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 as a Black person, I can say "it was definitely about states right". The right to keep slaves.
Or dd I miss the period of time when the south had large Manumission acts going on.
Do why southerners feel some need to justify why they succeeded?? Anyway around it, their way of life depended on the keeping of slave labor
Nobody's justifying it. Slavery pales in comparison to other events going on in the country at the time. Slavery itself is an over simplification of much larger divisions going on within the country.
The north attacked first. War of northern aggression many called it.
Quote:
When President Abraham Lincoln announced plans to resupply the fort, Confederate General P.G.T. Beauregard bombarded Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861. After a 34-hour exchange of artillery fire, Anderson and 86 soldiers surrendered the fort on April 13. Confederate troops then occupied Fort Sumter for nearly four years, resisting several bombardments by Union forces before abandoning the garrison prior to William T. Sherman’s capture of Charleston in February 1865.
In other words, the North attacked the South by threatening to resupply its own fort. Bombarding the fort was self-defense, in other words.
Anti-slavery sentiment had been brewing for decades. The south did succeed to preserve slavery which gave almost free labor and an economic boost. The north on the other hand went to war to preserve the union. Those are not weak answers. Those are the true answers.
Thank yer. I know it, you know it. I'm done responding to the why's.....I didn't make it up. This is just an attempt to re-write the narrative. Not happening........
Thank yer. I know it, you know it. I'm done responding to the why's.....I didn't make it up. This is just an attempt to re-write the narrative. Not happening........
It's a big subject & covers a relatively long period of time. Start with the 'who' being the Dunning School of Reconstruction & the 'how' will readily become apparent. Present day historian Eric Foner:
Quote:
...The traditional or Dunning School of Reconstruction was not just an interpretation of history. It was part of the edifice of the Jim Crow System. It was an explanation for and justification of taking the right to vote away from black people on the grounds that they completely abused it during Reconstruction. It was a justification for the white South resisting outside efforts in changing race relations because of the worry of having another Reconstruction.
All of the alleged horrors of Reconstruction helped to freeze the minds of the white South in resistance to any change whatsoever. And it was only after the Civil Rights revolution swept away the racist underpinnings of that old view—i.e., that black people are incapable of taking part in American democracy—that you could get a new view of Reconstruction widely accepted. For a long time it was an intellectual straitjacket for much of the white South, and historians have a lot to answer for in helping to propagate a racist system in this country.[2]...
Mr. DuBois's work was largely ignored by many historians & by many American people in 1935. If one really desires to know more about the 'who' & the 'how', one might also start by asking the key forensic question common to most investigative endeavors; Cui bono?
It's a big subject & covers a relatively long period of time. Start with the 'who' being the Dunning School of Reconstruction & the 'how' will readily become apparent. Present day historian Eric Foner:
Mr. DuBois's work was largely ignored by many historians & by many American people in 1935. If one really desires to know more about the 'who' & the 'how', one might also start by asking the key forensic question common to most investigative endeavors; Cui bono?
I was responding to the previous poster who I assume was accusing another specific poster of rewriting the narrative.
Anti-slavery sentiment had been brewing for decades. The south did succeed to preserve slavery which gave almost free labor and an economic boost. The north on the other hand went to war to preserve the union. Those are not weak answers. Those are the true answers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MyGoldenLife
Thank yer. I know it, you know it. I'm done responding to the why's.....I didn't make it up. This is just an attempt to re-write the narrative. Not happening........
The historical record corroborates both of these responses. Guess I'm done responding here as well.
The historical record corroborates both of these responses. Guess I'm done responding here as well.
I'm getting the impression that the "false narrative" is actually people believing that there is a false narrative conspiracy theory.
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.
The right to keep slaves.
