Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Upper South
Old Virginia Blog ^ | 06/02/2009 | Douglas Harper

Posted on 06/02/2009 4:45:48 AM PDT by Davy Buck

No one can deny the importance of slavery to the feud that split the United States, or that the CSA states made protection of slavery one of their central purposes. But the Southern confederacy -- that is, the national government of the CSA -- was no more built on slavery than was the Northern Union . . .

(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...


TOPICS: Books/Literature; Education; History; Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: apologistforslavery; confederacy; dixie; revisionistnonsense; secession; slavery; whitesupremacists; yankee
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-272 next last

1 posted on 06/02/2009 4:45:49 AM PDT by Davy Buck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Davy Buck

In addition to the slaves they had cotton and arrogance.


2 posted on 06/02/2009 4:50:21 AM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham ("Baldrick, to you the Renaissance was just something that happened to other people, wasn't it?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Davy Buck

Marked to watch this thread implode, LOL!


3 posted on 06/02/2009 4:53:00 AM PDT by Diana in Wisconsin (Save The Earth. It's The Only Planet With Chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Davy Buck

I am going to book mark this one. Davy, you are about to find out how passionate some Folks are about their Southern Heritage.


4 posted on 06/02/2009 4:54:14 AM PDT by WakeUpAndVote (beef)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Davy Buck

Secession was like a really bad divorce.

In any divorce, there are the reasons given by the spouses, and the true underlying causes. There is seldom much correspondence between the two. In fact, the spouses are quite often not fully aware of the true underlying causes.

The main (not only) underlying cause of secession and therefore of war was slavery. Without it all the others could have been settled amicably. With slavery in the picture all other factors were immensely aggravated.

And the war came.


5 posted on 06/02/2009 4:54:31 AM PDT by Sherman Logan (Perception wins all the battles, reality wins all the wars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WakeUpAndVote

The author, Douglas Harper, interestingly enough, is from Pennsylvania. He’s a great writer and historian and has researched the subject extensively.


6 posted on 06/02/2009 4:56:56 AM PDT by Davy Buck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Davy Buck

For those of us who chose to read the article, the slavery issue was intelligently handled and explained. Thos of us who live in the South know that the Civil War (and, incxreasingly, I’m warming to the Southern name “War of Northern Aggression”) was not about slavery, it was about the economic survival of the South.


7 posted on 06/02/2009 5:07:02 AM PDT by DustyMoment (FloriDUH - proud inventors of pregnant/hanging chads and judicide!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diana in Wisconsin

“Chief, see the harbor pilot to his vessel and signal that the Threadnaught is rounding the Point. All ahead full.”


8 posted on 06/02/2009 5:12:01 AM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment

I’m originally from Virginia and my relatives still call northeners “Yankees”


9 posted on 06/02/2009 5:12:07 AM PDT by gattaca (Great things can be accomplished if you don't care who gets the credit. Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Davy Buck
Basil L. Gildersleeve, Virginia cavalry veteran and professor (author of a Latin textbook I still use for reference), describing his beloved home state's awkward position in the winter of 1860-61:

Submission is slavery, and the bitterest taunt in the vocabulary of those who advocated secession was “submissionist.” Interesting article - the source documents give us a glimpse of what was really going on.

10 posted on 06/02/2009 5:16:34 AM PDT by Ken522
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment

“The War of Northern Assclowns Being Hateful Warmongers Who Destroyed our Culture and Killed Our Women And Children”


11 posted on 06/02/2009 5:21:04 AM PDT by I Buried My Guns
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment

>>I’m warming to the Southern name “War of Northern Aggression”) was not about slavery, it was about the economic survival of the South.<<

The Kennedy brothers book “The South Was Right” rightly calls it “The War for Southern Independence”.

BTW, in my research on Tenth Amendment, I found that:
1. New Hampshire still has in its state Constitution, the right to revolt.
2. Delaware is the ONLY state that does not recognize that all power comes from the people.
3. SD, NV and WV - new states during the War - ARE agents of the federal government.


12 posted on 06/02/2009 5:25:52 AM PDT by NTHockey (Rules of engagement #1: Take no prisoners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ken522
"Submission is slavery, and the bitterest taunt in the vocabulary of those who advocated secession was “submissionist.”

Some in the neo-confederate today try to say that slavery was not that bad and in some ways good. So if slavery was so good, I do not see why the rebs of the day were so adamant against "submission and slavery".

13 posted on 06/02/2009 5:31:35 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Davy Buck
I believe that while slavery was often only a secondary interest or even a non-existent motivation for the rank and file, the protection of slavery was the only real motivator for the prominent men behind the existence of the Confederacy. The opening of the official Mississippi secession justification states:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

The secessionists' own words condemn themselves - it was all about slavery in the minds of the Confederate elite.

14 posted on 06/02/2009 5:39:36 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I Buried My Guns
“The War of Northern Assclowns Being Hateful Warmongers Who Destroyed our Culture and Killed Our Women And Children”

While there's no pleasure in harm coming to women and children, the Deep South culture based on slavery needed and deserved the humiliation and destruction that it received.

15 posted on 06/02/2009 5:42:31 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: DustyMoment
You should read these, if you have not already.

History, indeed, is [re]written by the "winners".


16 posted on 06/02/2009 5:43:32 AM PDT by Salamander (Cursed with Second Sight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Davy Buck

The way I see it: If the Southern states wanted to leave the Union because they wanted to keep slavery and the rest of the Union abhorred slavery (this is not me defending slavery)...then the Union should have been HAPPY to let the Southerners go their way and watch the country implode. As it was though, the Union came barreling down with their troops and their self-righteousness to prevent the Southern states from exercising their Constitutional rights. So, then...who needed slavery? The Unionists wanted it both ways, if we’re going to argue that the War of Northern Aggression was all about stopping slavery.


17 posted on 06/02/2009 5:48:31 AM PDT by Alkhin (I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell. ~ Harry S Truman)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
“The secessionists’ own words condemn themselves - it was all about slavery in the minds of the Confederate elite.”

It may well have been that there were some in the South who were willing to fight the War of Northern Aggression to protect their slave assets. There might be some hedge fund managers today that would go to war to protect their financial interests. Many of the monied Northern interests likewise may have urged on the war to try to capitalize on potential profits.

However, it cannot be gainsaid that the great majority of Southerners fought the Northern aggression for completely different reasons.

18 posted on 06/02/2009 5:57:04 AM PDT by SharpRightTurn (White, black, and red all over--America's affirmative action, metrosexual president.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Colonel Kangaroo
slavery was not that bad and in some ways good. So if slavery was so good

"Not that bad" and "so good" aren't quite equivalent. There have been lots of human conditions that are much worse than that of the Southern slaves; that of my great-grandparents for example. Aristotle wasn't such a bad guy. Read what he had to say in The Politics. But you see, if Aristotle would be seen to be even partially right, then Lincoln's War would be seen for what it really was.

ML/NJ

19 posted on 06/02/2009 6:04:37 AM PDT by ml/nj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SharpRightTurn
However, it cannot be gainsaid that the great majority of Southerners fought the Northern aggression for completely different reasons.

I think there's merit to your statement above, but there would have been no "northern aggression" nor war had there been no secession and the secession itself was motivated by the issue of slavery.

20 posted on 06/02/2009 6:04:54 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-272 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson