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

Status
Not open for further replies.
More from the Preface of North of Slavery. Leon Litwack pages IX and X.

For as this study suggests, important distinctions did exist between northern free Negroes and southern slaves, just as there were fundamental differences between the condition of northern white industrial workers and southern bondsmen. Above all, the northern Negro was a free man; he was not subject to the whims and dictates of the master or overseer; he could not be bought and sold; he could not be arbitrarily separated from his family. Although a victim of racial proscription, he could -- and on several occasions did — advance his political and economic position in the antebellum period;he could and did organize and petition, publish newspapers and tracts, even join with white sympathizers to advance his cause; in sum, he was able to carry on a variety of activities directed toward an improvement of his position. Although subjected to angry white mobs, ridicule, and censure, he made substantial progress in some sections of the North and, at the very least, began to plague the northern conscience with the inconsistency of its antislavery pronouncements and prevailing racial practices. And although confined largely to menial employments, some Negroes did manage to accumulate property and establish thriving businesses; by 1860, northern Negroes shared with white workers the vision of rising into the middle class. Finally, on the eve of the Civil War, an increasing number of Negroes were availing themselves of educational opportunities, either in the small number of integrated schools or in the exclusive and usually inferior Negro schools. The northern Negro, then, proved to be neither as passive nor as meek and subservient as the conventional stereotype portrayed him; nor, for that matter, did the southern slave. But the free society of the North and the slave society of the south dictated different forms of Negro protest. While the-pre-eminent Negro oi the antebellum NorthwasundoubtedlyyFrederick Douglass, an active abolitionist\organizer, speaker, and editor, the most symbolic product of the antebellum South was Nat Turner, the unsuccessful slave insurrectionist. Therein lies the difference.​
 
I understood it.

...then I'm guessing you understood this as well:
...Slavery did not cause the war...What caused the war was a "system of checks and balances" that depended on one person to maintain...The Presidency, (which gives more power to an executive than any British monarch has had for hundreds of years...
 
Last edited:
...in every national election, including 1860.
Not entirely sure what you're saying. To know that for sure you would have to check each and every state, then every single law and date of passage regarding how those states determine how their electors are chosen. It's too broad of a statement to just say every state electors have to follow their state's popular vote.
 
I like to speak for myself Mr. Gene! :wub:
I would hope you would get to know me and some of the other UDC ladies before you continue to lump us in with Miss Millie. She's been dead for 90 years!
Well I didn’t say the following, a former UDC member did...

“In their earliest days, the United Daughters of the Confederacy definitely did some good work on behalf of veterans and in their communities,” says Heidi Christensen, former president of the Seattle, Washington, chapter of the UDC, who left the organization in 2012. “But it’s also true that since the UDC was founded in 1894, it has maintained a covert connection with the Ku Klux Klan. In fact, in many ways, the group was the de facto women’s auxiliary of the KKK at the turn of the century. It’s a connection the group downplays now, but evidence of it is easily discoverable — you don’t even have to look very hard to find it.”
https://books.google.com/books?id=I...=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false


IN COMMEMORATION OF THE "KU KLUX KLAN" DURING THE RECONSTRUCTION PERIOD FOLLOWING THE "WAR BETWEEN THE STATES" THIS MARKER IS PLACED ON THEIR ASSEMBLY GROUND. THE ORIGINAL BANNER (AS ABOVE) WAS MADE IN CABARRUS COUNTY.
ERECTED BY THE DODSON-RAMSEUR CHAPTER OF THE UNITED DAUGHTERS OF THE CONFEDERACY. 1926. Concord North Carolina


“They had a multi-pronged approach to doing that,” said Historian Karen Cox, “It involved going into schools and putting up battle flags and portraits of generals. It meant getting schools renamed for famous Confederates. It was creating the Children of the Confederacy, which was their formal youth auxiliary, so that the UDC could draw membership from the group when they became adults…Children were always involved in the unveiling of monuments. They would select one child to pull the cord, and then there’d be cheers when the monument was unveiled. Children in the stands would form what they called a ‘living battle flag.’ Then they sang Southern patriotic songs.”

The Daughters’ primary objective, however, was to instill in Southern white youth a reverence for Confederate principles. Indeed, they regarded their efforts to educate children as their most important work as they sought, in their words, to build “living monuments” who would grow up to defend states’ rights and ****. Karen Cox
Description
Karen L. Cox is professor of history at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

These are not my words and I did not mean to speak for you but this is the UDC.
 
I do not know the answer to this, does the north have an equivalent organization to the UDC ? And if so what were it’s specific goals ?
 
After many years of researching the Western Theater battles, the biggest war period lie I have run across was from Grant after the Battle of Belmont. To this day the U. S. government calls that a "Union Victory" because of his lies when in fact it was a decisive rout of Grant's forces from the field of battle.
 
