Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-29-2011, 03:01 PM
 
8,411 posts, read 7,406,022 times
Reputation: 8752

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nighteyes View Post
Actually, no. The South was predominantly Republican before the Civil War.

Now, since it seems that all is forgiven, the South is again almost totally Republican.
Gonna have to agree with GS...

The Republican Party was founded in 1854 from the remnants of the Whig Party and from the Northern Free-Soil movement to oppose the Kansas Nebraska Act and the spread of the "peculiar institution" into the Territories.

It seems odd to claim that Southerners were predominantly self-identified with an anti-slavery political movement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-29-2011, 03:12 PM
 
Location: Flippin AR
5,513 posts, read 5,239,271 times
Reputation: 6243
I guess in a way the Civil War WAS about slavery.

There's no way the average American in 2011 would have to work until the second week in April (every year) for a corrupt government that virtually none of us support, without ALL working Americans being de-facto slaves to a massive Federal Government. We have no choice. They confiscate the money before we even get it from our employers. And even if we are 100% opposed to Washington's insane War-Mongering around the world, we have ZERO voice stopping it, or even stopping our wages from paying for it all. NO politicians are willing to stop the flow of billions to the Military-Industrial complex, so we have NO choice at all. Some "democracy."

"Tax Freedom Day® will arrive on April 12 this year, the 102nd day of 2011. That means Americans will work well over three months of the year, from January 1 to April 12, before they have earned enough money to pay this year's tax obligations at the federal, state and local levels....Americans will pay more in taxes in 2011 than they will spend on groceries, clothing and shelter combined."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2011, 04:37 PM
 
Location: Sinking in the Great Salt Lake
13,138 posts, read 22,807,624 times
Reputation: 14116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dual Citizen CA-OR View Post
I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard conservatives claim with a straight face that the civil war had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery, which has always struck me as rather laughable. While I can understand why someone from the south might be sensitive about admitting that their forefathers fought to keep slaves in bondage, how many decades have to pass before they come to grips with reality?

I recently read a great article that shed some light about the reasons why so many have been in denial for so long…

“…Generations of historians have argued over the cause of the war. “Everyone knew at the time that the war was ultimately about slavery (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/Fort-Sumter-The-Civil-War-Begins.htm - broken link),” says Orville Vernon Burton, a native South Carolinian and author of The Age of Lincoln. “After the war, some began saying that it was really about states’ rights, or a clash of two different cultures, or about the tariff, or about the industrializing North versus the agrarian South. All these interpretations came together to portray the Civil War as a collision of two noble civilizations from which black slaves had been airbrushed out.” African-American historians from W.E.B. Du Bois to John Hope Franklin begged to differ with the revisionist view, but they were overwhelmed by white historians, both Southern and Northern, who, during the long era of Jim Crow, largely ignored the importance of slavery in shaping the politics of secession.

Fifty years ago, the question of slavery was so loaded, says Harold Holzer, author of Lincoln President-Elect and other works on the 16th president, that the issue virtually paralyzed the federal commission charged with organizing events commemorating the war’s centennial in 1961, from which African-Americans were virtually excluded. (Arrangements for the sesquicentennial have been left to individual states.) At the time, some Southern members reacted with hostility to any emphasis on slavery, for fear that it would embolden the then-burgeoning civil rights movement. Only later were African-American views of the war and its origins finally heard, and scholarly opinion began to shift. Says Holzer, “Only in recent years have we returned to the obvious—that it was about slavery.”

As Emory Thomas, author of The Confederate Nation 1861-1865 and a retired professor of history at the University of Georgia, puts it, “The heart and soul of the secession argument was slavery and race. Most white Southerners favored racial subordination, and they wanted to protect the status quo. They were concerned that the Lincoln administration would restrict slavery, and they were right.”…”
There is the mythology of the Civil War and the real reason(s), just like there's the mythological reason for the second Iraq war (to save American babies from evil weapons of mass destruction) and the real reason (to control a geopolitically valuable and oil loaded area after the puppet ruler we put there started to think and act on his own.)

The civil war had been brewing for decades before it actually happened. Both sides were economically powerful, but by different means. The South depended on slavery to stay wealthy and powerful; The North was heavily engaged in industry. The North wanted more power over the south in national issues, but the South kept getting more votes in congress as Midwestern Slave states were carved out of former Indian territory.

