"The South still lies about the Civil War", Does the North lie?

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Status
Not open for further replies.

Norm53

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Location
Cape May, NJ
Freeing slaves seems to be morally superior to not freeing slaves.
Attributing morality to motives troubles me. Can't we all agree that for most slave owners, North or South, pecuniary interests trumps morality, based on prior evidence? Therefore, slavery in the North died not because of moral qualms, but because it was economically inefficient. Stated differently, if slavery had been economical in the North, it would have persisted indefinitely, it's demise based on moral sentiments being drowned politically by pecuniary interests.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Attributing morality to motives troubles me. Can't we all agree that for most slave owners, North or South, pecuniary interests trumps morality, based on prior evidence? Therefore, slavery in the North died not because of moral qualms, but because it was economically inefficient. Stated differently, if slavery had been economical in the North, it would have persisted indefinitely, it's demise based on moral sentiments being drowned politically by pecuniary interests.
I stand by my statement. The act regardless of motives is ethically superior to not acting. A man saving a life because he is paid for it is just a virtuous as one who is not paid for it.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
But it was about slavery.

Frederick Douglass gave this portion of a speech on Decoration Day 1871:

"...We are sometimers asked, in the name of patriotism, to forget the merits of this fearful struggle, and to remember with equal admiration those who struck at the nation's life and those who struck to save it, those who fought for slavery and those who fought for liberty and justice.

I am no minister of malice. I would not strike the fallen. I would not repel the repentant; but may my "right hand forget her cunning and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth," if I forget the difference between the parties to that terrible, protracted, and bloody conflict.

If we ought to forget a war which has filled our land with widows and orphans; which has made stumps of men of the very flower of our youth; which has sent them on the journey of life armies, legless, maimed and mutilated; which has piled up a debt heavier than a mountain of gold, swept uncounted thousands of men into bloody graves and planted agony at a million hearthstones--I say, if this war is to be forgotten, I ask, in the name of all things sacred, what shall men remember?

The essence and significance of our devotion here to-day are not to be found in the fact the men whose remains fill these graves were brave in battle. If we met simply to show our sense of bravery, we should find enough on both sides to kindle admiration. In the ranging storm of fire and blood, in the fierce torrent of shot and shell, of sword and bayonet, whether on foot or horse, unflinching courage marked the rebel not less than the loyal soldier.

But we are not here to applaud manly courage, save as t has been displayed in a noble cause. We must never forget that victory to the rebellion meant death to the republic. We must never forget that the loyal soldiers who rest beneath this sod flung themselves between the nation and the nation's destroyers. If today we have a country not boiling in agony of blood, like France, if now we have a united country, no longer cursed by the hell-black system of human bondage, if the American name is no longer a by-word and a hissing to a mocking earth, if the star-spangled banner floats only over free American citizens in every quarter of the land, and our country has before it a long and glorious career of justice, liberty, and civilization, we are indebted to the unselfish devotion of the noble army who rest in these honored graves all around us."


I agree with Mr. Douglass.

We should not forget the differences between the two parties in that terrible, protracted, struggle.

We should have no problem recognizing that there was courage and bravery displayed on both sides.

And we should not forget that one side fought to preserve slavery and end the nation's life as folks knew it then while the other side fought to preserve the nation and ended up destroying slavery.

Unionblue
 

Drew

Major
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
"...We are sometimers asked, in the name of patriotism, to forget the merits of this fearful struggle, and to remember with equal admiration those who struck at the nation's life and those who struck to save it, those who fought for slavery and those who fought for liberty and justice.
Everyone's got an agenda, Douglas had one and you have yours.

Any notion the Pure White North was fighting to free the slaves is complete BS.
 

W. Richardson

Captain
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Location
Mt. Gilead, North Carolina
I guess I'm getting an education in how one's words can be interpreted, which are not what one wanted to say.

The thing is, I don't know that I have ever gone out of my way to say "Southern slavery" is wrong. I almost always refer to slavery, not "Southern slavery." I don't see them as being separate things, it's all slavery to me.

Sometimes I or others will use the words, to the effect of, "slavery in the South." But this is reference to the fact that when the war began, slavery was in the South. The term is not meant to indicate that there was some kind of difference between "Northern" slavery and "Southern" slavery.

(Having said that, most scholars do say that the harshness of slavery varied from place to place. The consensus seems to be that in the South, rice farming was brutal, and tobacco farming much less so. I have not really studied how these variance worked in terms of slavery in northern geographies vs slavery in southern geographies.)

Bottom line is, I haven't felt a need to say Northern slavery was as bad as Southern slavery, because I do not differentiate between the two. I just say slavery is bad. I think that's how the vast majority of people see it... I think.

- Alan

Alan,
I totally understand and agree. I don't feel anyone could have stated that any better than you just did. Slavery, all slavery is bad and that is how I view it as well.

Respectfully,

William

One Nation
Two countries

Confed-American Flag - Thumbnail.jpg
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Greywolf

Sergeant
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
By 1860no Northern state had slavery but for New Jersey where it was already mostly faded out other then a few elderly slaves. The border states did have slavery but they were not Northern states. We need to bear in mind no Southern state abolished slavery on its own accord.
Leftyhunter
Abolition is the best thing that came of the civil war. Just maybe it would have occurred gradually in the border states and upper south as it slowly did in the north. Certainly sooner is better as it turned out. We will never know but the original secesh 7 may have lasted a long time.
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
...yes the North lies to itself about the whole thing...They weren't complicit, had nothing to do with it and only used their strength to right wrongs imposed by the South...
That's bankrupt right out of the box.

