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 notice that the existence of northern slavery becomes extremely irrelevant when it is convenient to ignore it. Same with de facto segregation and the related persistent myth that the north "got over it" on its own. Nope, truth isn't so sweet. Not a single northern state ended slavery with immediate emancipation and in none was it a moral issue.
The treason and rebellion thing has already been addressed and refuted, not by me, but by the powers that be in the northern government at the time. Do I need to repeat it? If so, here it is once again...with even more elaboration and the source:
The Long Surrender by Burke Davis (no kin! LOL), on page 204, Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase, telling Edwin Stanton that "If you bring these leaders to trial, it will condemn the North, for by the Constitution, secession is not rebellion...His (Jeff Davis') capture was a mistake. His trial will be a greater one. We cannot convict him of treason." On page 214 it is noted that a congressional committee concluded that "After studying more than 270,000 Confederate documents, seeking evidence against Davis, the court discouraged the War Department: '(Jefferson) Davis will be found not guilty,' 'and we shall stand there completely beaten'." [/i]
Call it treason and rebellion if you want, but the charge wouldn't stick then and won't now. And to just keep repeating it doesn't hold water except as your own opinion. Which is fine...but don't confuse it with history and fact. Really, it doesn't do a lot of good for your own case.
Here again is a thread which both sides say about as much as can be said on all aspects of it:
I dare say a lot of respect for different viewpoints (and those who expressed them) came about from this exchange. And no one had to be "required to"...it just came about from the natural American tolerance you spoke of. Southerners and Northerners debating, but many coming to understand where the other was coming from.
Now then, I am outta for tonight for sure. Pizza arrived! LOL
If it wasn't rebellion, then why are southerners so proud of the label "Reb"? And why do you take that term in your online name? Why are southerners to intent on taking pride in the term "Reb"? Behind that term lies the true meaning of the Rebel flag.
Jeff Davis started a fight, which cost hundreds of thousands of lives and countless other maimings. He and Lee should have either been executed or imprisoned for life.
There were VERY few black Confederates, not until the last few weeks of the war was it even LEGAL for a black man to serve. In the last weeks a couple of small groups of black Confederates were recruited, hardly the "many" that you refer to. Indeed the career and advancement of Patrick Cleburne, the finest division commander in the Army of Tennessee, was stalled because he dared propose arming blacks in the winter of 63-64. Cleburne was an Irish immigrant and a non slaveholder from Arkansas who misjudged the depth of feeling of the Rebel power structure regarding the protection of slavery.
At no time did The United States government admit the existence of the Confederacy as a legitimate and sovereign power, you are simply dead wrong as you are about black Confederates.
Nor did Lincoln think the war was over taxes, nor did the rebelling states have a right to secession and if they did why didn't they take their case to the courts rather than make rebellion and war? When one appeals one's cause to the battlefield rather than the courts he cannot complain when the battlefield rules against him. In any event it was upon the issue of secession that the war was fought and that's that.
One wonders why NO free states rebelled if slavery wasn't the cause of secession?
Where do you come up with this business? Some neo-Con website? It's not my intention to keep this thread going but I gotta respond to blatant falsehoods.
You are doing exceptionally good work on this topic. Keep it up! I wonder why the topic was brought up. That flag is still a sensitive issue.
If it wasn't rebellion, then why are southerners so proud of the label "Reb"? And why do you take that term in your online name? Why are southerners to intent on taking pride in the term "Reb"? Behind that term lies the true meaning of the Rebel flag.
Jeff Davis started a fight, which cost hundreds of thousands of lives and countless other maimings. He and Lee should have either been executed or imprisoned for life.
I already answered why it wasn't "rebellion" or "treason." As in the sense of seeking to overthrow a central government, nor alter it.
The Southerners were "rebels" in the same sense as were our Revolutionary War forefathers. Not a group of unsupported reactionaries.
That is to say, they declared themselves independent of another entity. The Colonials were what?...if not "Rebels"? What were the Texians during the Texas Revolution, but "Rebels"? You better believe I am proud of such a label as applied to American history! That is why I take such a screen moniker! Texan, Southern, and American. All of which would not be what they are if not for having first been some kind of Rebels!
How did Jefferson Davis start a fight? A war could have been avoided if the North had simply let the South go in peace. Simple as that. Why did Lincoln choose to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of men to coerce fellow Americans back into a union -- which was voluntary to begin with -- they no longer wanted to be part of?
