# South Seceded over White Supremacy and Slavery



## CatholicAtheist (Jul 22, 2008)

I noticed a debate about the civil war and I only read the first post in which the poster stated the war was fought over taxes. Which is pure balderdash and revisionist history peddled by various organizations in order to legitimize their cause.


The fact is tariffs and taxes played little part if any in the reasoning behind the secession of the slave states. A tariff authored by a Southerner actually passed in 1857 and was hence known as the Tariff of 1857. The South found this very advantageous and this negates the argument that tariffs played any significant role in the secession of the slave states from the Union. In fact it was such a minor factor that South Carolina voted against mentioning it in their Ordinance of  Secession. So that myth can be put to bed.


Another myth is the states rights myth. One can only argue this position knowing full well that the South was a huge proponent of suppressing states rights when it interfered with the institution of slavery. One can only say the states rights argument must be meant in the context of protecting the states rights to chattel slavery and the imposition of laws that made this secure in perpetuity. 



The facts are the South left the union for two reasons. One was the perceived threat to chattel slavery with the election of a party that favored abolition and white supremacy by a party they referred to as "black Republicans". If one does any research at all, just a little research, you can read the words of the secessionist commissioners sent out to various legislative bodies throughout the South to spread to give reasons for secession. These men did not allude to unjust taxes, instead they explicitly referred to the threat of the white race to "amalgamation and equality with the inferior negro race", the spoke of the "unimaginable horrors upon our women" if the "black republicans" came to power to give "equality to negroes".
This fear was hammered home repeatedly and it was unmistakably clear, secede from the union or to be forced to live with the black race on equal terms, which was simply unthinkable. This along with their reliance on chattel slavery and the threat to this "peculiar institution" were the factors that caused the South to leave the Union.


I dare anyone to read the words of Ordinances of Secession for southern States and the words of the commissioners of secession and deny that white supremacy and chattel slavery were the reasoning behind secession.


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 22, 2008)

I'd agree the biggest reason was slavery. Thankfully they lost, otherwise they might've gone ahead and turned all of us south of Rio Grande into slaves, which would've SUCKED, I must say.


----------



## editec (Jul 22, 2008)

Agreed.

One in four families in the South had slaves, folks.

Human flesh was the largest capital investment in the South.

That's why, when the South felt threatened that the Northern industrialist masters might limit its expansion into the new territories, and worse, might eliminate it in the South altogether, they rebelled.

Follow the money, and history always makes sense.

Now imagine that you'd been born into that system, and imagine that you and yours were going to be financially ruined with the stroke of a pen in Congress.

While I loathe slavery, and I am not amused by today's revisionists who are trying to elevate the motives of the folks who committed treason to something loftier than what it really was, I can definitely understand why the South weren't thrilled with the prospect of the entire economy being ruined, either.

Sins of the Floundering Fathers, folks.

They knew without a doubt that slavery was wrong, but they were not prepared to destroy the South (and therefore not get the constitution enacted) in 1789.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 22, 2008)

Y'all are about as full of shit as it gets; especially, the originator of this thread.  Every crap-ola point he tries to make has been debunked.

The most basic being blacks were not given equality until the Civil Rights Act.  They were given freedom.  Then treated like 2nd class citizens by this NATION, not just the South, for a century.

You can try and sell the US Civil War as some noble cause, but it certainly was not.  It was about control of government, power, and money by the wealthy powerbrokers of both sides.

I see those same powerbrokers are STILL playing the ignorant for fools.


----------



## coolgeee (Jul 22, 2008)

At least someone else seen through the B.S. of the this thread starter...
What history books are you reading?

Every war is fought for profit, power, and the furthering of ones own cause.

Lol...to free the blacks from slavery. What a fairytale story...


----------



## Epsilon Delta (Jul 23, 2008)

Just to clear up: I don't believe that the North was being altruistic or anything at all, they didn't go to war to 'protect' the slaves, they went to war to keep the south. Just saying that the Southern States did secede because of the slavery issue, which was an ENORMOUS part of their economy. And they had a history of 'probing' south to see if they could claim some new fresh slave land (See William Walker). Just saying.


----------



## editec (Jul 23, 2008)

coolgeee said:


> At least someone else seen through the B.S. of the this thread starter...
> What history books are you reading?
> 
> Every war is fought for profit, power, and the furthering of ones own cause.
> ...


 

_Hey!_

He did not say the war was fought to FREE the slaves.

He said the war was STARTED to insure that they'd remain slaves.

Nice try reframing the issue, though.


----------



## manifold (Jul 23, 2008)

editec said:


> While I loathe slavery, and I am not amused by today's revisionists who are trying to elevate the motives of the folks who committed treason to something loftier than what it really was...





A flash of brilliance.


----------



## editec (Jul 23, 2008)

manifold said:


> A flash of brilliance.


 
Thank you.

Hardly a conclusion I can take much credit for, though.

This debate is a well known one, and I am hardly the first person to arrive at the conclusion that the "The south fought the war for States' Rights" argument is little more than a misleading Southern apologist's revisionist history.


----------



## manifold (Jul 23, 2008)

Now sit ubu sit.


----------



## CatholicAtheist (Jul 23, 2008)

It seems apparent that editec is the only person with reading and comprehension abilities. 


*sigh*



Gunny, nothing Ive posted has been debunked if you have evidence to the contrary I would ask you to post it instead of going of on a childish rant because of your sympahty for traitors and scum that fought for white supremacy and chattel slavery. Im sure youve raised your whole life steeped in revisionist history and pray at the Stone Mountain to the alter of your heroes. This no doubt has clouded your judgement.



And Ive never said the motives for the North, Ive only stated the motives for secession for the South. This isnt really open for debate as Ordinances of Secession and the words of secession commissioners clearly outlay their agenda. You cant revise history and omit the very documents that are record.


----------



## Voltaire (Jul 27, 2008)

Hey guys,

I really have no interest in getting mired in this silly debate, but I was wondering if you had ever read a book called "Guns of the South" by Harry Turtledove?

Spoilers below:

It's a pretty funny "what if" sci fi book, where South African white supremacists build a time machine, and go back in time to give Robert E. Lee's army AK-47s in the middle of the war.  Hilarity obviously ensues.  The south wins the war, negotiates a truce with the North, and then works to maintain the peace as new territories hold referendums on which Nation they want to join.  Robert E. Lee defeats Forrest to become the next president of the CSA, and pushes a bill through congress to start a program of manumission.  The newly badass Confederate troops also go down to North Carolina, kill all of the South African paramilitary fellows, and destroy their time machine.  How's that for a revisionist wet dream?

End Spoilers.  (Note: I wasn't really mocking, I'm a proud southerner and Robert E. Lee is a personal hero of mine.)


I think it's safe to say that all history is revisionist...us folks trying to sort everything out 150 years later can't really get a good bead on the attitudes of the time, and we often do our ancestors a disservice by assuming the world they lived in was somehow simpler than ours.  The politics of the time were so complex, to say that "The Civil War started because of X" is silly.

Here's some food for thought, think about what historians and people on message boards will be saying in the year 2150, when they're discussing why the current Middle East conflict is happening.


----------



## Orange_Juice (Jul 27, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Y'all are about as full of shit as it gets; especially, the originator of this thread.  Every crap-ola point he tries to make has been debunked.
> 
> The most basic being blacks were not given equality until the Civil Rights Act.  They were given freedom.  Then treated like 2nd class citizens by this NATION, not just the South, for a century.
> 
> ...




No, he is 100% correct. Slavery was about white supremecy, and it continued into the post civil war era up to the 1960's with Jim Crow laws. And no, the north was not much better on the subject either. 

You make a common argument that is wrong. Just because we argue the South fought for white supremecy doesn't mean the north fought for a more nobel goal. The South was afraid of slavery ultimate demise, but most northerners were not abolitionist. The South fear of racial equality led them to harm the entire country through disunion which the north would not allow. See how there is a difference? Two different war aims for north and south.


----------



## Orange_Juice (Jul 27, 2008)

Voltaire said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I really have no interest in getting mired in this silly debate, but I was wondering if you had ever read a book called "Guns of the South" by Harry Turtledove?
> 
> ...



Ugh! I really dislike counterfactual history. So many people write "whay ifs" history. I just don't see that as possible. Way too many variables in history. So many unforseen events, leaders and surprises.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 27, 2008)

Voltaire said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I really have no interest in getting mired in this silly debate, but I was wondering if you had ever read a book called "Guns of the South" by Harry Turtledove?
> 
> ...



Except for the little fact we have Contemporary writings, opinions, letters, newspapers, legal Documents, military records, Government records, etc etc etc. Ya we sure can not know what happened in the past with all that paper trail.


----------



## editec (Jul 27, 2008)

Voltaire said:


> Hey guys,
> 
> I really have no interest in getting mired in this silly debate, but I was wondering if you had ever read a book called "Guns of the South" by Harry Turtledove?


 
No but I heard it read in installments back when Maine public radio had a reading hour every afternoon.

It was a fun listen.



> I think it's safe to say that all history is revisionist...


 
When history is revised based on new evidence, that's fine. When it is revised based on a wish and prayer (as in the State's rights apologies of those wishing to mitigate the vile nature of the Civil war) that's hokem, not history.



> us folks trying to sort everything out 150 years later can't really get a good bead on the attitudes of the time,


 
Nonsense. There is plenty of hard evidence, newpapers editorials and news, statistics, private journals, speechs and debates in Congress that give us a _very firm grasp_ of the various mind sets and motives of the time.



> and we often do our ancestors a disservice by assuming the world they lived in was somehow simpler than ours.


 
Yes, I agree with that. Life was never simple. Not 6,000 years ago, and not now. 




> The politics of the time were so complex, to say that "The Civil War started because of X" is silly.


 
Silly if the question is framed that way, I agree.

If the question is framed, what was the primary motivation for the southern Rebellion, then the answer is clearly found in all the evidence I mentioned above.

The southern leadership feared the limitation of slavery in the new territories, and the eventual abolition of slavery in the Slave states.

They said exactly that enough times in print, and in Congress, too, that to deny that conclusion is to ignore the overwhelming evidence of history written in large part by the very people who lead the rebellion.