Anyway, the North had the moral high ground and played their antislavery card loudly but if you've seen "Glory", you'd know the blacks weren't thought of highly by the North at the time either.

Like most wars, the Civil War was ultimately a scrap over who would sit on top of the garbage heap. Everything else was incidental or a strategy to that end.

Last edited by Chango; 09-29-2011 at 06:03 PM.. Reason: spelling
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2011, 05:02 PM
 
Location: Bay Area - Portland
286 posts, read 521,233 times
Reputation: 355
Sorry for the broken link, the last letter was dropped from the address, try this;
Fort Sumter: The Civil War Begins by Fergus M. Bordewich

Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname View Post
I'm sorry to let FACTS rain on your little parade, but:The Emancipation Proclamation DID NOT FREE THE SLAVES IN THE NORTH.

Didn't happen till partway THROUGH the war...
You raise a great point about Lincoln’s cynical and politically expedient proclamation, you’re correct, coming after the fact, it wasn’t the cause of the war.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname View Post
As to you 'trying to blame conservatives':

You DO understand that the south was predominantly Democrat's back then... right?

Lincoln was a republican.
I’m not ‘blaming’ conservatives, just pointing out that many are in denial about the cause of the war.

Yes that’s right, “the south was predominantly Democrat's back then”. I just hope YOU understand that southern Democrats were predominantly conservatives until the civil rights movement when they left en masse for the Republican Party.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname View Post
Underlined portion: Check out how Black people were treated in ALL the states.
I’m well aware of how blacks have been treated everywhere in America and I’m sure you’re not implying that that somehow lessened the horror of slavery.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname View Post
History... an amazing thing!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname View Post
Oh, and I'm pretty sure what your selective hearing ignored was that while slavery was ONE of the reasons... it was not THE predominant reason. Why else would all those poor southerners who DIDN'T OWN SLAVES be willing to DIE in the fight...
Yes history is an amazing thing and the myriad of reasons why non-slave owners went to war doesn’t alter the fact that slavery was THE predominant cause.

I’m talking about the cause of the war; the economics of slavery, the interests of corporations and their politicians caused the war, what motivated many ignorant racist hayseed’s to fight is best summed up by this excerpt from Mr. Bordewich’s article;

“…According to historian Douglas R. Egerton, author of Year of Meteors: Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, and the Election that Brought on the Civil War, “To win over the yeoman farmers—who would wind up doing nearly all the fighting—the Fire-eaters relentlessly played on race, warning them that, unless they supported secession, within ten years or less their children would be the slaves of Negroes.”…”
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2011, 05:09 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 24,110,503 times
Reputation: 21239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nighteyes View Post
Please reconsult your sources.
You mean sources such as the results of the 1860 election?

Let us see how well the GOP, which you claim was the party of most Southerners at the time, fared in the voting in those Southern States.

Let's start with Alabama where Lincoln got....well, he didn't get any votes because the GOP wasn't even on the ballot. I wonder how those Republican dominated Southerners managed to forget something that important to the success of their party?

Okay, forget Alabama, how about Arkansas? Ooops, same problem, zero votes for Lincoln in Arkansas because those staunch GOP folks there also forgot to place their party on the ballot. What a coincidence! Two states, both dominated by the same party, and both forgetting to even place their party's nominee on the ballot. What are the odds?

Well, I guess they had a good laugh about that in Louisiana where....uh oh, would you believe it? They forgot as well! Incredible!

Florida doesn't enjoy a very good reputation for conducting reasonable elections, but I bet that they at least got their party on the ballot and....oh dear, seems that they slipped up as well.

Georgia? Mississippi? North or South Carolina? Tennessee? Texas? Nope, all of them forgot as well.

Ah, but Virginia, a southern state, a slave state, but not one of the original walk out states, surely their strong support of their dominant GOP party was reflected in the results of the election, right?

Let's see...Virginia, the Democrat Breckinridge, the strongest supporter of slavery, got 74,325 votes. Bell, the Constitutional Union nominee got 74, 481 votes. Stephen Douglas, the Northen Democrat nominee got 16,198 votes.

Abraham Lincoln, the nominee of the GOP dominated South got.....1,887 votes.

But at least the GOP was on the ballot in Virginia!

So, Nighteyes, I have to ask....

