South Carolina stereotypes? (Lexington, North: transplants, move, beach)

[waccamatt]

I agree with nooneknowsmyname. While slavery wasn't the sole reason for the Civil War, it was certainly a significant reason. It is a piece of revisionist history to suggest otherwise.

[Steve_I]

Originally Posted by Brandon Hoffman

BTW, the "War of Northern Aggression" was actually fought over money and slavery was a convenient excuse.

Slavery was just an excuse huh?

Have you read the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes of Secession" which was adopted by the South Carolina secession convention in 1860?

[Frankie117]

Actually slavery was a scapegoat, one of those things that 'justifies' a war, it was really about how much the states can do on their own, and the Northern lust for power over its Southern counterparts. The North knew exactly what would happen if they win, dirt cheap land, and everything they could ever want, but could never get in the North. Had the South actually held off the North, they would had to have dropped slavery shortly after the war in order to gain International plausibility.

Depending on how you interpret the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the right to secede was actually a natural one given to the states (until after the war of course). The South was being wronged, and we actually have the right to rebel against the government should we feel it necessarily. Northern elites exerted control on the South, and we didn't want to take it.

By the way, the South Carolina Palmetto does come from the Revolutionary War, the crescent is/was the secession symbol.

[waccamatt]

Originally Posted by Frankie117

Actually slavery was a scapegoat, one of those things that 'justifies' a war, it was really about how much the states can do on their own, and the Northern lust for power over its Southern counterparts. The North knew exactly what would happen if they win, dirt cheap land, and everything they could ever want, but could never get in the North. Had the South actually held off the North, they would had to have dropped slavery shortly after the war in order to gain International plausibility.

Depending on how you interpret the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the right to secede was actually a natural one given to the states (until after the war of course). The South was being wronged, and we actually have the right to rebel against the government should we feel it necessarily. Northern elites exerted control on the South, and we didn't want to take it.

By the way, the South Carolina Palmetto does come from the Revolutionary War, the crescent is/was the secession symbol.

That is a slant clearly learned in a school that didn't want to admit the truth. I think you've been sold a bill of goods. I've spent most of my life here and I love it, but there is no way to sugar coat that history.

[Steve_I]

Originally Posted by Frankie117

Actually slavery was a scapegoat, one of those things that 'justifies' a war, it was really about how much the states can do on their own, and the Northern lust for power over its Southern counterparts. The North knew exactly what would happen if they win, dirt cheap land, and everything they could ever want, but could never get in the North. Had the South actually held off the North, they would had to have dropped slavery shortly after the war in order to gain International plausibility.

Depending on how you interpret the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the right to secede was actually a natural one given to the states (until after the war of course). The South was being wronged, and we actually have the right to rebel against the government should we feel it necessarily. Northern elites exerted control on the South, and we didn't want to take it.

By the way, the South Carolina Palmetto does come from the Revolutionary War, the crescent is/was the secession symbol.

Why does the Declaration of the Immediate Causes of Secession talk about slavery so much then? Read it.

Also, check this out: Eric Foner: American Historian

Of note is this: "South Carolina's statesmen identified the preservation of slavery as their overriding concern. States' rights and regional loyalty, often cited today as the real meaning of the Confederate flag, were invoked only as these doctrines protected slavery."


What if people started using this flag and said it was for their heritage:
http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:...1861_FAIR_.BMP

[Frankie117]

Originally Posted by waccamatt

That is a slant clearly learned in a school that didn't want to admit the truth. I think you've been sold a bill of goods. I've spent most of my life here and I love it, but there is no way to sugar coat that history.

It's great to know you pride yourself by insulting me, but I have always studied on my own outside of school, and went into a lot more than what could come out of any school. Admitadly, I was never in a class that actually got to the Civil War. It seems like every year you repeat what you learned the year before, and that you are always on Colonial Times - oh well, so much for our great educational system (but thats a different issue).

Originally Posted by Steve_I

Why does the Declaration of the Immediate Causes of Secession talk about slavery so much then? Read it.

Also, check this out: Eric Foner: American Historian

Of note is this: "South Carolina's statesmen identified the preservation of slavery as their overriding concern. States' rights and regional loyalty, often cited today as the real meaning of the Confederate flag, were invoked only as these doctrines protected slavery."

I find it hard to believe that so many people would die in such a presumably "racist" region for slaves. The winners of wars write the history books, and I don't think it was that document that caused the Secession, its just a piece of paper. If you would try digging deeper, you would find that there were a lot of documents about "Proposed Secession", all have their own bizarre reasons, but some are plausible.

[Steve_I]

Originally Posted by Frankie117

I find it hard to believe that so many people would die in such a presumably "racist" region for slaves. The winners of wars write the history books, and I don't think it was that document that caused the Secession, its just a piece of paper. If you would try digging deeper, you would find that there were a lot of documents about "Proposed Secession", all have their own bizarre reasons, but some are plausible.

Just a piece of paper? Thats the document that started it all! Thats like saying the declaration of independence is just a piece of paper, and that people were talking about screwing the Brits long before.

Also, if you read the link you would have also read this part:
"Slavery, as Southern Vice President Alexander Stephens put it, was "the cornerstone" of the Confederacy. This does not mean that it was the only issue contributing to the coming of the Civil War. Nor does it suggest that the hundreds of thousands of men who fought under the Confederate banner, most of them nonslaveholders, were motivated exclusively by the desire to keep blacks in bondage. Yet to claim that Confederate soldiers went to war to protect their "way of life" conveniently forgets that this way of life was founded on slavery."

Like he was saying, it wasn't the only reason people died, but when people say that slavery had NOTHING DO DO WITH THE WAR/SUCCESSION, they are dreaming. Slavery is part of the heritage, should anyone be proud enough to raise the flag, I dunno, but if you do, at least admit slavery is part of that heritage.

[Frankie117]

Originally Posted by Steve_I

Just a piece of paper? Thats the document that started it all! Thats like saying the declaration of independence is just a piece of paper, and that people were talking about screwing the Brits long before.

But people were talking about rebelling against Britain long before the Declaration. Ever since the first days of the colonies people were resentful of British rule. Similarly, the North and South always had their differences, there was even a war between the two in the 1600's. If you read about how the South was treated economically from the 1840's up to the time of the Civil War you will that it was really a war between the Elitist and the common man. If anything, let majority rule be another major reason for the events.

Originally Posted by Steve_I

Like he was saying, it wasn't the only reason people died, but when people say that slavery had NOTHING DO DO WITH THE WAR/SUCCESSION, they are dreaming. Slavery is part of the heritage, should anyone be proud enough to raise the flag, I dunno, but if you do, at least admit slavery is part of that heritage.

The rich Southern Democrats were 'fighting' (although they didn't actually 'fight') to keep slavery, but that would never have been the common man's motives - especially not those who had nothing to do with it. So no, I disagree that slavery is part of it. Theres is just no way we'd be willing to loose so much for something like keeping slavery.

[waccamatt]

The words "slave", "slave-holding", "Non-slaveholding" and "slavery" are found 54 times in the South Carolina Secession Declaration. These are the direct words of the state's leaders at that time.

Furman: South Carolina Secession Declaration

[p21]
The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

[p23]
These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor

[Brandon Hoffman]

Slavery certainly played a part in the Civil War, but it was not the primary cause. Economics, pride, rights, slavery were among some of the many things that created a rift b/n the south and north during that time.