----------



## BaronVonBigmeat (Jul 30, 2008)

CatholicAtheist said:


> (wall-o-text)



Why didn't you post this in the other thread?


----------



## BaronVonBigmeat (Jul 30, 2008)

editec said:


> Nonsense. There is plenty of hard evidence, *newpapers editorials* and news, statistics, private journals, speechs and debates in Congress that give us a _very firm grasp_ of the various mind sets and motives of the time.



Yep, sure is!







(taken from an 1862 issue of Harper's, a pro-union publication)


----------



## p kirkes (Jul 31, 2008)

If secession were successful then introduction of crop harvesting machinery after the civil war surely would have made the incentive for slavery moot because business, north and south, would have embraced it as more productive thus more profitable. 

That should mean that the slave trade from Africa would dry up and those slaves residing in the south would begin to pass from the scene without substantial reproduction being permitted. 

A separate South would soon become more industrialized as it eventually did in the middle part of the twentieth century assuming an amicable relationship between the Union and the Confederacy.  What slaves remained would be largely confined to domestic work or other labor intensive projects.

The black population in the non-slave states would continue to expand somewhat as second class citizens and likely migrate to the west and joined by runaway slaves from the new machine based Confederacy.  The slave owners would be glad to see them go as their upkeep expense is not longer necessary.  Older slaves would serve as domestics and be replaced by the vacuum cleaner and other "labor saving" devices.

What a different world we would live in if John Deere had come on the scene sooner.


----------



## CatholicAtheist (Aug 11, 2008)

Bigmeat, I never stated it was a war for abolition. Read my post again and attempt to decipher the meaning of it so you can make a rebuttal that addresses it.


Thank you.


----------



## editec (Aug 11, 2008)

p kirkes said:


> If secession were successful then introduction of crop harvesting machinery after the civil war surely would have made the incentive for slavery moot because business, north and south, would have embraced it as more productive thus more profitable.


 
Speculation, but probably true.  The value of slaves would have plummeted like a stone.  Not entirely sure that that alone would have ended it, but eventually the cost of owning slaves might have made an end to the vile practive.



> That should mean that the slave trade from Africa would dry up and those slaves residing in the south would begin to pass from the scene without substantial reproduction being permitted.


 
"pass from the scene"?  What does that mean?  They'd have killed them?  Set them free to starve or what?



> A separate South would soon become more industrialized as it eventually did in the middle part of the twentieth century assuming an amicable relationship between the Union and the Confederacy. What slaves remained would be largely confined to domestic work or other labor intensive projects.
> 
> The black population in the non-slave states would continue to expand somewhat as second class citizens and likely migrate to the west and joined by runaway slaves from the new machine based Confederacy. The slave owners would be glad to see them go as their upkeep expense is not longer necessary. Older slaves would serve as domestics and be replaced by the vacuum cleaner and other "labor saving" devices.
> 
> What a different world we would live in if John Deere had come on the scene sooner.


 
Yeah, who can really say what might have happened?

Interesting to speculate, but really, nobody can know what might have happened.


----------



## BrianH (Aug 11, 2008)

CatholicAtheist said:


> I noticed a debate about the civil war and I only read the first post in which the poster stated the war was fought over taxes. Which is pure balderdash and revisionist history peddled by various organizations in order to legitimize their cause.
> 
> 
> The fact is tariffs and taxes played little part if any in the reasoning behind the secession of the slave states. A tariff authored by a Southerner actually passed in 1857 and was hence known as the Tariff of 1857. The South found this very advantageous and this negates the argument that tariffs played any significant role in the secession of the slave states from the Union. In fact it was such a minor factor that South Carolina voted against mentioning it in their Ordinance of  Secession. So that myth can be put to bed.
> ...



Sigh.....

The Avalon Project : Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union
(South Carolina Declaration of Causes of Secession)

"The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States..."

Other nations followed in step.  No one has argued that slavery or white supremacy was not an issue.  HOWEVER, the largest issue...as stated above was states rights.  The Northern states acted illegally by not abiding by the Fugitive Slave Act--(IN the Federal Constitution).   Let's not also forget that Slavery, (according to the U.S. Constitution) was legal in both the North and South.  The South was committing no illegal act by owning slaves, nor did they commit an illegal act by seceding.  

No matter which way you cut it, the larger picture was states rights....slavery was an underlying issue.  The instution of slavery could have easily have been something else.  Had the federal government attempted to take away and outlaw everyone's guns, the same situation could have arisen.  

Slavery was an issue, but was not THE issue.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 11, 2008)

Orange_Juice said:


> No, he is 100% correct. Slavery was about white supremecy, and it continued into the post civil war era up to the 1960's with Jim Crow laws. And no, the north was not much better on the subject either.
> 
> You make a common argument that is wrong. Just because we argue the South fought for white supremecy doesn't mean the north fought for a more nobel goal. The South was afraid of slavery ultimate demise, but most northerners were not abolitionist. The South fear of racial equality led them to harm the entire country through disunion which the north would not allow. See how there is a difference? Two different war aims for north and south.



Try again.  The Northern powerbrokers wanted to control the government as did the Southern ones.  They could not control the government so long as the states entered as one free state and one slave state.  The Northerners could give a shit less about slaves, or who owned them beyond the fact that it was a means of attacking the base of Southern power.  Without slaves, Southerners had no means to cultivate their fields on the level they were, and their power would have vanished with their money.  As it did.

White supremacy is about white supremacy and slavery was a result of the Anglo-Eurpoean belief that whites were superior to blacks (white supremacy).  The US, and the South, did NOT invent slavery, nor did it invent white supremacy.

The Southern elite were afraid of change more than the actual demise of slavery itself.  They were making money hand over fist and the North threatened their wealth and power.  Had someone come along with a quick, painless fix that made slavery obsolete, those slaves would have been dumped on the road faster than Lee's surrender made it happen.

I am not making any common argument that is wrong.  You say that; yet, turn around and reiterate what I said.

There was no fear of racial equality.  That's just flat-out stupid.  The fear was loss of wealth and power by the wealthy and powerful.  

What I see is that there was no legislation at the time to preclude secession as freely as states entered the Union.  Legally, they had every right to ditch an "experiment" as a failed one.

Only by force of arms and an after-the-fact, based-on-nothing-but-assumption ruling by the Supreme Court is/was the North "right."

In other words, the South wanted to go its own way and the North refused to allow it do so.  Blaming it on some "fear of racial equality" which didn't exist in anyone's minds at that time is bogus.  The fear was loss of wealth and power, and at least equal power in the US government.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 11, 2008)

CatholicAtheist said:


> It seems apparent that editec is the only person with reading and comprehension abilities.
> 
> 
> *sigh*
> ...



Sadly, it appears you have no real game here.  Just the accusation that no one understands.  The usual cop-out deflection of the wannabe elitist.

Your entire argument has been thrashed so many times goats can't find anything left to eat of it.  Do a little research, newbie, before allowing your alligator mouth to overload your bumblebee ass.  The threads are on THIS board.

You can't revise history by omitting all but the facts you want to use to make your argument.  Nobody gave a shit about slavery except as a means to an end for the powerful and elite on both sides.  It was a means of wealth and power to the South, and a means to destroy that wealth and power to the North.  

That white supremacy and slavery were THE causes of the Civil War is just revissionist bullshit.  If the Southern elite had trained monkeys to work their fields, they'd have used them, and when attacked for using them, would have defended them.  Amazing how you wannabe intellectual elites can't see past your own noses.


----------



## BrianH (Aug 11, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Sadly, it appears you have no real game here.  Just the accusation that no one understands.  The usual cop-out deflection of the wannabe elitist.
> 
> Your entire argument has been thrashed so many times goats can't find anything left to eat of it.  Do a little research, newbie, before allowing your alligator mouth to overload your bumblebee ass.  The threads are on THIS board.
> 
> ...



Exactly, slavery just happened to be the the issue that put states rights in jeopardy.  IT could have veen any other thing in which the North was trying to take away.  The North was attempting to forbid something that was Legal according to the Constitution. Also, the North invaded the Southern land after the South legally seceded from the Union.  Granted, it's a good thing the North won, and we now have the society we have, but Northern Propogandic history is not necessarily the right history.  

It's funny how many posters will be quick to criticize the U.S. Government about it's "lies" and how it brainwashes its people, but then turn around and forget that the same thing was certainly possible in 1865.  SCOTUS ruled the Southern secession to be illegal....however, they ruled in favor of separate but equal...


----------



## Gunny (Aug 11, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Exactly, slavery just happened to be the the issue that put states rights in jeopardy.  IT could have veen any other thing in which the North was trying to take away.  The North was attempting to forbid something that was Legal according to the Constitution. Also, the North invaded the Southern land after the South legally seceded from the Union.  Granted, it's a good thing the North won, and we now have the society we have, but Northern Propogandic history is not necessarily the right history.
> 
> It's funny how many posters will be quick to criticize the U.S. Government about it's "lies" and how it brainwashes its people, but then turn around and forget that the same thing was certainly possible in 1865.  SCOTUS ruled the Southern secession to be illegal....however, they ruled in favor of separate but equal...



What's "funny" is the very same people who whine and bitch about Bush's war of aggression, blah, blah, blah ... and bitch and whine about any real or perceived infringement on their Constitutional Rights defend Lincoln's trampling of the Constitution and war of aggression where might made right, with a lameass Supreme Court ruling 3 years after the fact justifying teh US's actions.  

To the victor goes the spoils, AND the tailoring of history to support their actions.


----------



## Orange_Juice (Aug 12, 2008)

Gunny said:


> What's "funny" is the very same people who whine and bitch about Bush's war of aggression, blah, blah, blah ... and bitch and whine about any real or perceived infringement on their Constitutional Rights defend Lincoln's trampling of the Constitution and war of aggression where might made right, with a lameass Supreme Court ruling 3 years after the fact justifying teh US's actions.
> 
> To the victor goes the spoils, AND the tailoring of history to support their actions.



It's boggles the mind to think that you would compare our invasion of Iraq on the other side of the world to a domestic insurection that tore OUR nation apart. What type of drugs are you on???