What in the blue eyed world are you talking about?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2011, 07:44 AM
 
5,730 posts, read 10,124,163 times
Reputation: 8052
[quote=Dual Citizen CA-OR;21088855]Sorry for the broken link, the last letter was dropped from the address, try this;
Fort Sumter: The Civil War Begins by Fergus M. Bordewich


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dual Citizen CA-OR View Post
You raise a great point about Lincoln’s cynical and politically expedient proclamation, you’re correct, coming after the fact, it wasn’t the cause of the war.
Thank you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dual Citizen CA-OR View Post
I’m not ‘blaming’ conservatives, just pointing out that many are in denial about the cause of the war.
Many PEOPLE are in denial. Why do you target conservatives?
It's been MY anecdotal experience, that more conservatives are more 'on the ball' concerning the truth than liberals, but you didn't hear me say that.
Why the agenda?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dual Citizen CA-OR View Post
Yes that’s right, “the south was predominantly Democrat's back then”. I just hope YOU understand that southern Democrats were predominantly conservatives until the civil rights movement when they left en masse for the Republican Party.
It was actually more gradual, and centered more around 'The New Deal' some years earlier.

Oh, and I disagree with the 'Mass migration' just as much as I disagree with your theoretical timing. I grew up in the south. My Dad was a Democrat LONG after he was voting Republican. 'His daddy was a Democrat, his daddy was a democrat... that's just what you did when it came time to vote'
Saw that alot growing up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dual Citizen CA-OR View Post
I’m well aware of how blacks have been treated everywhere in America and I’m sure you’re not implying that that somehow lessened the horror of slavery.
Nope. just putting it in prespective, it's NOT like the north treated them better.
And it's not like the EARLIER enslaving of white people in Africa (Heck going back to the children's crusade who were sold enmass to Africans) was right ether. Slavery is wrong no matter what.
Juuust trying to get the historical perspective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dual Citizen CA-OR View Post
Yes history is an amazing thing and the myriad of reasons why non-slave owners went to war doesn’t alter the fact that slavery was THE predominant cause.
Even when the economic situation was remarkably similar to the situation where the Colonies broke away from England? (Requiring through the use of tariffs for the Agrarian south to ship their goods to the industrial north and receive their finished goods from the same) Sorry no sale.
Feel free to attempt to support your statement however.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dual Citizen CA-OR View Post
I’m talking about the cause of the war; the economics of slavery, the interests of corporations and their politicians caused the war, what motivated many ignorant racist hayseed’s to fight is best summed up by this excerpt from Mr. Bordewich’s article;

“…According to historian Douglas R. Egerton, author of Year of Meteors: Stephen Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, and the Election that Brought on the Civil War, “To win over the yeoman farmers—who would wind up doing nearly all the fighting—the Fire-eaters relentlessly played on race, warning them that, unless they supported secession, within ten years or less their children would be the slaves of Negroes.”…”
Yea, you don't see what you do to your cause there?

-Although I do not disagree that racism isn't used.
Heck, it's STILL used by BOTH sides.
'Whiteman is holding you down'
'Blackman is gonna break in here and rape your women' etc....


Thank you grandstander. You save me the trouble of looking the stats up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2011, 09:03 AM
 
Location: Willow Spring and Mocksville
275 posts, read 396,746 times
Reputation: 482
Looking at the primary sources for the era, such as speeches, newspaper editorials, and the Articles of Secession, it is clear that Slavery was indeed the primary issue that led to secession. This point is hammered over and over. For example:

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth...." - Alexander Stephens

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.... There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin" - Mississippi Articles of Secession

"...That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states..." - Texas Articles of Secession

"It was on account of encroachments upon the institution of slavery by the sectional majority of the old Union, that South Carolina seceded from that Union." - The Charleston Mercury, 1865

The list goes on and on. Confederates were very plain about why they seceded: the threat to the institution of Slavery. If you read what they said, not what people said in the 150 years afterwards, it is perfectly clear. It was only after the war that apologists began to construct a different rationale, which has been a cornerstone of Lost Cause Mythology. That being said, Slavery is not necessarily the reason that all Confederates fought for the supported the Confederacy. These are not the same same thing. Many people talk as if they were synonmyous, but they are not. Similarly, Lincoln's supposed "abuses", i.e. habeous corpus, conscription, etc. have nothing to do with the Secession issue. They are also a seperate issue. Seven of the Confederate States seceded before Lincoln was even inaugurated.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2011, 09:09 AM
 
Location: Santa FE NM
3,489 posts, read 6,508,487 times
Reputation: 3803
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nighteyes View Post
Actually, no. The South was predominantly Republican before the Civil War. They became "Dixie-crats" rather than Republicans, entirely because of the Civil War. Why? Because it was largely promulgated and pursued by the Republican Party (including Lincoln).
My apologies to all; I mis-stated this rather badly.

