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.
You've asserted that "in hindsight, we all know (both north and south) that slavery is inhumane and should never be allowed."
This is the thing, folks back then also knew owning people as property was inhumane. They just rationalized, legitimized & justified the practice of race-based slavery. (We do the same in the present day with respect to different yet also inhumane practices.)
That's the #1 reason why Jubal Early created the 'Lost Cause' mythologies.
The 'Lost Causers' revised the narrative, re-branded the War to be justifiable & therefore honorable despite what is clearly spelled out in the CSA Consitution, in the US Congressional legislative record, in each Slave State's 'cause for secession' documents, in speeches, in newspaper accounts, & in letters from soldiers.
Why the need to 'whitewash' all of this?
& the littering of free spaces with the monuments, the statuary, & the memorials & all to disguise what is clearly written in the historical record made no sense then, & makes no sense now more than a century later. The statues, etc. belong in cemeteries or museums. That would be the honorable thing to do. Let them rest in peace, & be finally done with the perpetual warring.
Southerners knew slavery was inhumane. That was not news at the time. Abolitionists had been speaking out against it in the U.S. for decades. Uncle Tom's Cabin was published to wide acclaim ten years before the Civil War. Remember Frederick Douglass? I hear he is being recognized more and more these days. However, he was getting a fair amount back in the day.
Ever since Lee surrendered, Confederates have been trying to rewrite history with lies: War of Northern Aggression, when Lincoln invaded the South, states' rights not slavery, Lee was a noble hero who opposed opposed secession, ...
Baloney.
Lee didn't oppose secession.
Good grief. If it hadn't been for Lee, the Civil War might have been a much briefer nightmare. By all accounts, Lee was a brilliant tactician. Had he been in command of the U.S. forces at Bull Run, there is a good chance things might have gone the other way with the rebellion ending within months.
Who knows? What we do know is that there were many other "sons of Virginia" who fought for the Union and others who sat the whole thing out. Lee decided to become a general for the secessionists and brought other West Pointers along with him to lead an ugly, brutal war over slavery.
Supporting slavery does not make you the good guys, and levying war against the United States is the very definition of treason.
These stone and bronze memorials to traitors and the evil within men are part of the attempt to whitewash history.
If the Union was so powerful, why was there a need for a more perfect union?
The "more perfect union" which you brought up, from the preamble to the U.S. Constitution, was a comparison to the Articles of Confederation. Prior to the adoption of the Constitution, the various small sovereign states were much more loosely associated and in danger of breaking into several competing fractions and there was fear that some states might return to the British Empire. Any of these actions would have resulted in serious balkanization occurring on the North American continent. Imagine a small collection of agressive, oppressive states from Maine down to Georgia and west to the Mississippi River, all settling their differences by warfare.
Quote:
If they were doing so fine on their own dime, they wouldn't have needed the Confederate state's (taxes) so let them leave the union.
The vast bulk of federal taxes were collected in the North, not the South. The vast expenditure of federal revenues went to obtaining territory for Southern expansion. Remember the Louisiana Purchase, the Annexation of Florida, the Mexican-American War, The Gadsen Purchase?
Quote:
It has already been established they didn't put Lincoln in office ... so why was it so bloody important for all the states to come together, that there was an all out war over it?
This has been covered above in this post and in much more detail elsewhere in this post.
If slavery had never existed, would there have been a Civil War?
Yes, there would have been a war.
North controlling the south. a situation exists now in many states where the northern part is culturally different than the south portion. Ny state vs NYC, South J vs north Jersey. Population centers vs rural. Slavery was a part of the cause as carrots are part of a recipe.
The statue hub bub has reached for the civil war to justify their narrative. If you are a one issue voter, then of course, your issue is the main reason. The media has come on board to create a false narrative and exagerate the numbers and has failed to provide perspective to the issue.
"It's all about me' me, me, me. And that, 'me', is a very few activists whose nonsense is magnified by the media and has recruited white guilt liberals.
George Santayana (born Jorge AgustÃn Nicolás Ruiz de Santayana y Borrás in Madrid, December 16, 1863; died September 26, 1952, in Rome) was a Spanish American philosopher, essayist, poet, and novelist. A lifelong Spanish citizen, Santayana was raised and educated in the United States, wrote in English and is generally considered an American man of letters.
You've asserted that "in hindsight, we all know (both north and south) that slavery is inhumane and should never be allowed."
This is the thing, folks back then also knew owning people as property was inhumane. They just rationalized, legitimized & justified the practice of race-based slavery. (We do the same in the present day with respect to different yet also inhumane practices.)
That's the #1 reason why Jubal Early created the 'Lost Cause' mythologies.
The 'Lost Causers' revised the narrative, re-branded the War to be justifiable & therefore honorable despite what is clearly spelled out in the CSA Consitution, in the US Congressional legislative record, in each Slave State's 'cause for secession' documents, in speeches, in newspaper accounts, & in letters from soldiers.
Why the need to 'whitewash' all of this?
& the littering of free spaces with the monuments, the statuary, & the memorials & all to disguise what is clearly written in the historical record made no sense then, & makes no sense now more than a century later. The statues, etc. belong in cemeteries or museums. That would be the honorable thing to do. Let them rest in peace, & be finally done with the perpetual warring.
There is no need to whitewash any of it. In those times it was considered an acceptable practice in the North and the South. Eventually people in the North began to realize that there was no need for slavery and pushed to abolish it. In the South, where slavery was a necessity to producing crops and maintaining their way of life, they didn't agree with that ideology and pushed back against the attempts to step on their rights to sovereign states.
I'm not arguing whether it was right or wrong. We all know the answer to that. However, my argument is that the ideologies in those days is much different than today. So trying to just say "They knew it was wrong but did it anyway" doesn't hold water.
Think back on how many polarizing issues like this that the country has faced.
Slavery
Gay rights/marriage
Abortion
Immigration
Every one of these issues were met with two sides... one who supported and one who opposed. Each group believes that their values are right. It takes time for an entire nation to come to an agreement on what is acceptable socially. Once something has become accepted socially, over time it becomes acceptable morally and through generations, people's moral values begin to align with those changes. Nothing happens over night.
North controlling the south. a situation exists now in many states where the northern part is culturally different than the south portion. Ny state vs NYC, South J vs north Jersey. Population centers vs rural. Slavery was a part of the cause as carrots are part of a recipe.
Which explains why Iowa and Kansas also fought on the side of the culturally rural during the Civil War...oh, wait...they didn't.
What always baffles me is how those who carry the Confederate water buck always insist that it was North vs South when in fact it was part of the South vs every one else.
The Northeast was different from the Midwest was different from the West Coast was different from the Mormon communities in what would become Utah. Even the South wasn't the "South" - anyone who bothers to look can see the differences among the Deep South, the Upper South, Texas, and Oklahoma. Even Louisiana was split between New Orleans and the rest of the state.
Last edited by djmilf; 08-25-2017 at 06:58 AM..
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.
