nowhere else to go until the Federal army arrived.
Escaped slaves that could not keep up with Sherman's army were rounded up by Joe Wheeler's men and sent back to their masters.
Who are they who are taking down these symbols? Are you claiming there is a federal government action doing this, or is it happening at the state level by state action?
Cedarstripper ******************************* I believe that I and others of my persuasion have written tons about this, page after page. If you will persuse on the Chat forum , also Mason Dixon for years. ************************** Admiral Porter: barbs such as "asinine statement" and "puking icon" are not only highly insulting but they add absolutely nothing to the conversation except the joyous thought of ending it. I would hope that you could at least make an effort to remain courteous, if by following the examples of many many Northerners as well as Southerners on CWT. Many might consider some remarks like this as flaming.
Also, if I am not mistaken, although your graphic is artful I believe it eats up what they call a lot of "bandwidth" or some such which would be more helpful in use of conversation.
__________________ Thea
No one has permission to use any material from any of my posts on any CWT forum, the archives, or any other forum without my express written permission.
....But ignoring or downplaying parts of history that you and others find personally objectionable is the same type of disservice these modern-day distractions do to our young.
Do not distort history into a kind of fun-house mirror, where one section reflects the honor and bravery of the typical Confederate soldier who owned no slaves and fought for his home, his family and his land, and totally ignore by that same distortion, the impact of slavery that brought on the war.
You are quite correct. I should not and of couse I do not distort the history. It does not matter if I like it or not. The truth is the truth. How can I expect anyone to believe me or what we stand for if I coverup or lie about the history of the south. For that fact the north has reasons to be ashamed also. Both sides stories must be told.
I trully feel that in some respects the Civil War is still be fought. If not for Lincolns deatn and the Republicans idea of Reconstruction (punishment) which Lincoln would not have agreed to, they perhaps things would have been better.
__________________ A cat can have kittens in the oven...but dat don't make-um biskets
I agree 100% with your statement that both the North and the South during the Civil War have committed acts that neither can be proud of. I also agree that those stories need to be told and passed on so that such acts cannot be repeated.
I very much agree with your observations concerning Lincoln and Reconstruction. I wonder how much different it would have been, if the man had been around during that critical period in our history and how much grief in the present-day we might have avoided.
Thank you for your insights and for sharing your thoughts with us here on the board. That's what makes it worthwhile to keep coming back here.
I appreciate it.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I trully feel that in some respects the Civil War is still be fought. If not for Lincolns deatn and the Republicans idea of Reconstruction (punishment) which Lincoln would not have agreed to, they perhaps things would have been better.
BG,
I don't think that I agree about Lincoln and Reconstruction. Remember, the Republicans were were responding to Johnson's policies of allowing the southern states to virtually reimpose slavery, under the so-called Black laws of 1865. I don't believe that Lincoln would have allowed such a thing to happen. I think that Lincoln would have held the former confederate states to the same expectations as did the "radical" Republicans.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
And yes, we are ready to load and fire. Ellen says my letters are some of the finest she's seen ever and trust me, all these offices know me by name. LOL
Deo Vindice, My Southern Friends!
Way to go, Thea! Three cheers for you and all the others that persisted and saw this thing through. Every victory like this one makes up for all the lost battles. But the thing is...the war isn't over yet and we have many more battles to win and we will win...just like Georgians booted Barnes and Mississippi got her flag referendum.
Warmest Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
The Confederacy was about slavery. There is no way around that.
No one denies the Southern states practiced slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral_Porter
If the south weren't interested in slavery then why would a mob go crazy over an anti-slavery book? It's little things like these that I randomly encounter in books which convince me more and more that slavery was the primary cause of the breakup of the Union.
