I feel like what i learned in school about the american civil war wasnt the whole story (Chinese, peace)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is the History forum so let's keep it to history-related themes shall we?
The following is the long story short version of what the former Confederates, & the neo-Confederates for over a century gained by promoting the 'Lost Cause' mythologies right on up to the present day; its purpose was to:
Graf, Rebecca Simmons (2015) "Origins of the Lost Cause: Pollard to the Present," Saber and Scroll: Vol. 4: Iss. 2, Article 7.
Available at: h p://digitalcommons.apus.edu/saberandscroll/vol4/iss2/7
When former Confederates & neo-Confederates in the 19th century spoke of the 'Southern way of life', they referred to a way of life founded on white supremacy & supported by the institution of race-based slavery.
It’s you that’s trying to tie this into modern politics.
The problem with your last statement is that:
1) white supremacy was prevalent in the North as well
2) slavery was legal in most of the North at the beginning of the Civil War (including Washington DC).
slavery was legal in most of the North at the beginning of the Civil War (including Washington DC).
It is completely inaccurate to say that "slavery was legal IN MOST OF THE NORTH at the beginning of the Civil War." Washington, DC, Kentucky, Missouri, etc., were border states. The states that remained in the Union that allowed slavery generally aren't associated with northern free states regarding slavery, whether considering the legality of slavery or political attitudes toward the institution.
<<By 1804 (including, New York (1799), New Jersey (1804)), all of the northern states had abolished slavery or set measures in place to gradually abolish it.>>
While it's fair to say northern whites, most of whom had little association with free blacks, were white supremacists, that's a far cry from any moral willingness to tolerate African American slavery. You pretend as if "Uncle Tom's Cabin" had never been written. As evidenced by the Reconstruction Period in the South, the Republicans and the northern electorate well believed in political and legal equality for African Americans, a far cry from the attitudes in the South.
By the way, all of those who argue that the Civil War wasn't predominately about slavery ignore the contrary evidence exemplified by "Bloody Kansas."
The conflict between the slave states and the free states over slavery in U.S. territories and new states certainly set the battle lines. With Abraham Lincoln as President, there would be no more expansion of slavery into new territories/states, and that and the Republican Party's hostility to slavery was the last straw for the slave interests that controlled the southern states.
It’s you that’s trying to tie this into modern politics.
The problem with your last statement is that:
1) white supremacy was prevalent in the North as well
2) slavery was legal in most of the North at the beginning of the Civil War (including Washington DC).
Personally, you are seemingly indifferent to reality, historical or otherwise.
Take your response here for example:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100
I’ve explained this too many different ways by now and it’s getting exhausting. Take slaves out of the equation completely and the South would have likely succeeded anyway. ...
No wonder you're exhausted, denying historical realities by framing with fantasy must sap a lot of energy. It's just not reasonable.
As for 1): White supremacy was prevalent in the North, South, East & West before the American Civil War. White supremacy was the underlying or root cause of race-based slavery.
The former United States comprising the Confederacy seceded because they desired to keep owning people as property. Why else would they include this in their Constitution?
In ARTICLE. I., Section. 9.
Where the USA Constitution states:
Quote:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
The CSA Constitution States:
Quote:
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
How else did the CSA intend to be different than the USA?
The 36th Congress of the United States of America sought to avert military conflict, they reviewed more than 200 resolutions with respect to slavery, including introducing 57 resolutions proposing constitutional amendments.
Apparently no amount of compromise was sufficient.
Personally, you are seemingly indifferent to reality, historical or otherwise.
Take your response here for example:
No wonder you're exhausted, denying historical realities by framing with fantasy must sap a lot of energy. It's just not reasonable.
As for 1): White supremacy was prevalent in the North, South, East & West before the American Civil War. White supremacy was the underlying or root cause of race-based slavery.
The former United States comprising the Confederacy seceded because they desired to keep owning people as property. Why else would they include this in their Constitution?
In ARTICLE. I., Section. 9.
Where the USA Constitution states:
The CSA Constitution States:
How else did the CSA intend to be different than the USA?
The 36th Congress of the United States of America sought to avert military conflict, they reviewed more than 200 resolutions with respect to slavery, including introducing 57 resolutions proposing constitutional amendments.
Apparently no amount of compromise was sufficient.
Wow good points Chiguest. Regarding the bolded, I never thought about it before this thread that Jefferson Davis might have started the war (bombardment of Fort Sumter) because he was afraid that some of the seceded states might leave the Confederacy and rejoin the Union! I am not sure, I do not recall reading about Davis' motives about Fort Sumter in any Civil War era book I read but it is very interesting that Fort Sumter was attacked while the North was trying to find peaceful compromises that might end the crisis.
This is one of the 57 resolutions you mention above, a proposed amendment to the US Constitution passed by the US Congress in March 1861.
(36. 1&] Joint Resolution to amend the Constitutionof the UnitedStates.
Marsh 2i 1861.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to 2=8. "t tothe Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths the Constitution. of said Legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, viz. "Aside Thirteen. "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the,domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." APPROVED,March 2, 1861.
Personally, you are seemingly indifferent to reality, historical or otherwise.
Take your response here for example:
No wonder you're exhausted, denying historical realities by framing with fantasy must sap a lot of energy. It's just not reasonable.
As for 1): White supremacy was prevalent in the North, South, East & West before the American Civil War. White supremacy was the underlying or root cause of race-based slavery.
The former United States comprising the Confederacy seceded because they desired to keep owning people as property. Why else would they include this in their Constitution?
In ARTICLE. I., Section. 9.
