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)
 
Old 09-29-2017, 01:57 PM
 
9,613 posts, read 6,843,050 times
Reputation: 6842

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mco65 View Post
I agree that slavery was a fundamental reason behind secession but i don't think you can use the Confederate Constitution as proof. I think the articles of secession do a much better job than the Confederate Constitution does.
Interestingly, Virginia’s secession documents don’t actually mention slavery and is very short while Texas’s is long winded and at some points reads like a white supremicist’s bible.

What a modern reader wouldn’t realize unless they did further research is the North didn’t necessarily disagree with the supremacy mindset.
Texas’s articles then go on to list grievances against political gerrymandering, defending the US border from Mexican bandits with no federal support, lack of protection from Comanche raids, lack of federal protection of state law, and the federal government turning a blind eye toward mob violence against slave owners in the territories. Most importantly they list that Texas agreed to join the union under the laws that existed at the time (namely right to slavery), but with the northern political majority threatening those laws, technically the deal is off in their opinion, thus there’s little reason to remain in the union.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-29-2017, 02:08 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
6,793 posts, read 5,625,985 times
Reputation: 5660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100 View Post
Interestingly, Virginia’s secession documents don’t actually mention slavery and is very short while Texas’s is long winded and at some points reads like a white supremicist’s bible.

What a modern reader wouldn’t realize unless they did further research is the North didn’t necessarily disagree with the supremacy mindset.
Texas’s articles then go on to list grievances against political gerrymandering, defending the US border from Mexican bandits with no federal support, lack of protection from Comanche raids, lack of federal protection of state law, and the federal government turning a blind eye toward mob violence against slave owners in the territories. Most importantly they list that Texas agreed to join the union under the laws that existed at the time (namely right to slavery), but with the northern political majority threatening those laws, technically the deal is off in their opinion, thus there’s little reason to remain in the union.
Virginia, being a border state, and Texas being a border state (border to Mexico) certainly had different reasons for seceding than did South Carolina!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2017, 02:51 PM
 
Location: *
13,242 posts, read 4,868,093 times
Reputation: 3456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100 View Post
So you believe we want to own slaves?
Who's 'we'? Oh nevermind, you & your 'we' are more likely just interested in perpetuating the various mythologies related to the 'Lost Cause' historiography:

Quote:
...Nolan detailed the components of the Lost Cause in The Myth of the Lost Cause and Civil War History (2000). A primary claim of the Lost Cause contends slavery was not the primary sectional issue, and that the Southern states would have given up slavery on their own eventually.

...In the end, Nolan stated his belief that the purpose of the legend was to “foster a heroic image of secession and the war so that the Confederates would have salvaged at least their honor from the all-encompassing defeat. Thus the purpose of the legend was to hide the Southerners’ tragic and self-destructive mistake.” ...
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

http://digitalcommons.apus.edu/cgi/v...saberandscroll

Instead of admitting the "tragic & self-destructive mistakes" made, former Confederates reinstated black codes & Jim Crow laws & the like, apparently so they could continue to make them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2017, 03:17 PM
 
9,613 posts, read 6,843,050 times
Reputation: 6842
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest View Post
Who's 'we'? Oh nevermind, you & your 'we' are more likely just interested in perpetuating the various mythologies related to the 'Lost Cause' historiography:



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

http://digitalcommons.apus.edu/cgi/v...saberandscroll

Instead of admitting the "tragic & self-destructive mistakes" made, former Confederates reinstated black codes & Jim Crow laws & the like, apparently so they could continue to make them.
You're dodging the question again. What is it you think I hope to gain here?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2017, 03:25 PM
 
11,610 posts, read 10,282,114 times
Reputation: 7213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100 View Post
What a modern reader wouldn’t realize unless they did further research is the North didn’t necessarily disagree with the supremacy mindset.
As evidenced by the election of the Republicans in 1860, northerners didn't believe in slavery but were big believers in the "free labor" movement. They also had tired of the "Slave Power" that had controlled the federal government since its inception.

https://www.binghamton.edu/history/r...y/lincoln.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_Power

This was a fundamentally different political belief system than the one that prevailed in the South.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2017, 03:28 PM
 
18,039 posts, read 25,052,276 times
Reputation: 16721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100 View Post
Most importantly they list that Texas agreed to join the union under the laws that existed at the time (namely right to slavery), but with the northern political majority threatening those laws, technically the deal is off in their opinion, thus there’s little reason to remain in the union.
Slavery wasn't under threat,
losing slaves to the North was their problem, not the institution of slavery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2017, 05:23 PM
 
Location: The High Desert
15,948 posts, read 10,517,025 times
Reputation: 31091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100 View Post
Except the same economy. Again, notice slave states not as dependent on cash crops didn’t secede.
This is really just a mind game. If we are pretending that there never were slaves in the south then we can't pretend that those states would have necessarily been similar economically and dependent upon cotton or any crop that required slave labor. States like Tennessee or Georgia may have been more similar to Ohio or Indiana than to what they became under the slave economy. The management of resources (forests, arable land, etc.) would have been different. Perhaps livestock or some other industry would have taken hold. That constitutional 3/5 compromise never would have been in place to protect the southern states and they would have developed much differently.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2017, 06:44 PM
 
9,613 posts, read 6,843,050 times
Reputation: 6842
Quote:
Originally Posted by SunGrins View Post
This is really just a mind game. If we are pretending that there never were slaves in the south then we can't pretend that those states would have necessarily been similar economically and dependent upon cotton or any crop that required slave labor. States like Tennessee or Georgia may have been more similar to Ohio or Indiana than to what they became under the slave economy. The management of resources (forests, arable land, etc.) would have been different. Perhaps livestock or some other industry would have taken hold. That constitutional 3/5 compromise never would have been in place to protect the southern states and they would have developed much differently.
However the Deep South was a naturally perfect fit for the most profitable crop at the time. Slavery or no slavery nobody was going to raise chickens and green beans if the money was in cotton.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2017, 07:01 PM
 
Location: *
13,242 posts, read 4,868,093 times
Reputation: 3456
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100 View Post
You're dodging the question again. What is it you think I hope to gain here?
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:

Quote:
..."foster a heroic image of secession and the war so that the Confederates would have salvaged at least their honor from the all-encompassing defeat. Thus the purpose of the legend was to hide the Southerners’ tragic and self-destructive mistake.” ...
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

http://digitalcommons.apus.edu/cgi/v...saberandscroll

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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2017, 08:20 PM
 
18,039 posts, read 25,052,276 times
Reputation: 16721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ziggy100 View Post
Slavery or no slavery nobody was going to raise chickens and green beans if the money was in cotton.
You are very ignorant if you don't see that profits from cotton would greatly decrease if plantation owners had to pay wages to the slaves.
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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:59 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