----------



## Orange_Juice (Aug 12, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Sadly, it appears you have no real game here.  Just the accusation that no one understands.  The usual cop-out deflection of the wannabe elitist.
> 
> Your entire argument has been thrashed so many times goats can't find anything left to eat of it.  Do a little research, newbie, before allowing your alligator mouth to overload your bumblebee ass.  The threads are on THIS board.
> 
> ...



Your argument is wrong. The South didn't need slavery for its economy, they could have simply of paid people to work. But what slavery did was allow for white supremecy to be enforced as strongly as possible. And the South surely didn't need slavery in the territories, where they were complaining the most about it. In fact, it probably wouldn't have been viable in Kansas and other places. The south threatened to breakl up the union many times over slavery in the territories even though it would have been possible there.


----------



## BrianH (Aug 12, 2008)

Gunny said:


> What's "funny" is the very same people who whine and bitch about Bush's war of aggression, blah, blah, blah ... and bitch and whine about any real or perceived infringement on their Constitutional Rights defend Lincoln's trampling of the Constitution and war of aggression where might made right, with a lameass Supreme Court ruling 3 years after the fact justifying teh US's actions.
> 
> To the victor goes the spoils, AND the tailoring of history to support their actions.



I see that quite often on these boards.


----------



## BrianH (Aug 12, 2008)

Orange_Juice said:


> It's boggles the mind to think that you would compare our invasion of Iraq on the other side of the world to a domestic insurection that tore OUR nation apart. What type of drugs are you on???



He's not talking about the invasion of Iraq.  He's talking about how many posters on these boards complain that Bush is going against the U.S. Constitution and taking away our freedoms...but then worship Abraham Lincoln (who also did much to destroy the foundations of the Constitution by taking away state rights and popular sovereignty)  

It's a double standard used by many of you on these boards.  You'll use one logic to justify your opinion, and then conveniently ignore the same logic on something of similar nature--simply because you have a different opinion.


----------



## BrianH (Aug 12, 2008)

Orange_Juice said:


> Your argument is wrong. The South didn't need slavery for its economy, they could have simply of paid people to work. But what slavery did was allow for white supremecy to be enforced as strongly as possible. And the South surely didn't need slavery in the territories, where they were complaining the most about it. In fact, it probably wouldn't have been viable in Kansas and other places. The south threatened to breakl up the union many times over slavery in the territories even though it would have been possible there.



The South did not invent slavery, nor did invent slavery trade.  In fact, the Southern United States had a minimal amount of slaves in comparison to other nations that owned slaves.  

What do you suggest the Southern slave-owners pay their "workers" with?   I hate to tell you, but the money trail led northward, not the otherway around.  Let's not also forget that slavery was not illegal--even in the North.  Northern people hated blacks just as much as Southern people did.  They may not have wanted them to be slaves, but they surely intended on keeping them separate.  

Once again, The Civil War was fought over states-rights, not slavery.  Slavery was an underlying issue.  It's funny that neither country went to war until the North failed to leave southern lands after the South seceded.


----------



## Orange_Juice (Aug 12, 2008)

BrianH said:


> The South did not invent slavery, nor did invent slavery trade.  In fact, the Southern United States had a minimal amount of slaves in comparison to other nations that owned slaves.
> 
> What do you suggest the Southern slave-owners pay their "workers" with?   I hate to tell you, but the money trail led northward, not the otherway around.  Let's not also forget that slavery was not illegal--even in the North.  Northern people hated blacks just as much as Southern people did.  They may not have wanted them to be slaves, but they surely intended on keeping them separate.
> 
> Once again, The Civil War was fought over states-rights, not slavery.  Slavery was an underlying issue.  It's funny that neither country went to war until the North failed to leave southern lands after the South seceded.





States rights? What state right had the north violated that made the South declare independence? 


Why did the south threaten to seceed if a Federal Law, the Fugitive Slave Law, was not passed by Congress and signed by the President? How in the world is that a states rights issue? 

Why did the South threaten secession if a Free Soil President was elected? Restricting slavery in the territories didn't interfere with slavery in the southern states


----------



## BrianH (Aug 13, 2008)

Orange_Juice said:


> States rights? What state right had the north violated that made the South declare independence?
> 
> 
> Why did the south threaten to seceed if a Federal Law, the Fugitive Slave Law, was not passed by Congress and signed by the President? How in the world is that a states rights issue?
> ...



I shouldn't have to answer this, becasue you've already answered it yourself.

Lincoln was part of the "ABOLITIONIST" party.  They made it clear they wanted slavery to ened.  If the president was elected, and ended slavery---it would apparently be overriding the majority vote in each southern state.  Basically, the South threatened to secede if there was a president elected that would crap all over their popular sovereignty.  Northern states were allowed to outlaw slavery on their own, at their own pace...due to popular sovereignty.  They were able to do this because it wasn't their economic system.  


Furthermore, the South did not secede because a specific state right had been violated.  The North Violated the Constitution numerous times by not returning slaves that had escaped, and also creating slavery uprisings in the South (I.E. Harpers Ferry).

If you'll take a stroll down history lane, you'll notice that both sides did not go to war until the North refused to give up Fort Sumter (which was on South Carolina property-land.  The South used their state right to secede from the Union.  (<---review the 10th Amendment) The North apparently figured that the states did not have the RIGHT to secede from the Union.  When South Carolina seceded, all lands of South Carolina were considered South Carolina--and no longer apart of the United States.  The North refused to leave South Carolina after numerous requests and warnings. <----that's what kicked off the Civil War.

So to answer your questions--the North violated the South's right (according to the Constitution) to secede from the Union.  It was a states' rights issue...and slavery happened to be a factor.  Had a president been elected that abolished firearms, there would have been the same result.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 13, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Furthermore, the South did not secede because a specific state right had been violated.  The North Violated the Constitution numerous times by not returning slaves that had escaped, and also creating slavery uprisings in the South (I.E. Harpers Ferry).
> 
> If you'll take a stroll down history lane, you'll notice that both sides did not go to war until the North refused to give up Fort Sumter (which was on South Carolina property-land.  The South used their state right to secede from the Union.  (<---review the 10th Amendment) The North apparently figured that the states did not have the RIGHT to secede from the Union.  When South Carolina seceded, all lands of South Carolina were considered South Carolina--and no longer apart of the United States.  The North refused to leave South Carolina after numerous requests and warnings. <----that's what kicked off the Civil War.
> 
> So to answer your questions--the North violated the South's right (according to the Constitution) to secede from the Union.  It was a states' rights issue...and slavery happened to be a factor.  Had a president been elected that abolished firearms, there would have been the same result.



A few FYIs:

Harper's Ferry was John Brown's uprising and while he was an abolitionist, he wasn't a slave.

Second, you won't get far citing the 10th Amendment. The Supreme Court ended a potentially interesting line of cases adding gloss and strength to the tenth amendment in the late 1800s or early 1900s. The last word from the Supreme Court on the 10th Amendment was that it is an unenforceable truism.

Third, in _Texas v. White, 1868_, the Supreme Court found no right for a state to unilaterally secede from the Union. Further, it found no right for the National government to expel a state. The court said, "The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible States."

So, while on its face the Constitution appears to have provisions which will permit secession, the Supreme Court says the right does not exist.

This is of little moment though because if states want to secede, the legal niceties will little matter. The union will be enforced as it was attempted to be in Georgia, by force of arms. Likewise, secession if it is to succeed, will succeed by force of arms. The legality of such a move justified by its success.


----------



## solarefficiency (Aug 13, 2008)

The North was free land for slaves and the South was hard life for slaves pre-Civil War.  This is somewhat true even to this day, as in the North people are more Industrial and Goods focused, whereas people in the South are more faith based.  Still, today, people in the North act differently and have different attitudes towards different races, than people in the South for the most part.  As more people migrate up North, Northern attitudes start to change also.


----------



## hopner33 (Aug 13, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Try again.  The Northern powerbrokers wanted to control the government as did the Southern ones.  They could not control the government so long as the states entered as one free state and one slave state.  The Northerners could give a shit less about slaves, or who owned them beyond the fact that it was a means of attacking the base of Southern power.  Without slaves, Southerners had no means to cultivate their fields on the level they were, and their power would have vanished with their money.  As it did.
> 
> White supremacy is about white supremacy and slavery was a result of the Anglo-Eurpoean belief that whites were superior to blacks (white supremacy).  The US, and the South, did NOT invent slavery, nor did it invent white supremacy.
> 
> ...



I advise that you read _Apostles of Disunion_ by Charles Dew. This book basically reprints the words of Secession Commissioners. These guys were sent from the already seceded Deep South states to convince the Upper South to join them. Their arguments were almost soley based on the fear that Lincoln would cause blacks to be equal to whites in the South, and that this would either cause a race war in which many whites died, or it would cause blacks marrying white women (something southerners deeply feared).

To be fair, the Upper South rejected these arguments. They did not secede until after Lincoln's call for soldiers. But it does illuminate the motivations of the Deep South for secession, and that secession was causally necessary for the Upper South's. 

Racial Equality brought on by Lincoln was a huge fear for the Deep South states. Read the commissioners in their own words in Dew's book.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 13, 2008)

Orange_Juice said:


> It's boggles the mind to think that you would compare our invasion of Iraq on the other side of the world to a domestic insurection that tore OUR nation apart. What type of drugs are you on???



I am comparing a war of US aggression to a war of US aggression.


----------



## hopner33 (Aug 13, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Exactly, slavery just happened to be the the issue that put states rights in jeopardy.  IT could have veen any other thing in which the North was trying to take away.  The North was attempting to forbid something that was Legal according to the Constitution. Also, the North invaded the Southern land after the South legally seceded from the Union.  Granted, it's a good thing the North won, and we now have the society we have, but Northern Propogandic history is not necessarily the right history.
> 
> It's funny how many posters will be quick to criticize the U.S. Government about it's "lies" and how it brainwashes its people, but then turn around and forget that the same thing was certainly possible in 1865.  SCOTUS ruled the Southern secession to be illegal....however, they ruled in favor of separate but equal...



Quick question: Is legality more important than morality or is morality more important than legality?

