Dissing History

[RobertP]

Older historians certainly cast their net a lot wider than four declarations of causes and a few paragraphs from the Cornerstone Speech.

Logic tells you that the Declaration of Causes was there for everyone to read despite the protestations of those who swear Jubal Early lived to be 150 and twisted the arm of every historian in the country to believe in the Lost Cause.

 

[RobertP]

You seem to be confused why a New Yorker would be aware of this:

Mississippi:
"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth."

but one from Mississippi not aware.

But Really? Are you confused by that? Really?

I'm confused as to why this wasn't brought to light and taught from the onset. In your schools.

 

[RobertP]

You can insult New Yorkers all you need to.

That wasn't an insult.

 

[Sid J.]

That wasn't an insult.

I sincerely believe you.

 

[Sid J.]

I'm confused as to why this wasn't brought to light and taught from the onset. In your schools.

Where did I say this is not taught in my schools? If I wasn't clear in #438 I went to 7 different schools and couldn't really tell you much about the history curriculum of them individually.

 

[Sid J.]

But if you are interested in following up on why your own education seems to have been deficient in this area (it seems to me that is what you are saying) the previously referenced MEASURING ROD FOR TEXT-BOOKS might be a good start.

The intent is listed on page 3:

" 'A Measuring Rod For Text-Books/ prepared by Miss Mildred L. Rutherford, by which every text-book on history and literature in Southern schools should be tested by those desiring the truth, was submitted to the Committee. This outline was read and carefully considered. "The Committee charged, as it is, with the dissemination of the truths of Confederate history, earnestly and fully and officially, approve all that is herein so truthfully written as to that eventful period. "The Committee respectfully urges all authorities charged with the selection of text-books for colleges, schools and all scholastic institutions to measure all books offered for adoption by this ''Measuring Rod" and adopt none which do not accord full justice to the South. And all library authorities in the Southern States are requested to mark all books in their collec-tions which do not come up to the same measure, on the title page thereof, "Unjust to the South." "This Committee further asks all scholastic and library authorities, in all parts of the country, in justice and fairness to their fellow citizens of the South, to yield to the above request. "C. IRVINE WALKER, Chairman."

Among the criteria on page 5:

"Reject a book that says the South fought to hold her slaves"

 

[48th Miss.]

You're from New York State IIRC. Did your schools use Rutherfords textbooks and references. Did all the esteemed historians in the Empire State rely on the UDC for references.? That doesn't fly.

This seems a good enough place to post a question.

Where were the declarations of secession sent when written? To the state or feds. If stored in the Southern states i can see why they might be lost to time or not used since so much more than slavery is wrapped up in the word slavery as it touch all of life. If sent to the feds then there is no reason the records were not found, reproduced and shuved into the faces of the South since 1866 by every Northern historian wanting to make a name for themselves. Just a thought. Not necessarily directed at you.

Thanks

 

[Sid J.]

This seems a good enough place to post a question.

Where were the declarations of secession sent when written? To the state or feds. If stored in the Southern states i can see why they might be lost to time or not used since so much more than slavery is wrapped up in the word slavery as it touch all of life. If sent to the feds then there is no reason the records were not found, reproduced and shuved into the faces of the South since 1866 by every Northern historian wanting to make a name for themselves. Just a thought. Not necessarily directed at you.

Thanks

That's an interesting question. In the Journal of the secession convention of Texas, page 66, it states 10,000 copies of the address ("A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union") were ordered by motion of Mr Terry. By motion of Mr Muller 2000 were ordered to be printed in German. By motion of Mr Devine 2000 were to printed in Spanish.

 

[Jimklag]

C'mon. You New York guys are smarter than that.