Certainly the South was interested in slavery. You have never heard me deny that. But to answer your question regarding the motives of the mob (assuming it is a factual story), it would, no doubt, have been because Mrs. Stowe, a woman who had never set foot in the South and had no first hand knowledge of slavery wrote a book that fueled the hate and animosity that already existed toward the Southern people to a new level. Everyone knew it was a work of fiction, yet they assumed that Mrs. Stowe based the story on facts. And, of course she didn't stress the point to anyone that it was purely based on her imaginings of what slavery must be like. It probably wouldn't have made any difference if she had. The novel was so deliciously heart wrenching and inflaming that the people wanted to believe it. It was a slap in the collective faces of everyone in the South, slave owner or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral_Porter
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
The Southern stated did not contest the right of the Federal Government to make treaties or that they would reign supreme in the land. She didn't contest the judges in every state being bound by the Constitution. After all, it was the states that gave this limited power to the Federal Government. Outside of the limited powers allowed to the Union by the states, the states retained in their sovereignty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral_Porter
What is your source?
U.S. Census bureau. Of the thirteen states that seceded the free population was 7,579,504. The number of slave owners that owned 100 or more slaves was 2,024.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral_Porter
Field hands didn't have a pleasant life.
Neither did poor dirt farmers of any color.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral_Porter
I'm sure Denmark Vesey and Nat Turner rebelled because they loved being slaves.
Not everyone belonged to a kind owner. It's these exceptions that folks are so fond of holding up for examples in order to give the impression that Southern slave owners were depraved, lazy, slave beating wretches. What other slave names come to your mind? Have you ever heard of Joshua, slave of Legh Wadell? Nothing much changed in their relationship after the war. Joshua asked Legh to purchase a small lot in town where he could open a shoe repair business and Legh obliged. You probably never heard of Aunt Pallus Lee (no relation to R.E.L.) either, she didn't cause a riot or get in the newspapers. She just defended and cared for her "white family" during the war refusing to leave them. She is one of those thousands that you never read about. She lived to be very old and her white family cared for her and buried her on the homeplace that she had lived on all of her life. You don't find these stories without seeking them out because they don't paint an ugly picture of the South.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Admiral_Porter
Again you are stating that white southerners understand blacks better than anyone else in the nation.
You are not understanding my remark, at all. I said, for the third time, that people who have never lived in close proximity with blacks, as we have in the South, can't understand the bonds and relationships that formed in the South. Please note, I said nothing about understanding black folks, I only mentioned understanding the relationships between the races in the South.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
No one denies the Southern states practiced slavery.
Certainly the South was interested in slavery. You have never heard me deny that. But to answer your question regarding the motives of the mob (assuming it is a factual story), it would, no doubt, have been because Mrs. Stowe, a woman who had never set foot in the South and had no first hand knowledge of slavery wrote a book that fueled the hate and animosity that already existed toward the Southern people to a new level. Everyone knew it was a work of fiction, yet they assumed that Mrs. Stowe based the story on facts. And, of course she didn't stress the point to anyone that it was purely based on her imaginings of what slavery must be like. It probably wouldn't have made any difference if she had. The novel was so deliciously heart wrenching and inflaming that the people wanted to believe it. It was a slap in the collective faces of everyone in the South, slave owner or not.
Rose,
Actually, Uncle Tom's Cabin, while certainly a work of fiction, was based on facts. She did a tremendous amount of research, collected stories from actual accounts by former slaves, and newspaper accounts of actual events. She intentionally made the slave-trader, Simon Legree, a northerner to make the point that the evils of slavery had nothing to do with the southern people, but with the institution itself. She also published a factual book of accounts upon which the novel was based.
best,
marc
__________________ "It has been my experience that folks who have no vices have very few virtues." - Abraham Lincoln
I went back to the start of this thread that you began and reread your first post. I was struck by this part of it:
"People who express their ignorance in their unfounded opinions, whether it be about the Confederate soldier, the Confederate Flag (s) or any portion of American history are the reason we are becoming such a diverse society. We have allowed this politically correct way of thinking and culture to separate and segregate us from each other. We were always a "melting pot". You should be proud of your heritage and always remember, no matter your nationality, you are an American first and foremost. It is time we got back to the basics this country was founded on."
There is much to appreciate in your above statement. That one should be proud of one's heritage and that one should remember, no matter what your former nationality, we are all American's first and foremost.