And it is also clear that Fort Sumter was Federal land, as it had been specifically ceded to the Federal government by the state of South Carolina. Secession does not make that cession void. 

""The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

        "*Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory,* Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

        "Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

        "Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

        "Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 13, 2008)

Orange_Juice said:


> Your argument is wrong. The South didn't need slavery for its economy, they could have simply of paid people to work. But what slavery did was allow for white supremecy to be enforced as strongly as possible. And the South surely didn't need slavery in the territories, where they were complaining the most about it. In fact, it probably wouldn't have been viable in Kansas and other places. The south threatened to breakl up the union many times over slavery in the territories even though it would have been possible there.




My argument isn't wrong.  You mean they could have simply paid people like Northern industrialists did?  Got them off the boat, gave them a job, set them up with the company store, then worked them 18 hours a day to pay off the company store or go to debtor's prison?  THAT's putting a shine on it, for sure.

Slavery was not a means to ensure white supremacy.  That's just hogwash.

You are correct about one thing .... slavery had reached its geographical limits.  It wouldn't have expanded regardless what you called a state.  It was a viable means to an end only in one geographic location -- the South.


----------



## Gunny (Aug 13, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> A few FYIs:
> 
> Harper's Ferry was John Brown's uprising and while he was an abolitionist, he wasn't a slave.
> 
> ...



You cite Texas v White; yet, the Supreme Court had no legal basis to make the ruling it did.  The ruling was made based on a mythical "universal assumption" that no state had a right to secede.  

And seriously, just WHAT were they going to rule?  In favor of the states that seceded?  And declare the US Civil War an illegal war by the US?  Not likely.


----------



## hopner33 (Aug 13, 2008)

BrianH said:


> The South did not invent slavery, nor did invent slavery trade.  In fact, the Southern United States had a minimal amount of slaves in comparison to other nations that owned slaves.
> 
> What do you suggest the Southern slave-owners pay their "workers" with?   I hate to tell you, but the money trail led northward, not the otherway around.  Let's not also forget that slavery was not illegal--even in the North.  Northern people hated blacks just as much as Southern people did.  They may not have wanted them to be slaves, but they surely intended on keeping them separate.
> 
> Once again, The Civil War was fought over states-rights, not slavery.  Slavery was an underlying issue.  It's funny that neither country went to war until the North failed to leave southern lands after the South seceded.




The money trail leading northward was more of a product of the Civil War. Wade Hampton of South Carolina was  the country's richest men in ante-bellum America. In fact, plantation owners were most of the richest men in the nation. The poorer Southerners did not own slaves, so the actual slave owners did, in general, have the money to pay the slaves. 

Secondly, slavery was illegal in the North by the time of thew Civil War. The constitution does not make slavery a legal institution in the national sense as you semm to think. Rather it does not comment on the legality of slavery thus leaving it to the states per the 10th amendment. In the North, slavery was either completely gone by the Civil War, or gradual emancipation had left but a few. 

It is also a gross generalization to say that Northerners hated blacks as much as Southerners did. How do you account for the abolitionists, or the men in the burnt over district of New York who actually raided jails to free runaway slaves?
The North was too heterogeneous about blacks and slavery to say anything. The South in contrast was almost entirely homogeneous in supporting slavery, and those who didn't often moved North.


----------



## hopner33 (Aug 13, 2008)

BrianH said:


> I shouldn't have to answer this, becasue you've already answered it yourself.
> 
> Lincoln was part of the "ABOLITIONIST" party.  They made it clear they wanted slavery to ened.  If the president was elected, and ended slavery---it would apparently be overriding the majority vote in each southern state.  Basically, the South threatened to secede if there was a president elected that would crap all over their popular sovereignty.  Northern states were allowed to outlaw slavery on their own, at their own pace...due to popular sovereignty.  They were able to do this because it wasn't their economic system.
> 
> ...



Lincoln and the North in general made it clear that they would not "crap" all over the popular sovereignity of the Southern states. The Corwin amendment promised that the federal government would leave slavery alone where it already existed. Lincoln would not end slavery where it already existed. As a neo-confederate I thought you would know that! But it kills your notion that the North was trying to squash the popular sovereingity of the South. 

John Brown's raid was a private affair, and the federral governm,ent hanged its perpetrator. I fail to see how the North violated the constiution here.

I have already addressed Fort Sumter.

Your tenth amendment argument is flawed for two reasons. First, no Southerner used the 10th amendment to justify secession. Rather they talked about sovereignity. So while the 10th amendment might have allowed secession, the Confederrate states did not go that route.

Decondly, read the whole 10th amendment. It gives powers to either the states or to the people. We can infer that the people means the nation as a whole because the word people is only used two other times in the Constitution. One is when they are discussing elections in the House, and second in the Preamble which defines the people as "we the people of the United States of America." So under the 10th amendment, how do we determine whether secession was given to the states or to the people as a whole? We cannot.


----------



## Orange_Juice (Aug 14, 2008)

BrianH said:


> I shouldn't have to answer this, becasue you've already answered it yourself.
> 
> Lincoln was part of the "ABOLITIONIST" party.  They made it clear they wanted slavery to ened.  If the president was elected, and ended slavery---it would apparently be overriding the majority vote in each southern state.  Basically, the South threatened to secede if there was a president elected that would crap all over their popular sovereignty.  Northern states were allowed to outlaw slavery on their own, at their own pace...due to popular sovereignty.  They were able to do this because it wasn't their economic system.
> 
> ...



You need a history lesson boy. You seemed have have been told some lies or just made shit up as you went along. The Republican party was "abolitionist" in 1860? That's just stupid. Hell, Lincoln even said he wouldn't stand in the way of an amendment to protect slavery in the south in 1860. Show me anywhere where Lincoln was an abolitionist in 1860 or before


And you bring up popular sovereignty??? The south was shitting all over that concept in Kansas at the time. No wonder you avoided my question about Bleeding Kanasa, it gets in the way of your propagnda history. Do you even know anything about Bleeding Kansas? At all? The southern minority forced a pro-slavery constituion on the state and the southern members of the senate fought to have that corrupt constitution oppressivly imposed on a free people. Shameful! 


Then you go on to say the North didn't violate any states rights, yet the South did seceed for states rights? Huh? How's that work? You are like a little kitten all tied up in a ball of yarn 


I'll agree that the south thought they had a right to seceed and the orth thought they didn't. I'd say that the majority of southern people were against secession

Also, the South had no real reason to simply open fire on United States troops in Fort Sumter, they were doing no harm, blocking no commerce and not a menace at all. It was a provocative act, and totally unnecessary except to serve the southern leaders in starting a war they needed to unite the south


----------



## solarefficiency (Aug 15, 2008)

MLK jr. speech did not change anything 40 years later.  Negroes still treated poorly in the South.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 15, 2008)

So are poor whites.

p.s.  The term negro went out of style in the 1970s.


----------



## solarefficiency (Aug 15, 2008)

BrianH said:


> The South did not invent slavery, nor did invent slavery trade.  In fact, the Southern United States had a minimal amount of slaves in comparison to other nations that owned slaves.
> 
> What do you suggest the Southern slave-owners pay their "workers" with?   I hate to tell you, but the money trail led northward, not the otherway around.  Let's not also forget that slavery was not illegal--even in the North.  Northern people hated blacks just as much as Southern people did.  They may not have wanted them to be slaves, but they surely intended on keeping them separate.
> 
> Once again, The Civil War was fought over states-rights, not slavery.  Slavery was an underlying issue.  It's funny that neither country went to war until the North failed to leave southern lands after the South seceded.



 History states that the Civil war was fought over slavery.  And the South lost, but still 150 years afterwards Southern attitudes still remain the same towards Black America.


----------



## catzmeow (Aug 16, 2008)

Oh really?  Than why are more blacks elected, per capita, in the South than in any other region of the U.S.?

Damn those racist white Southerners.

I would really like to see EVIDENCE that racism is more virulent, endemic, and serious in the south than in the North.  I mean, black folks in the north seem to suffer some pretty serious discrimination, from what I've seen.  And there are many cities, like Atlanta, where there are large populations of affluent blacks.   How exactly is "the white man" keeping these people down, when they're out-earning me?

I wonder how one would go about proving this claim, that Southern attitudes remain the same as 150 years ago.  What about the the black migration that began in the mid 1970s, from North BACK to the South?  Why have so many blacks moved south in the last 50 years if they are exposed to the same treatment they received in 1850?

It is my contention, as someone who has lived in the south for the last 9 years, that poor whites AND poor blacks receive about equally shabby treatment.  I would issue that the big divider in the South these days is CLASS, not race.  After all, it appears to me as if plenty of blacks are serving in positions of leadership (mayor, city council, school district leadership, police chief) around the south, and often in predominantly white communities.  I know that my community, which is about 70% white, has a black mayor, black police chief, and two black city council members.


----------



## BrianH (Aug 19, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> A few FYIs:
> 
> Harper's Ferry was John Brown's uprising and while he was an abolitionist, he wasn't a slave.
> 
> ...



*Secession was a legal event that took place.  IT was not forbidden in the Constitution, and the power of secession was not delegated to the Federal Government...simple as that.  The North won the war and as always, the winners decide what History books get distributed to the school system.  This nation was founded on the principles of abolishing a government (by popular sovereignty) if the people(s) of the union were feeling opressed or that the Government was not holding up to it's end of the bargain.  11 states seceding from the Union early on in our nations history....why don't you google that and tell me that secession was illegal.*


----------



## BrianH (Aug 19, 2008)

hopner33 said:


> The money trail leading northward was more of a product of the Civil War. Wade Hampton of South Carolina was  the country's richest men in ante-bellum America. In fact, plantation owners were most of the richest men in the nation. The poorer Southerners did not own slaves, so the actual slave owners did, in general, have the money to pay the slaves.
> 
> Secondly, slavery was illegal in the North by the time of thew Civil War. The constitution does not make slavery a legal institution in the national sense as you semm to think. Rather it does not comment on the legality of slavery thus leaving it to the states per the 10th amendment. In the North, slavery was either completely gone by the Civil War, or gradual emancipation had left but a few.
> 
> ...