Why did he sacrifice the same, when it violated the principle of governed by the consent of the governed?
If it wasn't rebellion, then why are southerners so proud of the label "Reb"? And why do you take that term in your online name? Why are southerners to intent on taking pride in the term "Reb"? Behind that term lies the true meaning of the Rebel flag.
It was rebellion; a rebellion just like the American Revolution was a rebellion against Great Britain. You wouldn't be offended the British flag would you? Seeing as they enslaved far more than any other empire on the planet, not to mention their treatment of their colonies (not just Americans).
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan in san diego
Jeff Davis started a fight, which cost hundreds of thousands of lives and countless other maimings. He and Lee should have either been executed or imprisoned for life.
Davis did not start the fight. As a matter of fact he didn't want anything to do with it at the start, but was appointed president. The roots of this war goes back far beyond 1860. If you wanted to see the real roots of the Civil War, go back to 1776..or if you trace even further, the 1600's would be an even better place to see the distinct differences between Northern and Southern colonies. Hell, if you really wanted we could back to the earliest periods of colonization by Europe and see that the North and South were bound to be polar opposites from the very beginning
For the record, Davis was imprisoned. He was later released because the South could be silenced a lot swifter without the certain martyr Davis would have become had he served life in prison or been executed. Lee was only doing what his country asked of him, and if you think someone should be executed for that you sir truly are lost.
Furthermore, there were non-white soldiers and Generals in the South, ever heard of Stand Watie? There were several black regiments on BOTH sides, in the South most of them were freedmen. Please read some history before posting such outlandish posts, and go to your local Barnes & Noble and pick up a copy of "Black Confederates" - if you can't find a copy I might just send you one of mine!
I already answered why it wasn't "rebellion" or "treason." As in the sense of seeking to overthrow a central government, nor alter it.
The Southerners were "rebels" in the same sense as were our Revolutionary War forefathers. Not a group of unsupported reactionaries.
That is to say, they declared themselves independent of another entity. The Colonials were what?...if not "Rebels"? What were the Texians during the Texas Revolution, but "Rebels"? You better believe I am proud of such a label as applied to American history! That is why I take such a screen moniker! Texan, Southern, and American. All of which would not be what they are if not for having first been some kind of Rebels!
How did Jefferson Davis start a fight? A war could have been avoided if the North had simply let the South go in peace. Simple as that. Why did Lincoln choose to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of men to coerce fellow Americans back into a union -- which was voluntary to begin with -- they no longer wanted to be part of?
Why did he sacrifice the same, when it violated the principle of governed by the consent of the governed?
I do understand that the war from the northern side wasn't technically fought to free slaves. But it was fought to prevent the extension of slavery, which the south desperately wanted. The impetus for Lincoln to free slaves came as the war's future was in doubt. Under great pressure from Frederick Douglass and Martin Robison Delany, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and allowed those 2 gents to form the Massachusetts 54th. Although that regiment failed in its first battle, it is my contention that it is the introduction of northern blacks into the Union Army that turned the tide in the war. Lincoln would've been just as happy if the blacks were all sent to Africa but free northern blacks changed his mind. In my mind, free northern black soldiers and men like Douglass and Delany are the true heroes.
In all your reasonings, most of which seem sensible, you southern gents have not answered the basic question; Do you wish that the South would have been left alone for the purpose of maintaining and extending slavery? It is an honest question. And do you condone the practice of what some folk call "Jim Crow" until even the late 60s? That is part of the southern heritage.
And no I am not proud of my Midwest heritage nor of my California heritage. I am ambivalent and recognize that like all areas of the country, the treatment of native peoples and in the case of CA, the Mexicans, were an affront to a holy God, as well as anyone with a good heart.
I do understand that the war from the northern side wasn't technically fought to free slaves. But it was fought to prevent the extension of slavery, which the south desperately wanted.
No, it wasn't. Most northern soldiers suited up because Lincoln had provoked an incident at Ft. Sumter and rallied northern public opinion around that U.S. honor had been insulted. The average soldier, couldn't have given a damn less about slavery or blacks one way or another.
The extension of slavery? Yeah, you have a certain point. In the sense this issue brought the whole thing to a head, so to speak. Slavery in the territories is what I assume you mean. However, slavery had pretty well reached its natural geographic limits in central Texas. Slavery was "legal" in the Arizona Territory...but there were about a total of 9. Reason is, the cotton/plantation culture just simply wasnt feasible out there.