Where the USA Constitution states:
The CSA Constitution States:
How else did the CSA intend to be different than the USA?
The 36th Congress of the United States of America sought to avert military conflict, they reviewed more than 200 resolutions with respect to slavery, including introducing 57 resolutions proposing constitutional amendments.
Apparently no amount of compromise was sufficient.
So in other words the North was apparently Ok with passing resolutions keeping slavery in lieu of a conflict. Who do you think brought the slaves over in the first place?
So full disclaimer to get my background where I'm posting from.... I have a "northern perspective and education"
So I've really become interested in the civil war lately and the more I've been learning the more interested I've become. I remember in school basically being told more or less the war was about slavery and related issues and that's the way it was. Never gave a 2nd thought about it and just thought that's that...
... The more I read and learn I'm really challenging what I thought I knew. And I'm curious to get some more opinions on this topic or get some more books or documentaries recommended to me.
If you guys have any interesting points or feedback let me know. I'm always willing to reevaluate and learn.
If you have any book or movie / mini series recommendations let me know
I think it’s strange that some are saying “Who cares? That was a long time ago."
Do we no longer believe that “Those who forget their history are doomed to repeat it” ? Is it acceptable in this case because the very little we have been taught is agreeable with our personal convictions, so it’s easy to do the “Keep moving folks ... Nothing to see here!” thing?
Scary. It wasn’t THAT long ago … it’s not like it involves the fall of the Roman Empire, or the rightful inhabitants of the “Holy Land”. And we are still experiencing the fallout of social/cultural/political unrest.
Within that context; I wouldn’t accept any information compiled, interpreted or presented, by anybody . ESPECIALLY since everybody’s been spoon-fed the same homogenized, warm & fuzzy version. Luckily, in our present day; we have access to the same content & context those who lived then had. I love archived news papers!
Some excerpts from a Pre-Civil War article titled “Governor’s Message” printed in the “Georgetown Winyah (South Carolina) Observer December 4, 1850”:
“ … it is my deliberate opinion, that the period has arrived for the removal from the
State, of every free colored person, who is not the owner of real estate, or slave
property.
This population is not only an non-productive class but it is & always has been,
essentially corrupt & corrupting. Their longer residence among us, if the warfare
between the North & the South is to continue, will eventually generate evils very
difficult of eradication. Possessing, in unlimited degree, the right of locomotion,
they can, in person, bear intelligence in a day, from one section of the state to
another, or, through the Post Office, mature of their own plans of villainy, as well
as execute orders emanating from foreign sources…”
And further along:
“In South Carolina, free ***** (former slaves), posses all the rights of property
& protection to which the white inhabitants are entitled. They may purchase, hold
transmit, by descent real estate. In despite of these & other inestimable rights, which
they undisturbedly enjoy, there are few of the 9,000 in our limits who own property
beyond a very limited amount …”
A little more:
“ The North & the South differ fundamentally in institutions & from the framework of
their social organization they need different laws. While a strong government
with all the appliances of extensive patronage, is necessary to the former, a mild &
equal system of legal restraints, is required by the latter. The restriction on foreign
commerce is the policy of the one, free trade that of the other.
The North, is from necessity a commercial & manufacturing people, the South an agricultural
community … The character & interest of each insure the harmonious action of both, in all their
operations.”
Now these are just a small portions of the entire newspaper (found on NewspaperArchive but I can't link here because it's a password protected access site) but so far I feel as though the South was facing legislation proposed by the North, for the benefit of the North; that would be economically detrimental to the South.
I feel like there was, in 1850, a growing suspicion from the South; that the recent trends of abolition were intentional & designed to weaken the Souths standing; having created a population of displaced & disgruntled peoples that they themselves? Did not have to contend with.
I personally? Haven't educated myself enough to state an opinion on this subject one way or the other. But if I wanted too? I'd use archived sources written, printed, distributed & read; by those with the perspective to do so. Additionally; I'd research what sources the textbooks used, at least for the sake of cross-reference.
Wow good points Chiguest. Regarding the bolded, I never thought about it before this thread that Jefferson Davis might have started the war (bombardment of Fort Sumter) because he was afraid that some of the seceded states might leave the Confederacy and rejoin the Union! I am not sure, I do not recall reading about Davis' motives about Fort Sumter in any Civil War era book I read but it is very interesting that Fort Sumter was attacked while the North was trying to find peaceful compromises that might end the crisis.
This is one of the 57 resolutions you mention above, a proposed amendment to the US Constitution passed by the US Congress in March 1861.
(36. 1&] Joint Resolution to amend the Constitutionof the UnitedStates.
Marsh 2i 1861.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the following article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to 2=8. "t tothe Constitution of the United States, which, when ratified by three-fourths the Constitution. of said Legislatures, shall be valid, to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution, viz. "Aside Thirteen. "No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the,domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State." APPROVED,March 2, 1861.
The Confederate attack on Fort Sumter began in on April 12, 1861 before the states could ratify. Very suspicious indeed.
Davis ordered the attack of Fort Sumter because it was in the process of being resupplied. Lincoln told the South Carolina governor he was sending food only and not troops. Lincoln didn’t tell Davis because that would mean legitimizing Davis’s position and recognizing the Confederacy as a sovereign entity. The problem was Davis was calling the shots, not South Carolina’s Governor. What Davis saw was a rearming mission to the fort he wanted evacuated.
So in other words the North was apparently Ok with passing resolutions keeping slavery in lieu of a conflict. Who do you think brought the slaves over in the first place?
Please translate, that didn't make sense
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