First off, the money trail had always run northward via the simple aspect of two completely different economic systems.  You had a more industrialized North and a more Rural South.--enough said.  Also, a VERY small percentage of southerners were plantation owners to begin with.  That leaves a vast majority of southern people who were poor.  Many POOR southerners were sharecroppers and/or owned slaves themselves and treated them fairly.  It is not strange to read stories of slave owners treating their slaves like family.  

As far as slavery in the North, it was not ILLEGAL according to the Constitution....which is really what matters in this whole debacle.  So, in your mind, because slavery was illegal in the North, all Southern states should forfeit their sovereignty to oblige?  I don't agree with slavery, but we're talking federal law here...

I'm well aware of what did make slavery essentiall legal.  It was a lack of address in the Constution.  IT was not forbidden, and not a power granted to the federal gov.  SO to make my point, secession was legal as well.  It was not a power prohibited, nor a power granted to the fed.  Case Made.


As far as my GROSS generalization....

"Despite the actions of abolitionists, life for free blacks was far from idyllic, due to northern racism. Most free blacks lived in racial enclaves in the major cities of the North: New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati. There, poor living conditions led to disease and death. In a Philadelphia study in 1846, practically all poor black infants died shortly after birth. Even wealthy blacks were prohibited from living in white neighborhoods due to whites' fear of declining property values. 
African Americans were either refused admission to, or segregated in, hotels, restaurants, and theaters. Blacks had limited work and educational opportunities. They were often denied access to public transportation in cities, and allowed on trains only in "Jim Crow" segregated cars. They were also denied civil rights, such as the right to vote and the right to testify in court in many states, thus leaving them open to attack by thieves and mobs, and to being captured and sold by slave catchers. Black men and women were routinely attacked in the streets, and from 1820 to 1850, black churches, schools and homes were looted and burned in riots in major cities throughout the North, forcing many blacks to flee to Canada. "

Africans in America/Part 4/Narrative: Fugitive Slaves and Northern Racism


----------



## editec (Aug 19, 2008)

catzmeow said:


> It is my contention, as someone who has lived in the south for the last 9 years, that poor whites AND poor blacks receive about equally shabby treatment. I would issue that the big divider in the South these days is CLASS, not race.


 
_Shhhhh!_

That's the dirty little* ism* plaguing America that dare not speak its name, catz.

Say things about class too often, and you name will end up a _sub rosa_ list with the likes of me.

It's not a good career move to point out that the king has no clothes.


----------



## BrianH (Aug 19, 2008)

Orange_Juice said:


> You need a history lesson boy. You seemed have have been told some lies or just made shit up as you went along. The Republican party was "abolitionist" in 1860? That's just stupid. Hell, Lincoln even said he wouldn't stand in the way of an amendment to protect slavery in the south in 1860. Show me anywhere where Lincoln was an abolitionist in 1860 or before
> 
> *Oh imbisil....(sigh) Abraham Lincoln - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> Ok....What party was Abraham Lincoln nominated for--Republican Party?
> ...



*Tell me OJ, where is Fort Sumter???  SOUTH CAROLINA....THE SOUTH.  Fort Sumter was in South Carolina.  South Carolina wanted them out.  They granted federal troops this land as long as South Carolina remained in the UNion.  As soon as they wanted the fed troops out, the federal government should have repsected this request.  The federal troops refused to leave SOuth Carolina's land after numerous requests and warnings.  According to your logic, the U.S., under no circumstances, should leave any embassy in the world, if the other country doesn't want us there.

*


----------



## BrianH (Aug 19, 2008)

solarefficiency said:


> History states that the Civil war was fought over slavery.  And the South lost, but still 150 years afterwards Southern attitudes still remain the same towards Black America.



You are obviously the racist my friend.  I said no such thing about blacks.

I have not once in this thread exclaimed that slavery is morally right.  I stated specific facts that slavery was LEGAL...which is part of history.  History also stated, at one point in time, that separate was equal, was it not?  History written in textbooks is not always the correct history.  History, at one point in time, listed the oldest human remains...that is, until they found older human remains.  Granted, the South did lose, slavery was bad, and things are great now.  But that does not mean you should believe a false and propagandic history that "North Good, South Bad."   And that the North were these non-racist individuals that wanted to hold hands and marry blacks.  I haven't a racist bone in my body...but I'm not going to ignore certain aspects of history.

It's racists like you who automatically assume that the South is racist.


----------



## BrianH (Aug 19, 2008)

solarefficiency said:


> MLK jr. speech did not change anything 40 years later.  Negroes still treated poorly in the South.



Proof please....


----------



## ronpaul2008 (Aug 20, 2008)

These arguments that the 'South Seceded over White Supremacy and Slavery' is sickening revisionism and goes to show why we need to end the public education(i.e. centralized mandatory brainwashing) system which teaches this garbage to naive youngsters. Here is the actual truth.

*The Civil War was a war about the philosophies of Karl Marx vs. the philosophies of Thomas Jefferson*

The United States was founded as group of sovereign nations loosely bound by a limited federal government. The federal government was given the powers listed in the constitution and no more, the rest of the powers were left to the states to decide on. This is the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers, and the ones which the southern soldiers laid down their lives for. 

Lincoln's legacy was to consolidate central power and destroy the autonomy of the states. Walter D. Kennedy and Al Benson Jr. assert in 'Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists' that Abraham Lincoln was influenced by communism when the Union condemned the rights of Southern states to express their independence. And it is well documented that Karl Marx was sending letters of praise to Lincoln and instructing German and other European communist refugees in America to support Lincolns invasion of the South. After the 1848-49 revolution great number of members of the League of Communists were forced to emigrate from Germany and later from France and Switzerland as well and most ended up in the United States. This is where they brought the ideas and influence that eventually held sway with Lincoln.

Lincolnian Totalitarians by Thomas DiLorenzo
The Ten Causes Of The War Between The States

I have read that there were more slaves in the northern states then the south. But our schools won't teach you anything about Northern slave-running. No they want to demonize the south. The vast majority of southern soldiers were ordinary dirt farmers, white men who owned small farms and worked the land themselves with their families, and the idea they were fighting to uphold slavery is absurd. They were defending themselves against tyranny. A tiny percentage of Southern men owned big plantations and slaves; they were very rich, paid high dollar for their slaves who usually lived a much easier life then the poor whites. Even Lincoln said the war had nothing to do with slavery. The emancipation proclamation only freed the slaves in rebel states and the northern soldiers rioted when they found out they were fighting to free slaves.

After witnessing the Iraq War some Americans are becoming wise enough to learn that wars are often not about what the powers that be tell you they are about. In general, wars are instituted by powerful bankers and the purpose is to indebt an entire nation to them.  If you want to really dig down into the rabbit hole, read up about how the Rothschild family funded both sides of the Civil War, including Karl Marxs propaganda, and many of the agents that were sent to the United States during that time period. Although Lincoln accomplished their goals, he was not a pure puppet and it is said that they arranged his assassination due to the greenbacks he printed at their defiance. The ultimate goal of the civil war of course was the creation of the Federal Reserve which delivered the country into the hands of a tiny banking elite. 

Many argue that the Civil War never ended it turned into an economic war that continues to this day. Average Americans are taught to vilify the south which in effect helps them to rationalize offenses, and its not likely a coincidence that this is very similar to Hitlers tactics to vilify the Polish, the Jews etc to help the Germans rationalize their offenses. Liberals held themselves up as superior to southerners in the same way Nazis held themselves superior. There is no difference. The southern hick jokes are the same as the Nazis Polish jokes. It is an effective technique because most lefties do not even realize the ugliness or end goals that they are perpetrating, just as most Germans did not realize the ugliness or end goals they were perpetrating. 

I will take issue with the comment about the south being more racist. It is a proven fact that the more liberal an area, the more segregated it is. In any liberal city there is clearly a white part of town and a black and Mexican part of town. The white part of town costs 2-3 times as much to live in. So for instance the black part of town the houses may go for 200-300k on average and the white part of town it is 600-900k. Think about this. These city dwelling liberals are paying 500k over 30 years to live in the white part of town. With interest this is a million dollars over 30 years! Then they may pay extra to send their kids to white private schools, or live in gated communities to further segregate themselves. This amounts to city liberals paying 30-50k a year, much of what they work for is simply to segregate themselves. Obviously this makes many of them feel very guilty inside so they want to lash out at people they believe are more racist then themselves so they can feel morally superior to others. Thats my theory.


----------



## editec (Aug 20, 2008)

What a load of crap.


----------



## Tech_Esq (Aug 20, 2008)

BrianH said:


> *Secession was a legal event that took place.  IT was not forbidden in the Constitution, and the power of secession was not delegated to the Federal Government...simple as that.  The North won the war and as always, the winners decide what History books get distributed to the school system.  This nation was founded on the principles of abolishing a government (by popular sovereignty) if the people(s) of the union were feeling opressed or that the Government was not holding up to it's end of the bargain.  11 states seceding from the Union early on in our nations history....why don't you google that and tell me that secession was illegal.*



It appears that you wish to hang your hat upon the 10th Amendment and that despite more recent interpretations of that amendment that the state of the law circa 1860-61 was that secession was not an illegal act forbidden by the Constitution. I understand that I have restated your opinion there and please correct me if I have mis-stated it.

The Tenth Amendment provides:


> The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.



The contention being that one of the powers reserved to the states was the power to secede. Although, the states, when they seceded took it one step further, they went through the same process as went they adopted the Constitution, that is by convention rather than act of the legislature. This shows an understanding by the secessionist leaders that there was a fundemental difference between the foundations of the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution. The latter bypassed the state legislatures to go directly to the people of the states. The secessionist leaders by calling a convention to vote for or against secession were basically holding a Constitutional convention in reverse. The reasoning being that if a state can opt in, it can opt out as well. 

For this to be the case one of two cases must be the truth: that there is an enumerated power within the Constitution that provides for states which having been admitted to the Union, now wish to leave. Or, that it is an innate right of a state to secede and that right survives ratification of the Constitution by it. The former clearly does not exist, so it is the latter which needs analysis.

