Replies

Actually, over 90% of southerners did not own slaves

I grew up in a family with three children. We had one car, titled in my father's name. So it can be correctly said that 80% of the people in my family did not own a car, but 100% reaped the benefit of car ownership. Likewise with slavery. A look at the census data of the period would show that only about 6 or 7 percent of the people owned slaves, but those people had families. A further look at the census data shows that in some states the number of slave owning families approached 50%. Overall in the states that originally seceded the percentage is just over 30%. So it may be difficult to understand why the south would launch a war to defend an institution that only 7% of the people benefited from, but when the percentage approaches 1/3rd then it isn't so hard to understand.

The main reason for the fight was the fact that the federal government was trampling on states rights.

Other than the expansion of slavery what states right was being trampled?

I am merely pointing out that the Civil War was not ONLY about slavery.

Perhaps. But defense of the institution of slavery was by far the single most important reason for the rebellion.

What crap.

The vast majority of southerners were just as poor and stupid as the slaves were. Heck, there were probably more higher educated slaves than white trash moving up.

The institution of slavery, as pointed out, was loved by all until the South started getting more powerful economically and when their populations grew their respresentation in Congress grew and thus were a threat to the elite power brokers in the North.

Remember the 3/5ths compromise? Northernors didn't want slaves counted at all, much less 3 for 5. That again would increase the Congressional representation in the House for the South and, just like today, Northern elite Eurotrash can't stand it.

That's why they are going to run Howard Dean in yet ANOTHER version of liberal elitism. McGovern, Mondale and Dukakis didn't teach them a thing.

So, as usual with the ones defeated, they re-write history, as you do, to make their version pliable today. Everyone with a brain knew, at the time of the Civil War, that slavery was on it's last leg. The major plantation owners in the South were heavily diversified before the war and weren't even using slaves as much when they required a better educated workforce. Many sent their slaves to school or taught them themselves.

Mechanization was coming and in just a few short years the slaves would have been useless in the fields. But they sure were welcomed in the North to fill the factories and work in horrid conditions with long hours, low pay, and considered replaceable if they got sick or died. Just like all those coal miners living in Robert KKK Byrd's back yard.

And who were all those jerk-off Southerners you whine about so amusingly from the top of your smug throne? Democrats. All of them. Democrats until the day they died and Democrats for 120 years after the Civil War. Standing in the door houses of the schools, fighting integration, creating poll taxes and poll tests (they learned it from their buddies up North), etc.

Yes, the Civil War was about slavery. But that's only a major reason in today's concepts. Back then slavery was still a large worldwide practice and again, the North benefited and abused it just like everyone else. And in those days it was just "common knowledge" or "conventional wisdom" to say slaves weren't really equal men just like today it's conventional wisdom to believe in global warming.

So in those terms it's awful today, but back then it was just another straw on the camel's back of an overbearing federal government ignoring states rights. Lincoln had no intention of freeing any slave once he obtained office and was pushed into the Emancipation Proclamation which, if carefully read, doesn't really emancipate anyone unless under the most perfect circumstances.

Other state rights violated that you ignore, like most who don't want another point of view to invade their glass house, is free commerce, voting rights, laws overriding state legislatures and courts, etc.

For goodness sakes the North wanted to emgargo the South and STOP them from trading cotton with the French. Again, this would increase their power and grow their states and the North would suffer in representation. And once the war started they did put an embargo on their shipping lanes.

All because the South was getting ready to undercut their manufacturing base...as we did and still do today!

They passed all kinds of instrustive laws through Congress that only applied to the South because they had the numbers. They dictated commerce on the rivers, on the rails, on the roads, what could and could not be sold and when. And they taxed or force high fees on services. All through the legislative process and backed up by their cronies in the courts.

Sound familiar? It's still happening today, only a lot worse. States rights are all but gone. And the states are stupid enough to remain at the teat of the feds.

I'll give you one thing...you earn your nickname.

probably most southerners didn't own slaves... even if a large percentage of them did own a slave, you can assume a lot of them owned perhaps one or only a few slaves to do the housework and sexually molest... the way people today have a philipino nanny to clean the house and sexually molest

but even if you didn't own an agricultural plantation populated by hundreds of slaves constantly being abused and worked to death, you probably benefit by the mere fact of not being a slave

without a visible class of black slaves, who is going to be beaten and worked to death growing export crops of cotton and tobacco? without any mexicans to do the work you're going to have to beat to death one black man to scare the rest of them into doing the work to bring a cash crop in on time... that alone is a pretty good incentive for being white... whether or not you, yourself, own a slave

because without a cash crop for export there's no need for the services of people like captain samuel clemens to write romantic novels about piloting steam ships up and down the mississippi river... and in all likelihood mark twain wouldn't have had the time for moral reflections trying to reconcile slavery and racism

remember huck finn's dilemna... he loves his friend jim the black slave, but he feels pressured to do what he thinks is right, which is to return jim to his rightful owner... aunt polly must have been some tough customer with that strap to screw a kid up so bad

perhaps southerners did fight for states rights... having slavery so up front and personal they were probably well aware of their fate if the likes of george bush and the rest of the federal elite ever managed to pass themselves off as southerners

you can move north and compete for a job with a starving peasant from ireland or take your chances fighting for states rights in the civil war

northerners certainly didn't fight for federal power... they fought because they knew that if the blacks were slaves, they too were slaves... if you have to compete in a market with slave made goods you're no better than a slave yourself

that's why i admire the good people down in places like maine when they say no to walmarts opening in their town... they don't want the waltons steamrolling every small business in town, selling garbage made by the slaves of the communist government party of china

i think somewhere every man is hardwired for solidarity... we don't necessarily want a black family moving in next door but we have some instinct for sensing out where we stand in the pecking order of things and when we have to band together to fight for our common interests... southern white men must have been content not to be black... northerners must have worried whether they wouldn't be next in line