"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.

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
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.
When I came to the DC/MD/VA area in the mid-70s, I was told in no uncertain terms that MD was the South, and that did seem to be the case for the MD suburbs of DC.

The state has changed a lot with the growth of the DC metro area (often called "the DMV" by locals) and also by the influx of former Washingtonians into the DC suburbs in MD/VA. But the Eastern Shore, southern MD, and western MD do have a southern nature to them, for sure.

- Alan
 

leftyhunter

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
May 27, 2011
Location
los angeles ca
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.
There were some slave owners even in the South who thought quite rightly that the secessionists were stupid because they would end slavery rather then just go with the status quo. We can't prove a hypothetical we only know that by 1888 no European or Latin American nation had slavery.
Leftyhunter
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
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.
IIRC, Congress during the late 1850's considered them Border States and I believe that Lincoln referred to them as the same.
 
When I came to the DC/MD/VA area in the mid-70s, I was told in no uncertain terms that MD was the South, and that did seem to be the case for the MD suburbs of DC.

The state has changed a lot with the growth of the DC metro area (often called "the DMV" by locals) and also by the influx of former Washingtonians into the DC suburbs in MD/VA. But the Eastern Shore, southern MD, and western MD do have a southern nature to them, for sure.

- Alan
HEAD-QUARTERS ARMY N. VA.,


Near Frederick Town, 8th September, 1862.

To the People of Maryland:

It is right that you should know the purpose that has brought the Army under my command within the limits of your State, so far as that purpose concerns yourselves.

The People of the Confederate States have long watched with the deepest sympathy the wrongs and outrages that have been inflicted upon the citizens of a Commonwealth, allied to the States of the South by the strongest social, political and commercial ties.

They have seen with profound indignation their sister State deprived of every right, and reduced to the condition of a conquered Province.

Letter in its entirety here.
https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/_Proclamation_to_the_People_of_Maryland_by_Robert_E_Lee_1862
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
When I came to the DC/MD/VA area in the mid-70s, I was told in no uncertain terms that MD was the South, and that did seem to be the case for the MD suburbs of DC.

The state has changed a lot with the growth of the DC metro area (often called "the DMV" by locals) and also by the influx of former Washingtonians into the DC suburbs in MD/VA. But the Eastern Shore, southern MD, and western MD do have a southern nature to them, for sure.

- Alan
I hear ya. I lived in NOVA when you came to the area. I'm pretty familiar with most of that area. I have some family that live in Fairfax County, & some close to family that live in MD. Heck, I grew up an O's fan :cool:
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
HEAD-QUARTERS ARMY N. VA.,


Near Frederick Town, 8th September, 1862.

To the People of Maryland:

It is right that you should know the purpose that has brought the Army under my command within the limits of your State, so far as that purpose concerns yourselves.

The People of the Confederate States have long watched with the deepest sympathy the wrongs and outrages that have been inflicted upon the citizens of a Commonwealth, allied to the States of the South by the strongest social, political and commercial ties.

They have seen with profound indignation their sister State deprived of every right, and reduced to the condition of a conquered Province.

Letter in its entirety here.
https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/_Proclamation_to_the_People_of_Maryland_by_Robert_E_Lee_1862
Pretty cool find Copperhead.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Yet, rhetoricaly, the North drank, deeply, from slavery.
Rhetorically based on
Ordinances of Secession.
Declarations of Secession
The secessionists believed that the North and Northern were the nonslaveholding parts of the US. From the revolution on and especially after the Constitution convention slavery receded from the North.

This is a great thread, @Old_Glory. The problem is there is red meat all over the place and not enough focus.
The problem is lots of complexities and complications without evidence.
 

DanSBHawk

Sergeant Major
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Forever Free identified the difference between southern "lies" and northern "lies" early in this thread.

The "north," and I guess that also includes all the states that have been admitted since the Civil War as well, don't really have enough of an emotional investment in the war to concoct lies. Those interested in history want to learn the most accurate account possible. Those with no interest in history are perfectly happy to shorthand the war into Lincoln/End of Slavery in the same way they shorthand the Revolutionary War into George Washington/The British are coming.

The "south," on the other hand, has a long history of trying twist the remembrance of that war in order to portray the attempted secession in a more positive light. There are still some in the south emotionally invested enough to try twisting the history. I suspect their number is getting fewer with each generation, and diluted with the modern culture of relocating for jobs, etc.

I first became personally acquainted with persons from southern states after joining the military in 1980. When a friend from Mississippi would say something about the south rising again, or something similar, I would look at him like he was crazy. Why would anyone nowadays be hanging on to that long past war in a personal way?

When I read excuses for that obsession, that the war killed many of a persons ancestors, or that the war took place primarily in southern states, it doesn't ring true. Many losers of more recent wars are able to move on and get over it, and that war killed many Union ancestors as well.

IMO, there are not northern lies and southern lies. There is a dispassionate side that either doesn't care at all, or if they do care, wants an accurate history of the Civil War. And then there is an emotionally-invested side that wants a southern slanted history of the Civil War.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Drew

Major
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Rhetorically based on
Ordinances of Secession.
Declarations of Secession
The secessionists believed that the North and Northern were the nonslaveholding parts of the US. From the revolution on and especially after the Constitution convention slavery receded from the North.



The problem is lots of complexities and complications without evidence.
OK, so you're claiming there was no complicity at the North. Remember, this thread is about sections lying to one another and themselves.

Do you want to start another thread about Northern complicity with respect to slavery? Will this somehow mess up the Narrative you would like to tell?

The North was into the whole thing, up to its hip boots. If this is painful to you, too bad and if we need a new thread I'm happy to go there with you. Cheers.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Everyone's got an agenda, Douglas had one and you have yours.

Yep. I want the facts, not a fairy tale to make people in this century comfortable with a past that was far from comfortable.

Any notion the Pure White North was fighting to free the slaves is complete BS.
Yet, at the end of that war, the slaves were freed.

At the beginning of that war, slavery was mainly in the South and not in the North.

That's not BS.

That's history.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
OK, so you're claiming there was no complicity at the North. Remember, this thread is about sections lying to one another and themselves.

Do you want to start another thread about Northern complicity with respect to slavery? Will this somehow mess up the Narrative you would like to tell?

The North was into the whole thing, up to its hip boots. If this is painful to you, too bad and if we need a new thread I'm happy to go there with you. Cheers.
Drew,

It's been done already on this forum.

And history should only be painful if it isn't accurate.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Greywolf

Sergeant
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
...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!"
Slavery was not ended in the north until the last slave was free, and it sure wasn't decades. Given, it wasn't many after 1850. Kind of like the hunt for black Confederates, not that many, hard to find, yet there are some.
 

Drew

Major
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Yet, at the end of that war, the slaves were freed.

At the beginning of that war, slavery was mainly in the South and not in the North.

That's not BS.

That's history.
True, Union Blue. My point is that those at the North (for the most part) really didn't care about slaves.

To say otherwise is to misrepresent history.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Slavery was not ended in the north until the last slave was free, and it sure wasn't decades. Given, it wasn't many after 1850. Kind of like the hunt for black Confederates, not that many, hard to find, yet there are some.
Interesting idea, when and only when we have a precise definition of a "Black Confederate". However, we have records of slave counts by county from the census records. I am in the procession of such records, and I may start a thread on them.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
True, Union Blue. My point is that those at the North (for the most part) really didn't care about slaves.

To say otherwise is to misrepresent history.
What exactly do you mean by that, after all, it was expensive to end slavery.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top