It is upon this point that the SCOTUS says in White that because of the way in which the states were brought into the Union by Constitutional convention by-passing the legislative processes of the sovereign states, they were essentially transformed and no longer sovereign. That this is proven by the very preamble of the Constitution when looked upon in the genesis of the Constitution. That the Constitution was created out of dissatisfaction with the Articles of Confederation and the very words of the preamble, ".... in order to form a more perfect union...." point directly to the fact that the Constitution was intended to weaken state power which had been so destructive to the union under the Articles. Further, that the while the Constitution provides for a way to get in to the union, it provides no way to get out of the union. Neither is there a method to have a state ejected from the union. In fact then, the union is a one-way door. Once in, a state may never leave.

However, this analysis does not address whether the state may have had a right to secession prior to adoption of the Constitution. SCOTUS's opinion in White side-steps this by saying the fundemental nature of the "states" changed when they ratified the Constitution and became mere sub-units of the the new sovereign nation-state (The United States of America). That opinion may bear more looking at. I think it is clear that the states had the right to come and go within the Articles, in fact this was an oft threatened act. It would seem to me however that whether a state could come and go would depend on the nature of the agreement entered into by the state.

It is clear from the genesis of the Constitution (to correct the defects of the Articles), from the method used to ratify the Constitution (direct convention of the people) and adoption (9 of 13 states) that the intention of the framers and adopters of the Constitution was exactly the opposite of increasing power of the states to leave the union. In fact, as shown above it was to weaken the states ability to do just that. This was not an oversight by the framers, this was directly in there mind, because this was a fundemental problem with the Articles. Silence within the Constitution therefore cannot be considered acquiescence but instead it should be construed as prohibition. Thus, the agreement or compact the states, or more correctly, the people thereof, entered into was not one from which they could withdraw. In fact, they knew or should have known that when the agreement was entered into as this was one of the direct issues meant to be addressed by the Constitution.

Returning to the question of states as mere political sub-units of The United States after ratification of the Constitution. I don't think it was the intent of the framers to so radically change the nature of the sovereign states so as to reduce them so far in their status. While it was clearly their intent to reduce their individual power as shown above so as to make the object of union possible. Some have argued that the Constitution was nothing more than a "treaty" between sovereigns. I believe nothing could be further from the truth, since when is a mere treaty accomplished by 13 plebiscites? There is no doubt that the fundemental nature of the several states were changed by the effect of the adoption of the Constitution. I would argue, specifically, that the right to withdraw was forfeited by the nature of the adoption and the bare words (or omission of words) providing method for adoption but not of withdrawal. If the framers wished to provide a way to withdraw, they would have written it. As I've stated before, this was not something that was far from the framers minds and had been threatened on numerous occasions under the Articles. Thus, by omitting the language allowing for withdrawal, the Constitution refuses to admit of the power to do it. And, as a pragmatic point, this like so many other issues in the Constitution was too hot to handle and was left to later generations to decide.

Calhoun argued for years for state nullification of national law. In the end, all of these issues got bound up with the wagonload of issues settled by the War of Northern Aggression.


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 20, 2008)

sillie me ...that war has been long over....why not concern ourselves with the two we are currently engaged in.


----------



## hopner33 (Aug 20, 2008)

_First off, the money trail had always run northward via the simple aspect of two completely different economic systems.  You had a more industrialized North and a more Rural South.--enough said.  Also, a VERY small percentage of southerners were plantation owners to begin with.  That leaves a vast majority of southern people who were poor.  Many POOR southerners were sharecroppers and/or owned slaves themselves and treated them fairly.  It is not strange to read stories of slave owners treating their slaves like family._ 

 By "money trail" I thought that you meant capital. The movement of capital to the North was a result of the Civil War for two main reasons. First, the South lost one of its main assetts of capital- slaves. Secondly the craetion of national banknotes caused 300 million dollars to be deposited in Northern banks rather than Southern ones.

Look at it this way. In 1860 the South had 26% of the personal income of the United States. In 1900, the South only had 15% of the total national personal income. (Source The Civil War and Reconstruction by Holt, Donald, and BAker). The South in 1860 also had right around 30% of the total US population.

Thus the South in 1860 almost had the percentage of income that its population warranted.  But by 1900, it the percentage of income had dropped substancially. 

Also sharecropping was a product of the Civil War in most cases rather han something that existed before it. So there were not many SOuthern sharecroppers before the war because land was readily available. 

And did some Southerners treat slaves like family? Yes. Just look at Jefferson Davis. But when they were treating the slaves as family, a paternilistic hierarchy towards a whole race developed. Those paternilistic ideals might have been the worst form of racism as it assumed that Blacks were entirely dependent creatures, who could not function without a white master. 

_As far as slavery in the North, it was not ILLEGAL according to the Constitution....which is really what matters in this whole debacle.  So, in your mind, because slavery was illegal in the North, all Southern states should forfeit their sovereignty to oblige?  I don't agree with slavery, but we're talking federal law here..._

No. Because slavery is morally represhensible all Southern states should forfeit their "sovereignity"to oblige. And what about the sovereignity of the slaves that the institution of slavery had taken away?


_I'm well aware of what did make slavery essentiall legal.  It was a lack of address in the Constution.  IT was not forbidden, and not a power granted to the federal gov.  SO to make my point, secession was legal as well.  It was not a power prohibited, nor a power granted to the fed.  Case Made._

Read the 10th amendment again. How do you know that secession was given to the States and not the people (as a whole)? Both interpretations seem equally valid. 

_As far as my GROSS generalization....

"Despite the actions of abolitionists, life for free blacks was far from idyllic, due to northern racism. Most free blacks lived in racial enclaves in the major cities of the North: New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati. There, poor living conditions led to disease and death. In a Philadelphia study in 1846, practically all poor black infants died shortly after birth. Even wealthy blacks were prohibited from living in white neighborhoods due to whites' fear of declining property values. 
African Americans were either refused admission to, or segregated in, hotels, restaurants, and theaters. Blacks had limited work and educational opportunities. They were often denied access to public transportation in cities, and allowed on trains only in "Jim Crow" segregated cars. They were also denied civil rights, such as the right to vote and the right to testify in court in many states, thus leaving them open to attack by thieves and mobs, and to being captured and sold by slave catchers. Black men and women were routinely attacked in the streets, and from 1820 to 1850, black churches, schools and homes were looted and burned in riots in major cities throughout the North, forcing many blacks to flee to Canada. "_

How can you explain Oberlin college, or all the abolitionist congressmen repeatedly reelected?

Your generalization had some truth to it, I never denied that. But there are too many examples that make your generalization gross and false.


----------



## hopner33 (Aug 20, 2008)

_Tell me OJ, where is Fort Sumter??? SOUTH CAROLINA....THE SOUTH. Fort Sumter was in South Carolina. South Carolina wanted them out. They granted federal troops this land as long as South Carolina remained in the UNion. As soon as they wanted the fed troops out, the federal government should have repsected this request. The federal troops refused to leave SOuth Carolina's land after numerous requests and warnings. According to your logic, the U.S., under no circumstances, should leave any embassy in the world, if the other country doesn't want us there._

Embassy's are not officially ceded to the US government. The land of Fort Sumter was. South Carolina had given up all  rights to it. 

Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836

        "The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

        "Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

        "Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

        "Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

        "Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836


----------



## hopner33 (Aug 20, 2008)

_These arguments that the 'South Seceded over White Supremacy and Slavery' is sickening revisionism and goes to show why we need to end the public education(i.e. centralized mandatory brainwashing) system which teaches this garbage to naive youngsters. Here is the actual truth._

This just shows that any Lew Rockwell website needs to come with a surgeon general's warning that it might reduce mental acumen.

_The Civil War was a war about the philosophies of Karl Marx vs. the philosophies of Thomas Jefferson_

The most famous and lasting of Thomas Jefferson's philosophies was "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." How could the South represent the principals of Thomas Jefferson when it was the side refusing liberty to 1/3 of its population?

_The United States was founded as group of sovereign nations loosely bound by a limited federal government. The federal government was given the powers listed in the constitution and no more, the rest of the powers were left to the states to decide on. This is the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers, and the ones which the southern soldiers laid down their lives for. _

Your first assumption here is wrong. You are correct that the United States did create a limited federal government. But your assumption about sovereignity is dead wrong. Most people who claim this point to the Treaty of Paris saying that Britian recognized the states as individual sovereign nations by saying that " His Brittanic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz., New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free sovereign and independent states." But look at this more carefully. Viz means "namely". Thus the treaty acknowledging the sovereingity of the United STates namely Virginia etc. Secondly, the text refers to the "two parties." 

The other common theme is saying that the Articles of Confederation say the states are sovereign. This is true, but it also says that the Union is perpetual. More importantly, members of the Constitutional Convention such as Rufus King stated that "The states were not sovereigns in the sense contended for by some. They did not possess the peculiar features of sovereignty,they could not make war, nor peace, nor alliances, nor treaties. Considering them as political beings, they were dumb, for they could not speak to any foreign sovereign whatever. They were deaf, for they could not hear any propositions from such sovereign. They had not even the organs or faculties of defence or offence, for they could not of themselves raise troops, or equip vessels, for war.... If the states, therefore, retained some portion of their sovereignty [after declaring independence], they had certainly divested themselves of essential portions of it," and Charles Pinkney of South Carolina said that "t]he separate independence and individual sovereignty of the several states were never thought of by the enlightened band of patriots who framed this Declaration; the several states are not even mentioned by name in any part of it,as if it was intended to impress this maxim on America, that our freedom and independence arose from our union, and that without it we could neither be free nor independent.

_Lincoln's legacy was to consolidate central power and destroy the autonomy of the states. Walter D. Kennedy and Al Benson Jr. assert in 'Red Republicans and Lincoln's Marxists' that Abraham Lincoln was influenced by communism when the Union condemned the rights of Southern states to express their independence. And it is well documented that Karl Marx was sending letters of praise to Lincoln and instructing German and other European communist refugees in America to support Lincolns invasion of the South. After the 1848-49 revolution great number of members of the League of Communists were forced to emigrate from Germany and later from France and Switzerland as well and most ended up in the United States. This is where they brought the ideas and influence that eventually held sway with Lincoln._

You are going to have to provide some evidence that Lincoln was influenced by Marx, and howe this affected his actions.