Eric is right. Slavery was the sole issue and all else is pure propaganda. The states right being fought over was the state right to have slaves. The so-called invasion was merely an effort by the rightful, elected government to put down rebellion. I say so-called because it is not possible for the U.S. to invade itself. There was and is no constitutional basis for secession and the U.S. government was fighting to prove that point. The point having been subjected to trial by combat was decided, once and for all, in the spring of 1865. The south has been trying in vain for 150 years to prove the constutionality of secession. I chalkenge anyone to point out a clause in the U.S. Constitution that either explicitly or implicitly gives authority for a state to depart from the union of the states.

 

[TomP]

Harper's Weekly reported on the individual states seceding and printed their individual declarations.
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/secession.htm
Other newspapers of the day, both Northern and Southern also printed the documents.

Anyone who has a serious desire to understand why the Southern states seceded should be encouraged to read Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War by Charles B. Dew. Written by a Southerner who craved the truth, this book is a real eye-opener to anyone who maintains the war was about anything other than slavery and the effects emancipation would have on Southern society. The letters and speeches of the Southern delegates to the individual secession conventions is part of the public record and were widely printed in the newspapers of the day. This title was read by our book club and it was shock to several of our members who steadfastly believed the reasons for secession were states rights, unfair tariffs, Northern aggression, even disagreements over transportation issues.

Please read the book before disagreeing with it.

Tom

 

[RobertP]

This seems a good enough place to post a question.

Where were the declarations of secession sent when written? To the state or feds. If stored in the Southern states i can see why they might be lost to time or not used since so much more than slavery is wrapped up in the word slavery as it touch all of life. If sent to the feds then there is no reason the records were not found, reproduced and shuved into the faces of the South since 1866 by every Northern historian wanting to make a name for themselves. Just a thought. Not necessarily directed at you.

Thanks

It appears that the declarations were widely published and available to anyone who could read. They were not hidden away in archives or library reference rooms as Mr. Goodguy opined. The original question was not about whether the war was or was not about slavery. The question was why, as you say, the documents were not "shoved into the faces of the South since 1866 by every Northern historian wanting to make a name for himself." We still haven't heard the answer.

 

[AndyHall]

You can insult New Yorkers all you need to.

Thanks very much!

 

[MattL]

Did I say it wasn't mentioned elsewhere? But I do know that I often see the declarations and cornerstone speech are put forward as if there's no need to look at anything else and as if they settle the issue.

Well the declaration of causes of secession by the States do in fact settle the debate to the declared causes of secession. Unless you don't think Confederate States own statements aren't trustworthy.

It all depends on the question you're trying to answer though. The cause of secession then why wouldn't you look primarily to the officially released declaration of causes.

• Once slavery was gone and became taboo after the fact seceding over States rights to protect their slavery property got reduced to States rights.
• Constitutional issues over the lack of enforcement of returning their slave property outside of the South became Constitutional violations by the North.
• Economics dependent on preserving both slaves and the ability to expand slavery into the territories became economics.
• Agriculture or concerns over eventually getting bad tariffs (as we well know the current tariffs of 1857 were a win for the South) on agriculture based on a slave labor agricultural system became Agriculture and tariffs.

Slavery was in fact tied to pretty much all the important motivations for the people in power in the South and the world slavery got cut out of all those list items after the fact, but as we know from contemporary statements including the actual declared causes of secession they weren't afraid of pointing out the obvious ties.

That's why when saying it's about slavery doesn't just mean slavery, it means every system tied to it. States rights, tariffs, economics, agriculture, and culture.

 

[MattL]

C'mon. You New York guys are smarter than that.

So you are suggesting New Yorks guys should be smart enough to not trust the declared causes of the Southern States. Are you suggesting the future Confederate States weren't trustworthy and were liars? That a New Yorker should already know that?

 

[wausaubob]

During the 2nd half of the 19th century at least two presidents of the United States, Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant, stated the cause of the war was slavery.
It was uncontested among the bulk of the people that experienced the war.
Justifications for secession did not have persuasive power until the Civil War generation of leaders had passed away.
Nobody bothered with the declarations of causes because they were not needed until Mildred Rutherford starting re-writing history.

