Five myths about why the South seceded

Washington Post ^ | January 9, 2011 | James W. Loewen

[kosciusko51]

One hundred and fifty years after the Civil War began, we're still fighting it -- or at least fighting over its history. I've polled thousands of high school history teachers and spoken about the war to audiences across the country, and there is little agreement even on why the South seceded. Was it over slavery? States' rights? Tariffs and taxes?

As the nation begins to commemorate the anniversaries of the war's various battles -- from Fort Sumter to Appomattox -- let's first dispense with some of the more prevalent myths about why it all began.

1. The South seceded over states' rights.

Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed to be seceding for that right. In fact, Confederates opposed states' rights -- that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery.

[gman992]

When are you people down in the South going to give it a rest. It was filled with a bunch of racists who thought that was fine to own another person based on the color of his skin.

(Believe me, the truth will set you free—and you will probably be a lot happier that all of this is over—which should been a hundred years ago. Now, if I hear anymore Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union from anymore psuedohistorians, who think that textbooks should banish everything that has to do with slavery— all I got to say was the South started when they thought that he was going to free the what-—what’s that you say—the slaves.
And remember the South started when they even plotted to kill Lincoln even before he was sworn in)

[rockrr]

Yes I do. And so did Frederick Douglass. I have no reason to suspect otherwise.

[gman992]

Remember the South used the States’ Rights arguement when they wouldn’t let black people even use the same water fountains. Do you honestly think that they are going to say—on tv-no less— “Yes, we’re a bunch of snivelling biggots, and we don’t care what you say.” At least, people like Wallace were honest about it...

[iowamark]

An excellent response to the neo-Nazi, neo-Confederate Lew Rockwell stuff, from a Hillsdale College professor:

"Vindicating Lincoln: Defending the Politics of Our Greatest President" by Thomas L. Krannawitter

[30Moves]

The Union - the United States minus the Confederate States of America - the ones who wore blue - the part that used the American flag.

He had no legal authority to free any slaves in the Confederacy.

[Happy Rain]

I had two great grandfathers (one from Pop’s side and one from Mom's) who fought the Yankee invaders and both families knew and handed down the fact that they fought for Tennessee and South Carolina respectively—in other words for their homes and nothing else—with evil war criminals like Sherman and Sheridan raping,looting,murdering and burning their way across the South it turns out they were right about WHY they fought.
Slavery was a non-issue to the vast majority of those Southerners who actually fought the war.THEIR views are the only ones that actually matter and their heroism and exceptional ability to last as long as they did against overwhelming numbers and material represents the greatest military prowess since the 300 Spartans.
We proud descendants of Confederate heroes let liberal Yankee academics and politically motivated revisionists play with the superfluous nuances over the origons of the war—The WAR itself is all that counted and those who fought it.

[K-Stater]

To the extent that life is better than death, it would seem so.

I suppose we should all be glad you weren't around in the past. "Why the heck would you want to go to that deathtrap in Plymouth? How about I find you a nice owner instead?" or "You want to go where??? Do you know how many people die in those wagon trains? Why not stay here where it's safe?"

[RaceBannon]

I cant stand this.

If it wasn’t about slavery, then why is slavery the main issue in each states secession orders??

[central_va]

The emancipation proclamation was a convienent way to conscript blacks into the US Army as the supply of willing Irish was runnong low. Lincoln needed more bodies to put between DC and the CSA’a Army of NoVa.

[Tublecane]

“He had no legal authority to free any slaves in the Confederacy.”

The official position of the U.S. government was that there was no Confederacy. Only naughty little states. Even if that was a legalistic fiction, the Union army in due course made it hard fact.

They won the war, after all, right? Certainly at some point former members of the CSA came back under federal authority, yes? Well, then, mark it there that the slaves became free.

[Tublecane]

“The emancipation proclamation was a convienent way to conscript blacks into the US Army as the supply of willing Irish was runnong low”

Whatever. I never said it wasn’t. That was Lincoln’s position, as well, if you’ll recall. Not in those exact words, but it was presented as a necessary wartime measure.

By the way, it wasn’t only that. For it proclaimed slaves in the rebellious states would be free “hereafter,” meaning FOREVER. And forever was expected to extend beyond the war.

[mac_truck]

The EP explicitly covers only slaves in seceded areas. It did not cover any slaves in the north and did not actually free any slaves at all. It wasn't meant to.

As per the US Constitution, the President had no authority to free slaves in areas of the Union not in rebellion.

[30Moves]

That is where I was marking it.

Hence, in 1863, he did not free any slaves in the Confederacy.

[hosepipe]

[ If it wasn’t about slavery, then why is slavery the main issue in each states secession orders?? ]

BECAUSE!!!... of the controversy of demographics.. whether slaves would be considered citizens or “how much” of a citizen they were(1/3;1/2;1/4 etc.).. Determining “how many” representatives each State would have in the House of Representatives.. i.e. Apportionment.. Thats WHY?.....

The Civil War was “ABOUT” States Rights.. Not-> Slavery.. but slavery was indeed “an issue”..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment

[stansblugrassgrl]

I think you said it perfectly. My family - Georgia and Texas. The wounds are deep. The south has a long memory. Yankees don’t seem to understand that.

Today’s civil war is being fought on cultural and ideological lines rather then the Mason/Dixon line. Also, between the states and the invasive Federal government. We are in the early stages of the war. Maybe we can back the enemy down, but at this point, I kind of doubt it. It’ll probably get worse before it will get better. States rights all over again!

[rockrr]

In other words...it all comes back to slavery.

[hosepipe]

[ In other words...it all comes back to slavery. ]

To a Race PimP, it does all relate to slavery..

[rockrr]

Well that certainly advances your “argument” /s

[BroJoeK]

Aleya2Fairlie: "The following link is for the many who hold the completly erroneous idea that the Northern states never had a thing to do with the institution of slavery and never owned a slave.
I’ve seen that revisionist lie repeated over and over."

I see that you've been with Free Republic since 2008.
I've been with Free Republic since 2003, and in all that time I've never seen anyone make such a claim -- except Lost Causers like youself pretending someone else said it.

So it seems to me you're just battling against old ghosts.
Maybe you should consider discontinuing whatever drink it is that brings those out?

;-)

Everyone who's studied this knows that slavery in the North was abolished slowly, slowly beginning somewhere around 1777, and even by 1860 there were still occasional black "servants" in such places as New York City.

[SeeSharp]

...from a Hillsdale College professor:

And here is Krannawitter's silly book being systematically debunked: Vindicating Lincoln?.