Why the sympathy for the South?

2/18/2003 | truthsearcher

[Truthsearcher]

Why the sympathy for the South?

[Centurion2000]

some of us are tired of the culture wars being perpetrated against the South.

[Non-Sequitur]

A stunning fact if you think about it.

Not really, when you consider that he wasn't on the ballot in 6 of the 7 original seceding states. The seventh, South Carolina, didn't hold presidential elections at all.

[Non-Sequitur]

Imagine a President getting elected who gets not one vote in your region and you harbor strong feelings that he is about to circumvent the Constitution and trample on your rights.

Lincoln's name wasn't on the ballot in most of the states you mention, and South Carolina didn't hold presidential elections at all.

[Non-Sequitur]

There were abolutionists in both the north and south.

Really? Who were some of the southern ones?

[Non-Sequitur]

Which begs the question if the original Thirteenth Amendment was backed by him, and had passed the Senate, what was the war over again?

Because the 13th Amendment was passed and sent to the states after the original 7 confederate states had announced their rebellion. Did you expect them to call it off?

[oil]

With all due respect, having lived in the north for 22+ years and in the south for 33 years - the south IS God's Paradise on Earth.....:<)

[wimpycat]

Samuel Janney of Virginia and the Grimke sisters of Charleston, to name a few.


(Google is my friend.)

[Non-Sequitur]

The Grimke ladies were also for women's rights. I'll bet that made them popular with the neighbors.

[stainlessbanner]

And Yankee invaders stood guard over the election polls, didn't they?

[Non-Sequitur]

In 1860? No they didn't. But inspite of the best efforts of the southern leadership Lincoln was still elected.

[angry beaver norbert]

LOL. As well as Earnhardt, Eliott,Lynyrd Skynyrd ...

[angry beaver norbert]

Money.Key issue.

[FreedomCalls]

Imagine a President getting elected who gets not one vote in your region and you harbor strong feelings that he is about to circumvent the Constitution and trample on your rights.

Lincoln's name wasn't on the ballot in most of the states you mention, and South Carolina didn't hold presidential elections at all.

And that matters how? The premise is still the same.

Shoulf I have phrased it:

Imagine a President getting elected who isn't even on the ballot for you to vote against in your region ...

Or perhaps:

Imagine a President getting elected who can't even be bothered to put his name forward on the ballot in your region ...

The country was torn up over the issue of slavery and here a Presidential candidate runs for the office without even so much as bothering to put his name on the ballot in the most affected area of the country. What gall!

It would be as if the overriding issue of the day were water rights and a President won an election when he did not put his name on the ballot in the western states. Imagine some liberal effete easterner not even connected to the issue winning. Here you have a liberal mid-westerner winning the Presidency over the issue of slavery who doesn't come from a slave state and doesn't even bother to put his name on the ballot in the slave states. Actually, that's even more appalling.

You must look at the issue from their point of view. No one in the south today is advocating secession, but they were in 1861. They thought differently then. If you want to understand history you need to understand what motivated them then, not how we would approach the issue today.

[TexConfederate1861]

Slavery was NOT considered immoral by most people at the time, and YES, at the time the founding fathers wrote the Constitution, these "minorities" were considered 3/5 of a person, and had little or no rights, hence the answer to your question is NO...

[TexConfederate1861]

Because: Southern rights were guaranteed by the Constitution.
Slaves had no rights, as they were considered "property".

Read the "Dred Scott" decision. That tells it all, plain and simple.

[takenoprisoner]

My great great grandfather for one.

[Non-Sequitur]

And that matters how?

It matters because it explains why President Lincoln didn't get a single vote from the southern states. It wasn't a matter of him not wanting to be on the ballot, it was due to the deliberate action of the southern leadership to keep him off the ballot. Who gets placed on ballots on the ballot is a state issue, it still is. Candidates today still need to qualify in every state. Allowing a vote for any presidential candidate in the first place is a state issue, witness South Carolina which didn't hold a presidential election for decades prior to the end of the Civil war. So suggesting that President Lincoln deliberately kept his name off the ballot in the south is the exact opposite of the fact.

[Non-Sequitur]

My great great grandfather for one.

If your great great grandfather expected the south to call off their rebellion then the fact that they didn't isn't the fault of President Lincoln. His beef would be with the confederate leadership.

[gitmo]

Mayland. Not Maryland.

[takenoprisoner]

Too bad you weren't around then to advise him.