Posted on 01/19/2011 11:35:34 AM PST by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Well, lots of people down here had ancestors who fought in that war, and had families decimated and property destroyed. Some of us have lived places where almost every historical marker ends with “...burned by Union troops on February 17, 1865.” And some of us realize that while you can’t divorce slavery from the causes of the Recent Unpleasantness, and while it was, ultimately, better for us that we lost? That war and its aftermath ultimately plunged a dagger into the heart of the federalist system as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, and it’s been on life support ever since, vital signs fading.
Not to mention, some of us are damn tired of being tarred with the brush of “racist” and “redneck” for being proud of where we’re from and the way our ancestors fought...and at least SOME of what they fought for.
}:-)4
“That’s like saying World War II wasn’t about fascism, it was about Hawaii”
LOL
It was all about the weather - according to Civil War author Grady Mcwhinney in his book Cracker Culture.
If the Northern weather would have allowed them to grow crops that were as labor intensive as cotton they would have used more slaves. It wasn’t cost effective for them to own slaves.
It wasn’t a moral superiority that caused them not to use slaves. Most northerners didn’t care one way or another about slavery.
The article was written by someone with an anti-American agenda.
If I were a descendant of a slave I would worry less about who bought me than who SOLD me.
Disclaimer:(my ancestors were NOT slaveholders) they arrived from Ireland - saw that the war was starting so they ducked out and went to San Francisco.
“COMPLETELY overlook is that the South didn’t go to war over anything... it declared independence from the North, for whatever reasons people wish to argue, and only FOUGHT BACK when occupied or otherwise made war upon by the North!”
Oh really?
Are you saying the the South did not launch an attack on Ft. Sumter?
If so, that would be quite a piece of revisionist history on your part.
I give great credit to Lincoln's attempts at abolition. He was more farsighted than most.
From a carpeted, centrally heated campus office, the issue of slavery is cut-and-dried moral issue. Slavery was wrong, and we should have ended it. Racism was bad, and we shouldn't have been that way, etc. But it's not so simple.
For one thing, what about property rights? Slaves were property, and freeing slaves with the stroke of a pen meant depriving slave owner's of property. Suppose they next decided to declare farmland common property? Lincoln was attracted to the idea of compensation to slaveholders.
Also, slaves were dependent on slave owners. How do you arrange for a multitude,newly free, to provide for itself? This explains the appeal repatriation.
Export agriculture required labor. Did Southern landowners have the means to pay wage-laborers? Was there a commercial infrastructure that would have ensured sufficient cash on hand.
Was Lincoln racist? Probably, but who wasn't? Who isn't today?
Unrelated to slavery, but important were European powers ready and waiting for the US to fracture into bite-sized chunks.
Lincoln had a lot on his plate back then.
The South Carolina declaration accuses the north of breaking the constitutional compact by refusing to return fugitive slaves. That actually is a constitutional requirement and the northern states actually did break it. The declaration attempts to assign blame for the breakup using the language of the original compact. They couldn't claim state's rights since at the time those were not in question. They couldn't claim an unfair tariff since the constitution allows tariffs and does not limit them. They couldn't claim anything about the disposition of the western territories since the constitution is silent about such matters. But the fugitive slave clause was a smoking gun and that is what they argued.
AR,TN,NC and VA seceded over the issue of Union Usurpation. That is fact.
It does grow tiring when the south is used as the whipping boy for all that is wrong or was once wrong. Never was the case, and certainly isn’t the case now. While I am glad the issue of slavery was decided, I believe it will take another shooting war before the issue of states’ rights is decided. I do pray not though. The courts, mostly liberals, will be more than happy to obligate this nation turns on itself, once again, if the liberal/leftist have their way with us though...imho
Grady Mcwhinney is simply wrong. The Yankees maintained a depreciated currency relative to the South for nearly a century before independence. Remember they were mostly quasi-independent chartered colonies whereas the southern colonies were crown colonies. When Queen Ann issued her injunction against “crying up the silver” in the 1690’s the Yankees mostly ignored it while the southerners had to comply. That is why industry, which actually began in the South, ended up being dominant in the North. That in turn is why slavery dwindled and was eventually eliminated in the northern colonies where it had originally flourished.
There is a book written by Larry Schweikart (freeper LS I think)called “A Patriots History of the United States”.
In this book he covers the slavery issue from the first days of the union through the civil war.
Slavery was the entire reason for the civil war. As it was at least part of the reason for every major piece of legislation that came out of congress prior to the war.
You really need to get and read the book. (best, most readable history bookI’ve ever read)
Another nearly successful ploy, of an attempt, to divide and conquer. And we still choose to argue over the things neither region, north or south had control over, or nearly no control over. I guess this is why the British are now consider as our most favorite of allies....
And how about the Declarations of Secession of SC, MS, GA and Texas?
Did those declarations mention Union Usurpation or did they mention slavery and the right to own other human beings and force them to work without pay a total of 86 times?
Actually, the SC Declaration of Secession states that the reason for leaving the Union was the election of Lincoln who was hostile towards slavery.
And if this whole mess was not about slavery, why is it that president Jefferson Davis did not call President Lincoln on his bluff and emancipate the slaves in the Confederacy?
All he had to do was to announce,”Mr Lincoln, I have freed every slave in the CSA, so now please tell us why you are invading our great nation of all free people.”
Well Mississippi and Georgia were sinply parroting South Carolina, which I have already explained to you above. Texas is another matter and may be said to be the only state that did indeed secede to protect the institution of slavery. Texas was the only state to have a viable internal political opposition to slavery and secession made the issue synonymous with patriotism.
The author tries to make the case that slavery would have went on and on and on. It might have lasted another generation as economically viable. Once it got to that point it would have been abolished.
No doubt, any slave would have wanted to be emancipated yesterday. I don’t like though some leftist author implying we’d have had slaves for another 100 years either. Too much blood was spilt fighting the Civil War for some jerk to then come along and rewrite history. Embellishing the argument with garbage facts serves nothing.
I think it’s more poignant that we as a country weren’t even willing to wait a generation to let slavery come to it’s natural end, but were willing to fight a bloody war right then to settle it.
Lincoln already answered that in his first inaugural address. He invaded to impose the tariff. He couldn't have been clearer.
The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.So pay the tariff or we invade. Plain and simple.
“Texas was the only state to have a viable internal political opposition to slavery and secession made the issue synonymous with patriotism.”
Okay, I see. Texas may have had a little opposition to slavery and all the other Confederate States we unanimous in their support of slavery and therefore they had to secede from the Union in order to maintain slavery?
So, what you are saying is that the primary reason for secession was in fact slavery.
bump
Secession weakened the institution of slavery throughout the south since the southern states could no longer benefit from the fugitive slave provision in the constitution. They understood this but seceded anyway. Doesn't that tend to suggest that other issues were in play?
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.