The slavery issue split the Whig Party (including Abraham Lincoln) in half. Part of it became the Republican Party (including Abraham Lincoln), which strongly opposed slavery. "Whiggery" continued to drive, shape and influence Southern politics well into Reconstruction. Post-war Southern politicians joined the Democratic Party to oppose the Republican Party. They, however, were not true Democrats, but much more conservative. That's how the "Dixie-crats" came into being.

And by the way, the Whig Party was originally formed in resistance to the policies of Andy Jackson's Democratic Party.

Hope this clears things up at least a bit.

Regards,

-- Nighteyes

Last edited by Nighteyes; 09-30-2011 at 09:39 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-30-2011, 01:36 PM
 
Location: Bay Area - Portland
286 posts, read 521,233 times
Reputation: 355
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname View Post
...Many PEOPLE are in denial. Why do you target conservatives?
It's been MY anecdotal experience, that more conservatives are more 'on the ball' concerning the truth than liberals, but you didn't hear me say that.
Why the agenda?
For the reason stated in my original post, “I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard conservatives claim with a straight face that the civil war had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery…”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname View Post
It was actually more gradual, and centered more around 'The New Deal' some years earlier.

Oh, and I disagree with the 'Mass migration' just as much as I disagree with your theoretical timing. I grew up in the south. My Dad was a Democrat LONG after he was voting Republican. 'His daddy was a Democrat, his daddy was a democrat... that's just what you did when it came time to vote'
Saw that alot growing up..
I’ll let the fair minded decide whether The New Deal or the civil rights era caused southern Republicans and Democrats to essentially swap ideologies;

“…Nixon's Southern Strategy solidified the identity of the Republican Party as the States Rights anti-integration party. The States Rights anti-government message worked well along with the Wall Street Republicans. Nixon's Southern Strategy solidified the identity of the Republican Party as the States Rights anti-integration party, and the demand by Bill Buckley and his National Review conservatives to create an ideologically unified party worked to drive all the progressives in politics towards the Democrats. The political power of the TV media solidified the new ideological image. The constant demand by Bill Buckley and his National Review conservatives to create an ideologically unified party worked to drive all the progressives in politics out of the Republican Party structure and towards the Democrats.…”

Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname View Post
Nope. just putting it in prespective, it's NOT like the north treated them better.
And it's not like the EARLIER enslaving of white people in Africa (Heck going back to the children's crusade who were sold enmass to Africans) was right ether. Slavery is wrong no matter what.
Juuust trying to get the historical perspective.
Again, I’ll let the fair minded decide if free northern blacks were subjected to the same treatment as enslaved southern blacks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname View Post
Even when the economic situation was remarkably similar to the situation where the Colonies broke away from England? (Requiring through the use of tariffs for the Agrarian south to ship their goods to the industrial north and receive their finished goods from the same) Sorry no sale.
Feel free to attempt to support your statement however..
The article I posted supports my statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname View Post
Yea, you don't see what you do to your cause there?
Sorry, I guess it’s not politically correct to call those who favored and fought for racial subordination, racists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname View Post
-Although I do not disagree that racism isn't used.
Heck, it's STILL used by BOTH sides.
'Whiteman is holding you down'
'Blackman is gonna break in here and rape your women' etc....
False equivalencies aside, of course only one side bears the brunt of racism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Themanwithnoname View Post
Thank you grandstander. You save me the trouble of looking the stats up.
Well thank you apologist. You confirm that conservatives have a long way to go before they'll confront and overcome their denial.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-01-2011, 10:25 AM
Status: "119 N/A" (set 20 days ago)
 
12,957 posts, read 13,668,599 times
Reputation: 9693
When we say the Civil War was or was not about Slavery , Its like saying today we have a problem with our economy. Slavery is a very broad term. Each plantation defined Slavery as to their particular needs. The economic, moral , and social variability that existed on each plantation did not exist equally and in harmony. Perhaps we could say the Civil War happened because wealthy southerners couldn't take their "servants" to live with them in California. Chinese servants were okay I guess.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:11 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top