Ok, for you this is more about taking sides than assessing real history then. Thanks for outing with that.

But anyway I'll play. At its formation the United States was unified on allowing slavery, so to directly contradict you, yes there would be a United States. Slavery was not yet a war causer.



You at least get a point for originality.



That's not so. High school World History textbook on this one.



I nearly agree there, in that there was a gross error in the Constitution. The question of slavery was left to twist in the wind, and it did. Amendments addressed that.
I have no idea how I am taking sides here. I do not know what the sides are.
Tom Jefferson attempted to place anti-slavery phrasing in The Declaration of Independence, but that was a no go. Had slavery not started in North America, we would not be having a discussion about it. But, it did start.
Nobody seriously tried to end slavery by the Constitution. The Age of Enlightenment did not shine very brightly at times. If one batch of well to do White Elite started to object to slavery, another would point out that the US could not get on very well with rum running and salting cod. Tobacco, rice, indigo and cotton could provide for world trade, was providing, and nobody could figure how to do it without slavery. They also could not figure any way to fund a government except by imposing on imports. Not very imaginative people, I'd say. What side does that put me on?
President vs British monarch?
Edited.
Lack of imagination. When those fellows were having their game of writing a Constitution (nobody asked them to do it), they amused themselves by mostly copying State Governments, which had generally mimicked the British System. They maybe got tired at points...really tired when creating the executive .."let's just throw it all into one, a president, like the states have...he can't do much without the Speaker of the House, anyway..let's get something to drink." Oh, they dealt with slavery, they kicked a 3/5 can down the road, along with a method of revenue and a real system of defense. Can kicking, real imaginative. The ones that could look beyond what was happening could rationalize "i won't be around to see it,".
The political split happens. No war.
But Lincoln cannot allow the country to split because he is elected president, that suggests he was the problem. He's got the bayonets. Jeff Davis does too. Before the US Congress can do something stupid, like being reasonable, the war is on.
Slavery (actually racism as practiced in various parts of the US), was the primary cause of political friction. But it did not cause the war. A settlement might have happened had the president not had the clear power of the military. Heads might have cooled , people maybe come to realize what was happening. Confirmed slavery advocates (not many), and Abolitionists (not many), might have been shut up. People could have dealt with slavery honestly. That had not been tried before. I don't think there were many in the US that wanted slavery to continue, but the screaming and yelling had deafened and silenced them.
 
I do not know the answer to this, does the north have an equivalent organization to the UDC ? And if so what were it’s specific goals ?
There are many exclusive groups in the country, who's entire purpose is to promote ideology from a particular demographics' point of view. Do you disparage those groups as well..? Or do you just pick on the ladies of the UDC..?
 
This statement jumps out at me as an example of a "northern lie" to use the thread title, or a series of half-truths in reality that incorrectly morally elevate Lincoln more than he should be elevated, and ignore the fact that though he despised slavery, he was still a **** who never once found the war a liberating event, but a punishment for the entire nation. The Emancipation Proclamation was "a fit and necessary war measure" to cripple the CS, and Lincoln viewed the 13th amendment in much the same way, as well as hoping it would permanently remove the issue and end the political conflict over it. All of this was as much political as it was moral, but you've painted a picture of St. Abe, the noble, suffering figure from our American mythology, rather than the real historical figure. Next we'll hear talk of the significance of the fact that he was martyred on Good Friday!



I never once heard a family member speak about the civil war, to my knowledge (unless we were studying it in school and I had homework), while I was growing up. Nor did I hear family members express racist views. The word Yankee was rarely heard in my home, and in fact the only "southern" attitude I really inherited was my mom's irritation when people from outside the South caricatured and stereotyped us. My current attitudes and beliefs come from studying the history and forming opinions based on all the new things I have learned and am still learning. I really am going against all I was taught in public school here.

An example: we used to go see my grandparents and cross Wade Hampton Boulevard, but I didn't even know who he was until a few years ago. I knew the name from the road, not from history. Like so many gaps in my knowledge back then, I'm a bit dismayed at that.

"Abraham Lincoln is the Christ-figure of the Nationalist Narrative, and the Lincoln gospel goes something like this: God led English Puritans to the City Upon the Hill on the Banks of Massachusetts Bay, but these budding Americans ruined paradise by allowing slavery to gain a foothold in North America. After many years of wandering in the Great American Desert and watching slavery flourish among the Southern descendants of Cain, Americans were awakened when John “The Baptist” Brown burst onto the scene, preparing the way for the Lord, who appeared, lying in a log cabin, in the little town of Somewhere, Kentucky."
Stephen M. Klugewicz
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top