 

[wausaubob]

More importantly, slavery existed in 15 states prior to the beginning of the Civil War, and 7 months after the war it was completely abolished never to be reinstated. That is an indication of a possible cause and effect relationship.

 

[MattL]

It appears that the declarations were widely published and available to anyone who could read. They were not hidden away in archives or library reference rooms as Mr. Goodguy opined. The original question was not about whether the war was or was not about slavery. The question was why, as you say, the documents were not "shoved into the faces of the South since 1866 by every Northern historian wanting to make a name for himself." We still haven't heard the answer.

You make a large amount of assumptions

Why would they need to? Anyone relatively contemporary to that time knew slavery was the motivation behind actions. Anyone knowledgeable of antebellum US history would already know that slavery was an increasingly sectional issue causing continued division. I think you made a comment about someone not being from Texas, I guess you are implying then you are. If so then if you really know Texas history you already know this, the massive issues with the annexation of Texas as a slave state and the power issues that would cause. This event was immensely significant in the building sectional slave division.

Additionally I'm assuming you are read on people like Sam Houston, though he even was against the war constantly railed against abolitionists and anti-slave sectional movements, blaming them for division (you can't have anti-slave groups without slavery).

All of these contemporary records are readily available and anyone within decades of the slavery era wouldn't need it shoved in their face, everyone knew already. People remembered and just started to not want to talk about it. Talking about contemporary views 150 years later seems enlightening but 20 years later it isn't nearly so surprising, it was common knowledge.

Additionally outside of the former slave holding States after Reconstruction many Whites wanted to move on so many avoided the slavery topic as well. They were tired of spending time and money on Blacks and "fixing" slavery.

Further it's odd to ask why for a negative, you seem to have a deeper point or agenda, you should just state that point and what backs up that point.

 

[contestedground]

C'mon. You New York guys are smarter than that.

Apparently some other people aren't.

 

[cash]

I'm likely as old as you if not older and for the life of me can't remember any discussion of causes prior to about 20 years ago. Could be memory loss.

Did professional historians know how to access documents in library reference sections?

I just can't understand why this wasn't beaten to death beginning in 1866 like it is today. Even on this site a day without Causes is like a day without sunshine, it's the go-to ace in the hole. So why the disinterest and/or lack of curiosity for 130 years?

Twenty years ago there wasn't much of an internet, so you were basically stuck in an echo chamber where folks in your immediate vicinity "knew" it was all about the tariff and states rights. They therefore didn't need to feel the need to discuss it. Then, when the internet matured, this insular view got challenged by folks who actually knew the facts. Today, more people who grew up "knowing" it was all about tariff and states rights come onto forums and have to be educated on a daily basis. It's a never-ending job to play whack-a-mole with the lost cause mythology passed from generation to generation and aided by unscrupulous folks with a modern anti-government political agenda.

 

[unionblue]

I'm likely as old as you if not older and for the life of me can't remember any discussion of causes prior to about 20 years ago. Could be memory loss.

Did professional historians know how to access documents in library reference sections?

I just can't understand why this wasn't beaten to death beginning in 1866 like it is today. Even on this site a day without Causes is like a day without sunshine, it's the go-to ace in the hole. So why the disinterest and/or lack of curiosity for 130 years?

Because the majority of people live their lives? Because there are other things to study besides the Civil War in college? Because most guys in high school liked shop, football, and girls and not always in that order? Dating an marriage might take ups one's time. Then there was Vietnam, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, Watergate, 9/11, Oklahoma bombing, kids getting sick, daughter bringing home a Hell's Angel to dinner, car payments, mortgage payments, bills, balancing the check book, worrying about crime, well, life.

Just because we few, we band of civil war nuts, have such an extensive knowledge of the documentation concerning the secession of the Southern states over the issue of slavery, doesn't mean everyone else had (until they landed here).