Anyway, the main reason that a lot of northern politicians wanted to prevent the extention of slavery into the western territories was not out of any concern whatsoever for blacks, or a moral consideration ala' slavery. But simply because, on the contrary, they didn't want any blacks into the said territories. Or Southerners.
Quote:
The impetus for Lincoln to free slaves came as the war's future was in doubt. Under great pressure from Frederick Douglass and Martin Robison Delany, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation and allowed those 2 gents to form the Massachusetts 54th. Although that regiment failed in its first battle, it is my contention that it is the introduction of northern blacks into the Union Army that turned the tide in the war. Lincoln would've been just as happy if the blacks were all sent to Africa but free northern blacks changed his mind. In my mind, free northern black soldiers and men like Douglass and Delany are the true heroes.
I really don't have a problem with much of what you say..even if I might quibble a bit with some of the implications. Only thing I ask is that the blacks who voluntarily served the South get their proper due, as well!
Quote:
In all your reasonings, most of which seem sensible, you southern gents have not answered the basic question; Do you wish that the South would have been left alone for the purpose of maintaining and extending slavery? It is an honest question. And do you condone the practice of what some folk call "Jim Crow" until even the late 60s? That is part of the southern heritage.
Oh c'mon. Why would you even ask something so..welll, silly (no offence) as to link the causes for which our ancestors fought in a way which suggests the same advances defending the instution of slavery or condoning Jim Crow laws?
You seem like an intelligent man...so just consider this:
We both agree -- as does just about everyone -- that no human being should be enslaved. But I also hope you know that slavery did not originate with the South nor disappear when the War ended. Slavery has existed since the dawn of time and all races and ethnic groups have been both slave and slave owner.
In the United States, Masschussetts was the first colony to legalize it, and the first abolishionist society was founded in Virginia. By around 1830 or so, the prevailing sentiment in the South was that it was a necessary evil bound for eventual extinction (it had pretty well reached its natural geographic limits in Central Texas, anyway, as noted earlier). It was later on, when "radical abolitionists" began demanding immediate emancipation without regard to economic realities that Southerners began to adopt a more defensive posture. Too, since the original slave trade had been a northern commodity, they saw a great deal of hypocricy wrapped up in it all.
It is easy, in this day and age, to see complex issues of the past in simple light. It always stikes me a little odd that the people who are so sure they know the answers to the moral problems of the past can't solve the ones of today. In any event, some may ask, well, why didn't the South just do the right thing and let all the slaves go? Far as that goes, why didn't the north do the same and refrain from the slave trade at all, then only gradually free their own slaves so as to not cause financial hardship? The Egyptians with the Hebrews? etc, etc, etc. Sitting in the comfort of my living room and 150 years removed, I might agree with the idealism of this sentiment. BUT...had I lived in those days and actually been responsible for implementation without causing ruinous economic harm and the myriad of additional problems that would have been the result, then suddenly it is not such a cut and dried issue!
Jim Crow laws? Who amongst us defends them? I can only speak for myself in saying that the only difference in de jure segregation in the South and de facto in the North was that the former just were not hypocrites!
Quote:
And no I am not proud of my Midwest heritage nor of my California heritage. I am ambivalent and recognize that like all areas of the country, the treatment of native peoples and in the case of CA, the Mexicans, were an affront to a holy God, as well as anyone with a good heart.
Then you are much different than most folks I know. Most I know embrace their heritage and family and are proud of it. My country, right or wrong, so to speak. Maybe we just don't speak the same language in this realm...
In all your reasonings, most of which seem sensible, you southern gents have not answered the basic question; Do you wish that the South would have been left alone for the purpose of maintaining and extending slavery? It is an honest question. And do you condone the practice of what some folk call "Jim Crow" until even the late 60s? That is part of the southern heritage.
The purpose of the Confederacy was not the extension of slavery, obviously the South couldn't expand aside from some campaigns in New Mexico/Arizona. In my honest opinion, the Confederacy would have dropped slavery after the war, there was no other way to gain international recognition or reestablish trade. Note that the slave trade was banned by Southerners several years prior to the Civil War. And in reality, the Civil War is what turned co-existence into racism and the Jim Crow South.
The Confederate Constitution gave the individual states the right to abolish slavery, but with the secession they were cut off from the modern farming innovations that would have rendered slaves obsolete.
The issue of Southern secession could have been settled in a court room, but instead Lincoln decided he didn't want to be blamed for the collapse of the Union.
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.
good work
