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.
LOL Yeah, I remember reading that one too and, like you say, he seemed to have dropped the ball with some of the "Civil War" alternate histories that came after "Guns of the South." I remember thinking oh, man, some of these theme-scenarios are ludicrous!
What always got me more than anything else was that if you were going to buy land from Mexico to build a transcontinental railroad why not spend a few more million so it actually you know goes to the Pacific instead of the Gulf of California? I mean sure they're connected, it is the whole principle of the thing.
I am no expert. I have not read into all the old writings of the leaders at the time. I go largely on general knowledge and the amount that I have read.
Slavery was the biggest issue, though not the only one. Many Northerners, though not all, opposed slavery. Southerners were nearly all supporters, whether they owned slaves or not. I recall reading about various disputes on import tariffs. The North favored them, to protect their industries. The South disliked them, as they could often get machinery cheaper from overseas than from the North.
While Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, slavery was not his only concern. He said himself that preserving the Union was his most important priority; that he would rather see the Union preserved with slavery than divided without it. And remember, the Proclamation did not free slaves in other states, only the ones in the Confederacy. Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky & a few others still had legal slavery.
Also, while Northerners opposed slavery, they were not automatically friends to Blacks. Southern Quakers helped many slaves escape to the North and Canada. Northern Quakers helped with that, but some opposed helping Blacks settle in their communities. They didn't want "them" too close. Some Southerners claimed that many slave owners treated their slaves better than Northern factories treated their factory workers. Probably some truth to that, but any slave whose back was being whipped may have argued that point.
As I understand the Constitution, the Southern states had every right to secede. The US was a collective body of the "several states" and formed a federal government for their mutual benefit and protection. Nowhere did the Constitution provide that a state could not withdraw from the league if it so desired. Granted, it would have been a worse issue if a state in the interior withdrew, as it would create a vacuum between other states. Not an issue here, as all the seceding states were adjacent and had their own coastline.
I am a native Southerner but I say against the South that it was weak on moral grounds. Many states enacted coded laws based on "the inferiority of the Negro race" and that "their status of servitude is mutually beneficial", etc. We fought Britain for liberty, and stated in the Declaration that "all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights". In fact, I think our later Constitution had only 3 major flaws. It should have outlawed slavery, should have given women full rights of citizenship and extended citizenship to people of all the Indian tribes, with full voting rights.
Defending our rights and liberties is a good thing, and the South had every right to do that by seceding. Holding someone else under our thumb is not. Holding on to slavery was a mistake in our nation in general and the South in particular. If the Confederacy had won the war, it would still have had to deal with slavery. Holding on to remnants of slavery through Jim Crow laws and segregation was not right. Otherwise honorable people disgraced themselves by forming the Ku Klux Klan and other such groups. Jim Crow lasted into my lifetime. I was born in 1957 and well remember many restaurants & motels being off limits to Blacks. We had few "white only" signs, but the rule was clear. It was understood and taught in whispers that some things were "for us', not "for them". "They have their own". I remember the 1st Black student in our school, as girl in 2nd grade. I was in 1st grade. The girl was tormented by many kids. A neighbor of mine was her defender and only friend for a long time. I was in 5th grade when 2 Black students came to my class. Both were good kids. That helped me not get a full dose of racism that was "in the water" in those days. I had Black friends from time to time but was strongly discouraged from "bringing them home".
However, the South did have some honor in that regard. Some of the Indian tribes supported the Confederacy. I once knew someone with an Indian ancestor who said the Confederate government paid a tribe for land it needed for public use. I assume this was true, came from a well informed person. Elsewhere, tribal land was simply confiscated and the people sent to marginal reservations.
AS far as who started the war, I have read that the Confederacy offered compensation to the US for forts and other federal properties, but it was refused. The assault on Fort Sumter was seen by the South as ejecting a foreign power out of their territory.
You will never see me fly a Confederate flag. Most people I know who do so are still living in the 1860's. But I do defend the South against Yankees who criticize and berate us as being dumb rednecks. We have some of the best people in the world and some of the worst, just as any other place. We have confronted a lot of our own evils and grown a lot.
Just a few personal observations. I will get both praise and fury, I'm sure.
BTW, I remember a bit of news on radio, back in the 70's. Said a Confederate POW died in a prison in Connecticut. Somehow, his family could not be located & body could not be promptly given to Southern forces. He was buried in nearby town cemetery. Ladies of the town kept up his grave. Their daughters, granddaughters continued caring for grave, up through the 70's when I heard the story. Lady interviewed said they knew any ladies in the South would have done the same for one of their boys. Can't find any mention of it on Google. Has anyone else heard of this?