I do have to say I am always worried when I hear anyone blame the 'politically correct way of thinking' as a reason for the way things are. To me, that is a warning flag that says I am just mad people aren't doing what I think would be correct. I also have no problem with the US have a diverse society. There is no escaping the fact that we are all different, even those of us who share the same race, sex or social setting. I would be extremely bored if every day I went to work with hundreds of 'me' for instance.
I agree with you that most of today's high school youth (and, sadly, most of their young parents of such youth) have no idea of their proud heritage, or an appreciation of their country's history and their ancestor's sacrifices to make it into the greatest nation on the face of the earth.
Who's fault is that, I wonder? The teachers? Maybe in part, but not to such a degree that they can shoulder the entire blame. Many teachers are forced to teach to a certain standard off a certain agenda for a limited amount of classroom time. The teachers I have met honestly seem to want to do more, to make more of an impact on their young charges.
The school's administration or local school board? They may have incurred part of the blame, bowing to public and government pressures, brought to bear on them along federal government funding guidelines, laws, rulings, etc. But what choice do they have, really? On the one hand you have parents who barely know how school curriculums are mandated or put together who make all sorts of unreasonalbe demands concerning what's taught and what's not, to the other extreme of parents who feel the schools are nothing but underfunded day-care centers for their children.
Parents? What? Expect them to study and know about history? Isn't that unreasonable? In these hard times of rising gas prices, shrinking benefits and paychecks, where both parents must hold down a job just to make ends meet? My God, by the time we the parents get home, we are exhausted and wore out and just want to be left in peace, let alone compete with the computer games, the TV and the cell phone. Don't the parents do enough without battling their children over what they should study and learn?
Thus there real battle over the 'hearts & minds' of our youth is joined. Are we willing even to attempt to wage it? Is the cost simply too high, asking too much of our time, our energy and our emotional reserves? It is a perplexing question for our times.
Buffalo Guard, another situation I might bring to your attention, if I may.
FSPowers and others have stated that we should concentrate on the bravery of the soldiers and not get into the causes of the war. After all, we can all admire the bravery & sacrifice of the men on both sides of the conflict. We thrill at the reading of acts of compassion and mercy conducted by both sides during scenes of awful conflict.
But I remember taking my grandchildren to a Civil War battlefield on a beautiful summer day. I showed them the cannons and the statues and the markers that showed the positions of the units that fought there. I told them about the hundreds of thousands of men who fought and died there, describing how the battle progressed, each advance and charge, each retreat and withdrawal. I told them of the awful carnage in the hospital tents and the amputations and the tolls of infections and lack of antiseptics. I really laid it on for them so they could form a picture in their minds at what took place on this battlefield and I was really proud of myself for taking such pain-staking efforts with them.
I stood ready to answer any questions on what took place there and thought I had it all covered. And them my granddaughter Paige asked me, "Pappaw, why were all these men fighting?"
I think the 'why' is far more important than the 'how' or the 'where.' We owe to be as correct as possible when we inform our children and our grandchildren of the 'why' of the Civil War so they can understand why we, their parents and grandparents, feel compelled to form organizations to remember them by. As the man said, "Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history."
Or it will all be in vain.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
Rose,
Actually, Uncle Tom's Cabin, while certainly a work of fiction, was based on facts. She did a tremendous amount of research, collected stories from actual accounts by former slaves, and newspaper accounts of actual events. She intentionally made the slave-trader, Simon Legree, a northerner to make the point that the evils of slavery had nothing to do with the southern people, but with the institution itself. She also published a factual book of accounts upon which the novel was based.
best,
marc
I believe Mrs. Stowe made Simon Legree a Northerner to portray that not only are the Southerners who legalize slavery morally inferior but what Northerners are involved in slavery are corrupt, also. This, of course, leaves the remaining Northerners morally superior.
This fiction may have been based on facts, but told in the best interests of the novel and the Northern people considered this work as an accurate and average description of slavery.
Regards,
Rose
__________________ "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names".--J.F.K.
The War Between the States established... This principle that the Federal Government is, through its courts, this final judge of its own powers.
-- Woodrow Wilson
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