I find your claim about the immigrants somehwta doubtful. The Know Nothing PArty, which would form a major part of Republ;ican Arty was harshly anti-immigrant. The Democrats was the pro-immigrant group. Granted the Republicans moderated this somewhat in 1860, but the Democrats were the party of immigrants, not the other way around.

_I have read that there were more slaves in the northern states then the south. But our schools won't teach you anything about Northern slave-running. No they want to demonize the south. The vast majority of southern soldiers were ordinary dirt farmers, white men who owned small farms and worked the land themselves with their families, and the idea they were fighting to uphold slavery is absurd. They were defending themselves against tyranny. A tiny percentage of Southern men owned big plantations and slaves; they were very rich, paid high dollar for their slaves who usually lived a much easier life then the poor whites. Even Lincoln said the war had nothing to do with slavery. The emancipation proclamation only freed the slaves in rebel states and the northern soldiers rioted when they found out they were fighting to free slaves._

There were not more Northern slaves than Southern ones. Whoever told you that is clueless. Moreover, the Northern soldiers did not riot when they found out about the Emancipation Proclamation. 

Most Southerners did not own slaves, that is correct. But their was an esential racial componet to their thoughts. Even though they were poor they were still racially superior to a whole race. This thought gave themselves value. Slavery was the entire Southern socity. You could not escape it. 

_The ultimate goal of the civil war of course was the creation of the Federal Reserve which delivered the country into the hands of a tiny banking elite. 
_

I would love to see the causation on this one.


----------



## BrianH (Aug 20, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> sillie me ...that war has been long over....why not concern ourselves with the two we are currently engaged in.



Read the category that this thread is under.....Hmmm....


----------



## BrianH (Aug 20, 2008)

Tech_Esq said:


> It appears that you wish to hang your hat upon the 10th Amendment and that despite more recent interpretations of that amendment that the state of the law circa 1860-61 was that secession was not an illegal act forbidden by the Constitution. I understand that I have restated your opinion there and please correct me if I have mis-stated it.
> 
> The Tenth Amendment provides:
> 
> ...



I'm not quite sure if you're agreeing or disagreeing with me Tech?  You post it as an argument, but then seem to say the same thing I have said.

I do, however, disagree with your statements about the Articles of Confederation.  Neither the Articles of Confederation nor the Constitution forbid states from seceding.  11 of the original 13 states seceding from the union under the AOC and adopted the new constitution.  The main difference between people arguing about secession is:

People arguing that states did have the right to seced, us explicit interpretation.

People who argue that states did not have the right to secede, use implied interpretation.  

(Simple as that).

Those who argue against the legal secession of the South, use an implied meaning of "a perfect union".--ignoring the fact that the definitions of "perfect" in itself is an opinion and is an implication.

Those who argue that the states had the right/power to secede, specifically address the powers reserved to the states....granted by the 10th Amendment.  It's the same Amendment that gives states other rights....such as the death penalty, education, etc...  They are not powers specifically granted to the U.S. government, nor are they prohibited powers.  You cannot include one state power--using this amendment, and then exclude other powers that you may not agree with.

But like I said, I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me.


----------



## BrianH (Aug 20, 2008)

ronpaul2008 said:


> These arguments that the 'South Seceded over White Supremacy and Slavery' is sickening revisionism and goes to show why we need to end the public education(i.e. centralized mandatory brainwashing) system which teaches this garbage to naive youngsters. Here is the actual truth.
> 
> *The Civil War was a war about the philosophies of Karl Marx vs. the philosophies of Thomas Jefferson*
> 
> ...



While I'm not quite sure I agree with your Karl Marx and Jefferson interpretation of the Civil War, I will agree that the South is villified in U.S. History.  It's not uncommon to find other such examples in U.S. history books.  Wars we've won, we villify the opponent.  War's we've "lost" they become our friends... 

What I've noticed here, is many conspiracy nuts always blaming the U.S. gov. of lying and righting revisionist and false histories, however, they don't view it possible that the U.S. gov, could have done the same thing back then.  IMO, the Northern treatment of the Irish is almost as bad as slavery in the South.  I couldn't imagine imigrating to a country, and being drafted into the military as soon as I stepped off the boat....They were really for people's rights weren't they....


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 20, 2008)

I am sorry.  I am new.  I made a flippant remark without realizing all the divisions in here.
Again I am sorry to the thread starter and all of the posters.  Just bare with me.  I will get the hang of this.  (I hope)


----------



## BrianH (Aug 23, 2008)

strollingbones said:


> I am sorry.  I am new.  I made a flippant remark without realizing all the divisions in here.
> Again I am sorry to the thread starter and all of the posters.  Just bare with me.  I will get the hang of this.  (I hope)



It's not a big deal.  There are MUCH MUCH worse posters here. I'm sure every one of us can be a "bad" poster from time to time.


----------



## editec (Aug 23, 2008)

hopner33 said:


> The poorer Southerners did not own slaves, so the actual slave owners did, in general, have the money to pay the slaves.


 
One out of every four *families* in the South had one or more slaves.






> It is also a gross generalization to say that Northerners hated blacks as much as Southerners did. How do you account for the abolitionists, or the men in the burnt over district of New York who actually raided jails to free runaway slaves?


 
It is a convenient (and probably meaningless) generalization that apologists of the Southern cause (that would be the one that went to war to protect slavery, FYI) like to use to mitigate the vile nature of their Southern heros.


----------



## BrianH (Aug 23, 2008)

editec said:


> One out of every four *families* in the South had one or more slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Editec, are you suggesting that historical facts are wrong...Everyone learns in basic history, that blacks were mistreated ALL around.  Granted, the South did more to own slaves and there was certainly more racism and prejudice there, however, it is wrong to suggest that blacks were treated with dignity and equality in the North....


----------



## editec (Aug 24, 2008)

BrianH said:


> Editec, are you suggesting that historical facts are wrong...Everyone learns in basic history, that blacks were mistreated ALL around. Granted, the South did more to own slaves and there was certainly more racism and prejudice there, however, it is wrong to suggest that blacks were treated with dignity and equality in the North....


 
I am suggesting that comparing the racism of the North to SLAVERY of the south is an appeal to lose of sense of perspective in order to say that the North and the South were the same.

Making any such comparison is _absurd._


----------



## BrianH (Aug 24, 2008)

editec said:


> I am suggesting that comparing the racism of the North to SLAVERY of the south is an appeal to lose of sense of perspective in order to say that the North and the South were the same.
> 
> Making any such comparison is _absurd._



With all due respect, what do you think a comparison is?

No one, is justifying the South's treatment of blacks by claiming that the North did the same, or even remotely the same things.  What is happening, is northerners tend to see black and white and percieve the North as "GOOD" and the South as "BAD".  Which is certainly not the case.

Furthermore, we both know that the civil war was not fought based on slavery.  Sure, slavery was an issue, but the issue could easily have been something else.  Had the North not threatened to end slavery (i.e.-take away the sovereign power of the southern people) then the civil war would not have happened...when it did.  The war was not set in stone until Lincoln--a member of the Republicans (staunchly abolitionist) was elected to the presidency.  Even so, all the South did was Legally secede from the Union.  I'll admit that both sides are responsible for the conflict...however, I will not concede to say that the South seceded illegally.  

My point with mentioning racism in the north was to shed a little "light" on single-minded people who believe only ONE version of history.  It's only natural though, for someone to pick a side.  The history you read in the "history books" are not a confederate history.  It is a northern history...and that being so, many posters need to wake up and smell what they are cooking.  They will post and post about our government (today) lying to us and doing corrupt things, but then abandon this notion when talking about the civil war...as if all old and deceased historical individuals were kind, righteous, honorable, etc....


----------



## glockmail (Aug 24, 2008)

editec said:


> Agreed.
> 
> One in four families in the South had slaves, folks......


 And they were all Democrats. Many in the South were Republicans and did not support the Confederacy.


----------



## editec (Aug 25, 2008)

Did you folks KNOW that the majority of Souterners did NOT support succession?

Did you folks KNOW that, if tens of thousands of Southerners had not fought on the side of the North, that is isn't likely the North would have won that war?


The noble South that most of you apologists believe existed, _never existed._

Millions of Southerners did NOT support succcession, folks. 

The folks in Northern Georgia, for example, were attemtping to outlaw Slavery in_ that_ state even before the rebellion.

The South drafted men, remember, just like the North had to?

Did ya'll know that by the closing days of the war, five our of 6 men in gray had deserted the cause, the cuase that many of them realized was not THEIR cause?

Of course ya'll don't know_ that._

Knowing THAT the South was divided on the issue of slavery might shatter your precious mythologies about the glorious nobility of the Southern aristocracy that some of you seem to think were men of honor.


----------



## strollingbones (Aug 25, 2008)

people in the mountains , who did not own slaves did not want to fight in any war.  check out the southern appalachians war history.  Most declined the offer to fight.


----------



## glockmail (Aug 25, 2008)

editec said:


> ....Knowing THAT the South was divided on the issue of slavery might shatter your precious mythologies about the glorious nobility of the Southern aristocracy that some of you seem to think were men of honor.


 They were *Democrats*.


----------



## editec (Aug 25, 2008)

BrianH said:


> With all due respect, what do you think a comparison is?


 
I think making the comparison is specious on its face. 



> No one, is justifying the South's treatment of blacks by claiming that the North did the same, or even remotely the same things.


 
Nor do I think that is what they are trying to do. What I think they are trying to do is rewrite history...*as we will see you TRYING to do in the following passages.*



> What is happening, is northerners tend to see black and white and percieve the North as "GOOD" and the South as "BAD". Which is certainly not the case.


 
How easy it is for you to assume you can speak for Northerners. I'm a Northerner, and I have made no such assinine simplistic statements.



> Furthermore, we both know that the civil war was not fought based on slavery.


 
No... _you_ think you know that. I know it was fought for nothing else _but that. _

I know perfectly well that the southern Aristos who controlled the state legislatures went to war for nothing BUT their right to keep slaves _and more *to move that slave-based economy into the territories.*_




> Sure, slavery was an issue, but the issue could easily have been something else.