As I understand the Constitution, the Southern states had every right to secede. The US was a collective body of the "several states" and formed a federal government for their mutual benefit and protection. Nowhere did the Constitution provide that a state could not withdraw from the league if it so desired.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it express or outline any right or process for secession. Why does the absense of language about something mean one particular thing about that something rather than anything else?
If you and I signed a monetary agreement, but then some dispute over how money was to be distributed arose, and there was no language in our agreement which covered the specific circumstances, would you agree with me if I claimed "Since it doesn't say I can't have all that money, then I get to have it?"
Absense of language doesn't mean something must be okay because it wasn't covered, it means that there is a dispute which will require some sort of settlement outside the language of the contract.
In the case of Southern secession, that settlement process turned out to be a war.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it express or outline any right or process for secession. Why does the absense of language about something mean one particular thing about that something rather than anything else?
No where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to coerce any state to remain a part of a union they no longer want to be part of.
The absence of language means that those powers not specifically delegated to the federal government belong to the states and people.
Quote:
If you and I signed a monetary agreement, but then some dispute over how money was to be distributed arose, and there was no language in our agreement which covered the specific circumstances, would you agree with me if I claimed "Since it doesn't say I can't have all that money, then I get to have it?"
This is a total non-sequituer.
Quote:
Absense of language doesn't mean something must be okay because it wasn't covered, it means that there is a dispute which will require some sort of settlement outside the language of the contract.
On the contrary, in this case, yes it does. The 10th Amendment is clear on it. All powers not specifically delegated -- operative term here -- by the states to the federal government, belong to the states and people, respectively
Quote:
In the case of Southern secession, that settlement process turned out to be a war.
It turned out to be a war because Lincoln made a decision to invade the Lower South, and the Southern people had no choice but to defend themselves.
And certainly...if they didn't have the sense to concede after Vicks/Gettysburgh, they really shoulda quit after Sherman sacked Atlanta in the Fall of 1864!! C'mon guys, what am I missing here? But no, the South continues to fight for 9 more months!
Idjuts.
The vast majority of Southerners didn't have slaves, but they did understand that the fight was about EVERY citizen's enslavement to a large and dangerous Federal government. The basis of the entire nation--primarily state's rights, and a VERY limited Federal level--was threatened. And when the stakes are that high, you fight to the bitter end.
Just like during the Revolutionary War, when fighting a rich and powerful English military, Southerners were outnumbered and outgunned, but fighting for the PRINCIPLES the nation was founded on (while the Northerners fought for Federal supremacy under the euphemism of "Saving the Union").
As others have pointed out, slavery would have ended here, like it did everywhere else without war, simply because it was not economically feasible in an industrialized nation. Unfortunately the war that was supposedly fought to END slavery, resulted in the entire nation of working citizens being enslaved for an abusive and insatiably greedy new master known as the Federal Government--the very entity the Founding Fathers had warned must be stopped from growing or it would destroy freedom and eventually the nation.
Last edited by NHartphotog; 05-30-2011 at 08:38 PM..
The vast majority of Southerners didn't have slaves, but they did understand that the fight was about EVERY citizen's enslavement to a large and dangerous Federal government. The basis of the entire nation--primarily state's rights, and a VERY limited Federal level--was threatened. And when the stakes are that high, you fight to the bitter end.
Just like during the Revolutionary War, when fighting a rich and powerful English military, Southerners were outnumbered and outgunned, but fighting for the PRINCIPLES the nation was founded on (while the Northerners fought for Federal supremacy under the euphemism of "Saving the Union).
As others have pointed out, slavery would have ended here, like it did everywhere else without war, simply because it was not economically feasible in an industrialized nation. Unfortunately the war that was supposedly fought to END slavery, resulted in the entire nation of working citizens being enslaved for an abusive and insatiably greedy new master known as the Federal Government--the very entity the Founding Fathers had warned must be stopped from growing or it would destroy freedom and eventually the nation.
TexasReb:
.
Backed by all the force of "Because we said so."
Ok. *shrug* Fair enough, I guess, from the point of view of someone who totally rejects the intent of the ammendment and that a free people have a right to govern themselves.. But ok, might makes right? Stalin said so, I believe it was, first. How many divisions has the Pope? Anyway, so is that what it comes down to? Great moral justification for the invasion of the South by the Lincoln administration; coming down to wage total war on a people --even innocent women and children -- who had never done the North any wrong. Yep, that is really something to be proud of!
Quote:
Only to those who do not understand it.
Because there is nothing to understand as it makes no sense. One cannot make an analogy of two (or however many) individuals in a business contract to apply as to soveriegn states forming a voluntary federal union, and one party going their own way.
Last edited by TexasReb; 05-30-2011 at 10:01 PM..
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.