"The North" was never one thing and is not now one thing. Meaning it's not possible to know what "the North" has ever claimed or is claiming today. It sure as shootin' is not possible to know with such precise detail what "the North" claimed or is claiming (i.e. "they had nothing to do with it, only used their strength to right wrongs imposed on the South." Is that a quote or isn't it?).

Why invent things just so you can rail against them? Pointless.

Still, we certainly can relate to responding in a blip of emotion, we've all done it. It's healthy to be in touch with that side of ourselves. But now if you have some real stuff, bring that out and let's consider it.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
How about put the actual date slavery ended for New York and New Jersey. That "list" puts the ending of northern slavery in the best light possible, when in reality still thousands of northern slaves well into the 1800s
...and yet those states ended slavery decades before the 1850s, and of their own volition. Decades. Two additional generations of thousands of people that had to endure slavery. That's plainly more significant than just being able to point out "they did it too, see!"
 

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Abolition is the best thing that came of the civil war. Just maybe it would have occurred gradually in the border states and upper south as it slowly did in the north. Certainly sooner is better as it turned out. We will never know but the original secesh 7 may have lasted a long time.
The North wanted to make cotton money kept the slaves in place.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
...and yet those states ended slavery decades before the 1850s, and of their own volition. Decades. Two additional generations of thousands of people that had to endure slavery. That's plainly more significant than just being able to point out "they did it too, see!"
In the words of Silas Tripp (Denzel), "Ain't nobody clean...... we all covered up in it"
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

DaveBrt

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 6, 2010
Location
Charlotte, NC
"The North" does not lie; "The South" does not lie. Almost no one gives a ...... We care -- that is why we have gravitated to this site -- but don't for a moment think The South or The North has any interest in this subject. Only in the last 2 years, when some have decided to cleanse this nation of all its sins, has there been even the slightest interest in this subject.
 

Norm53

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 13, 2019
Location
Cape May, NJ
When did Delaware, Maryland, D.C., West Virginia, Kentucky, & Missouri join the CSA...?

Asking for a friend....
From Wiki:

1. South Carolina (December 20, 1860)
2. Mississippi (January 9, 1861)
3. Florida (January 10)
4. Alabama (January 11)
5. Georgia (January 19)
6. Louisiana (January 26)
7. Texas (February 1; referendum February 23)
Bombardment of Fort Sumter (April 12) and President Lincoln's call up (April 15)
8. Virginia (April 17; referendum May 23, 1861)
9. Arkansas (May 6)
10. Tennessee (May 7; referendum June 8)
11. North Carolina (May 20)
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
From Wiki:

1. South Carolina (December 20, 1860)
2. Mississippi (January 9, 1861)
3. Florida (January 10)
4. Alabama (January 11)
5. Georgia (January 19)
6. Louisiana (January 26)
7. Texas (February 1; referendum February 23)
Bombardment of Fort Sumter (April 12) and President Lincoln's call up (April 15)
8. Virginia (April 17; referendum May 23, 1861)
9. Arkansas (May 6)
10. Tennessee (May 7; referendum June 8)
11. North Carolina (May 20)
It was a rhetorical question.... :cool:
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
For info purposes:

The North had 36,379 slaves in 1790. By 1840, the North had less than 800 1200 slaves.

- Alan
When did Delaware, Maryland, D.C., West Virginia, Kentucky, & Missouri join the CSA...?

Asking for a friend....
I was speaking in terms of North and South, not USA and CSA. States below the Mason-Dixon Line and the Ohio River are considered the South, and I do lump Missouri in as a Border State not a Northern State. I believe this is how the states saw themselves in 1860.

- Alan
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
I was speaking in terms of North and South, not USA and CSA. States below the Mason-Dixon Line and the Ohio River are considered the South, and I do lump Missouri in as a Border State not a Northern State. I believe this is how the states saw themselves in 1860.

- Alan
I understand what you were doing. I was just poking a little.

Never in my life, have I ever considered Delaware, or Maryland as "Southern", & I have some kin from Maryland. When I think of Delaware, I don't have images of Southern Belle's fixin cornbread, & grits.

I understand some folks consider them both as "Southern". I've always considered them more similar to New Jersey, or Pennsylvania.
 

huskerblitz

Captain
Joined
Jun 8, 2013
Location
Nebraska
I understand what you were doing. I was just poking a little.

Never in my life, have I ever considered Delaware, or Maryland as "Southern", & I have some kin from Maryland. When I think of Delaware, I don't have images of Southern Belle's fixin cornbread, & grits.

I understand some folks consider them both as "Southern". I've always considered them more similar to New Jersey, or Pennsylvania.
It really depends on what grouping you are using (i.e. Nebraska is a Midwest state vs. Plains state, etc.). Today I think most accept Delaware and Maryland as Atlantic States (or Mid-Atlantic) rather than Northern or Southern...there is really no right answer, even within the states themselves. People in southern Delaware may group themselves more Southern than people living in northern Delaware.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top