 
Absolute poppycock, sport. It was about the slave based economy.  

*There was no issue of such importance* that would make the Southern Aristo class that dominated that society do something so catastropically foolhearty as declaring war on the Federal forces, *EXCEPT to save THEIR SLAVE ECONOMY. *



> Had the North not threatened to end slavery (i.e.-take away the sovereign power of the southern people) then the civil war would not have happened...when it did.


 
You prove that you do not know your history, again. 

The North did NOT _threaten_ to end slavery. Lincoln did not threaten to end slavery, either. In fact he clearly stated he could live with slavery in the south and had no intention of freeing the slaves.



> The war was not set in stone until Lincoln--a member of the Republicans (staunchly abolitionist) was elected to the presidency.


 
Lincoln did NOT threaten to end slavery. Get that LIE out of you head. Read your history and get back to me, okay?



> Even so, all the South did was Legally secede from the Union.


 
Really? What steps did they take to legally secede from the union? 

Please name those steps they took. I am unaware of any of these steps you believe they took, as is the rest of the world who studies that period in American history.



> I'll admit that both sides are responsible for the conflict...however, I will not concede to say that the South seceded illegally.


 
Fine. I won't ask you to concede on something which is entirely a matter of your opinion. 

I'll concede only that people refusing to allow slavery to expand into the territories was the prime cause for the Southern leadership deciding to go to war when it did.



> My point with mentioning racism in the north was to shed a little "light" on single-minded people who believe only ONE version of history.


 
There is only one true set of FACTS and that is all history really cares about, sport. 

History basically leaves all such moral judgements to other people like you and me to debate to our hearts content.

*The only immoral behavior to history is to make crap up that isn't true.*



> It's only natural though, for someone to pick a side.


 
I choose to pick no side.  The war between the states is long over.

All I seek is that the discussion about it be based on true verifable facts. 

I have made it perfectly clear I understand the rock and hard place the South was in. 

You _assume _that means I hate the South because YOU are the partisan here, not I. 





> The history you read in the "history books" are not a confederate history.


 
History, _good_ history, doesn't have a side, sport. 

History only offers us facts. 

You have apparently been mislead about the facts at least two critical points, Brian.  They are: 

1. The North was going to outlaw slavery (it was not)
2. the South tried to legally secede (If that is true, I don't know a damned thing about it.  Educate me)

And you make a claim that nobody can make because it is entirely an opinion: _*That there even was a legal way for a state to secede.*_ 

Here, I find no fault in your argument because the best legal minds in America cannot arrive at consensus about that issue, either. 




> It is a northern history...and that being so, many posters need to wake up and smell what they are cooking. They will post and post about our government (today) lying to us and doing corrupt things, but then abandon this notion when talking about the civil war...as if all old and deceased historical individuals were kind, righteous, honorable, etc....


 
Let's just say I trust the history that is over a century old, and vetted and revetted and vetted again by historians all that time.

You seem to be assuming I have absolutely no sympathy for the plight of the South.

I know perfectly well, probably far better than you do, what scared the bejeus out of the Aristos of the South.

I understand why they took such a desperate gamble as attempting to secede, too.

You assume I have no sympathy for them because I have made it perfectly clear I have no sympathy for slavery, I suppose.

*But I DO have sympathy for a people born into a society which was built on slavery when they understand that ripping that slavery system out of their lives would destroy their society completely.*

I even understand why the Soutern Aristos  went to war _when they did._

I understand that they thought it was NOW OR NEVER.

Apparently I understand the mindset of the Southern cause far better than you apparently do.

You believe_ myths_, my friend. 

A combination of real facts coupled with few critical untruths to make your mythological view of history more palatable _for you._

You need to read the words of the people who lead that Soutern cause in DEPTH to understand that they were not fools.

You need to understand  that these were people with their economic backs to the wall. 

You need to understand that they scared to death that they were going to go SLOWLY bankrupt if they could not expand slavery into the territories.

You need to understand they also were also completely aware that they would lose the power they had in Congress if they could not transplant slavery into the territories,  too.

But you ALSO need to know that the North did not start the war. 

You also need to know that the North was NOT planning on ending slavery in the existing SOUTHERN states.

You need to know that the Northern industrialists (the Northern Aristos)  was more than willing to watch slavery die a long slow lingering death by economics, and they would NOT have lifted a finger to end slavery IN THE SOUTH.

What the North planned and was trying to do, was keep slavery *out of the territories.*

The Southern ARISTOS couldn't stand _that_ outcome because they really _really_ needed NEW land. Cotton kills the vitality of land.  

The southern Aristos saw the writing on the wall _and they were deperate_

I mean you do realize that the majority capitalization in the entire South was about 75% in human flesh,and the rest was the value of the rapidly dying land where they grew cotton, _right?_

The War between the States was a war about ECONOMIC SURVIVAL, sport. 

Slaves were the issue because SLAVES were the source of the SOUTHERN ARISTO's wealth and slaves also represented their CAPITALIZATION, too.

And since ECONOMY of the* leaders* of the southern rebellion was inextricably tied to expanding slavery into the territories, they dragged the Southern people (many of themn kicking and screaming they didn't WANT to go) into their WAR.

If you truly love the SOUTH,and the SOUTHERN PEOPLE, you really and truly need to *read your history.*

The southern ARISTO screwed the average Southerner by starting war that the average Sourthern person really had NO reason to want to fight.

SLAVES kept the value of WHITE PEOPLE's labors down, amigo.

The three out of four Southern families that did not have slaves, had no vested interest in fighting to preserve that cause.


----------



## BrianH (Aug 25, 2008)

editec said:


> Did you folks KNOW that the majority of Souterners did NOT support succession?
> 
> *Which means what exactly?*
> 
> ...



*As far as the rest, this simply doesn't do anything to prove that the South seceded illegally.  Gore won the popular vote...remember?  There are MANY things that the government does without full support of the people.  We're in Iraq aren't we?  You argue these points with the false assumptions that we are apolgozing for the South's actions.  I have done nothing but argue that the South did not secede illegally--according to the U.S. Constitution.  And also argued against the notion that the Union was this heavenly, honorable and nobel nation fighting for the good and equality of mankind.  There are always two histories, but only the winner's history is what makes it into the history books.*


----------



## BrianH (Aug 25, 2008)

editec said:


> I think making the comparison is specious on its face.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Well, we've obviously proven who can type the longest version of bullshit on this thread.

LINCOLN...may have never directly stated that he was for ending slavery, however, his PARTY---DID.  And I've already posted NUMEROUS quotes from Lincoln on his position on slavery.  Granted, his views are the same as mine, but this statement that Lincoln had no intention of ending slavery is what you referred to as "poppycock--sport", considering that's exactly WHAT Lincoln did.  Also, the South or North did not go to war, until the South attacked Fort Sumter when the North refused to leave...despite numerous warnings.  

You are right about one thing, Slavery was the economic production means for the South...but an ENTIRELY LEGAL ONE.  The problem comes about, when the republican party (i.e. ABOLITIONISTS) began pumping their intentions.  The Northern Republicans were waging a political war on the Southern Democratic aristocracy and threatening to TAKE AWAY their only means of making money (granted, dishonorable indeeed)---but legal none the less.  As far as Georgia, that's one state out of the entire Confederacy.  The point is, if the North were trying to outlaw guns, in the nation, the result would have been the same.  Simple as that.  The South felt threatened, and took action.  I suggest you read a little bit of historical fact yourself, instead of relying on curriculum based history books...

"Nobody has put it better than Frederick Douglas, the former slave and abolitionist leader, in a speech in 1876: "[Lincoln's] great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow countrymen.... Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined."

Book Review: Father Abraham Lincoln's Relentless Struggle To End Slavery


Like I said before, SLAVERY was an underlying issue.  Had the North been threatening to abolish something else, the result would have been the same.  It just happened to be "the issue" in which resulted in the Souths threatened existence during this time.  Other states (such as Montana) have threatened to secede over possible abolition of guns by the SCOTUS.
Montana Threatens To Secede If Supreme Court Rules Against Individual Gun Rights - Say Anything

This war was fought of the the threatened loss of popular sovereignty and states rights.  Why don't you google some southern FACTUAL resources and see if they coincide with your opinion.  I've done both...and I've read more history and studied more history than you can imagine, SPORT.

by the way, before doubting someone's intelligence on the subject....check your own.  I have not once exclaimed that you have no sympathy for the South...which is certainly not the discussion here.  You are, however, letting your personal emotions on the institution of slavery get in the way of FACT.  Like I said, why don't you quite reading one-sided history instead of believing what mom says about dad.  You're the guy that can't see that Hitler was one of the greatest leaders of all time--until a certain point, strictly because of hist motives.  I don't like the guy either and I hope he's burning in hell, however, he's was man who brought Germany from ruins the most powerful nation on earth.  But that's beside the fact.


----------



## wayne (Sep 1, 2008)

Robert E. LEE is my hero too.  You call him a traitor. Well is Jane Fonda a traitor.  How about the weather underground and the liberals who supported the soviets during cold war are they traitors. If general Lee is a traitor then so am I.


----------



## Inferno (Sep 1, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Y'all are about as full of shit as it gets; especially, the originator of this thread.  Every crap-ola point he tries to make has been debunked.
> 
> The most basic being blacks were not given equality until the Civil Rights Act.  They were given freedom.  Then treated like 2nd class citizens by this NATION, not just the South, for a century.
> 
> ...



I totally agree that the war for southern independence was fought over states rights. That is when federal government became so strong. The carpet baggers came on an raped the south. Slavery was dying. 
After the war for southern independence was lost the freeman the slaves could hardly find a place in the north to live. In Illinois the could live only in one area in Chicago called Bronzeville. That was it.


----------



## BrianH (Sep 2, 2008)

wayne said:


> Robert E. LEE is my hero too.  You call him a traitor. Well is Jane Fonda a traitor.  How about the weather underground and the liberals who supported the soviets during cold war are they traitors. If general Lee is a traitor then so am I.



Exactly, which is precisley the reason that no confederate generals were tried for treason.


----------

