Causes of the US Civil War and Southern Secession

[Rakhel]

Do you want to know what I learned in History class growing up in the Ohio?

It was the South's fault because they had slaves. Lincoln was killed by Booth. Lincoln freed the slaves. That is it. We were not taught that Lincoln personally didn't care about the slaves. That their freedom was a political move. We had a vague telling of Sherman's march. Of the Emancipation Proclamation, and who won.
That was 20 yrs ago.
Do you want to know what my daughter learned in history class growing up Mississippi and Arkansas?

It was the North's fault because the tried to take away our rights. Lincoln was killed by Booth. Lincoln freed the slaves. That is it. She were not taught that Lincoln personally didn't care about the slaves. That their freedom was a political move. She had a vague telling of Sherman's march. Of the Emancipation Proclamation, and who won.
That was only 3 yrs ago.
Who is smarter? her or me?

 

[Smoke]

Well, I think we both made the best case we could make. I presented actual evidence (i.e. process of the South's secession, views of Confederate generals and soldiers, race-relations and details on slave life in the South) he simply has repeated that same point over and over again.

Fine, Joe. I'm sure you're right. The South seceded not to preserve the institution of slavery, but out of a deep conviction of the sacred principle of the consent of the governed. And they did it not for themselves, but out of deep sense of concern and responsibility for all the happy darkies who frolicked in the fields and kitchens of the South. Look away! Look away! Look away, Dixie land!

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi rakhel,

Do you want to know what I learned in History class growing up in the Ohio?

It was the South's fault because they had slaves. Lincoln was killed by Booth. Lincoln freed the slaves. That is it. We were not taught that Lincoln personally didn't care about the slaves. That their freedom was a political move. We had a vague telling of Sherman's march. Of the Emancipation Proclamation, and who won.
That was 20 yrs ago.
Do you want to know what my daughter learned in history class growing up Mississippi and Arkansas?

It was the North's fault because the tried to take away our rights. Lincoln was killed by Booth. Lincoln freed the slaves. That is it. She were not taught that Lincoln personally didn't care about the slaves. That their freedom was a political move. She had a vague telling of Sherman's march. Of the Emancipation Proclamation, and who won.
That was only 3 yrs ago.
Who is smarter? her or me?

I would say that you both got a pretty crappy education regarding the issue.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

Fine, Joe. I'm sure you're right. The South seceded not to preserve the institution of slavery, but out of a deep conviction of the sacred principle of the consent of the governed. And they did it not for themselves, but out of deep sense of concern and responsibility for all the happy darkies who frolicked in the fields and kitchens of the South. Look away! Look away! Look away, Dixie land!

LOL! Are you competing with yourself as to how many laughable caricatures you can make up because you're on a roll?

I used to believe the same as you until I actually started reading about the period and spent less time stroking my ego about how much I care about blacks and hate those racist southerners.

 

[Smoke]

I used to believe the same as you until I actually started reading about the period and spent less time stroking my ego about how much I care about blacks and hate those racist southerners.

Stop trying to analyze me, Joe. You know even less about me than you know about the Civil War.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

Stop trying to analyze me, Joe. You know even less about me than you know about the Civil War.

When you stumble across some actual evidence supporting your argument, we can continue.

 

[Smoke]

When you stumble across some actual evidence supporting your argument, we can continue.

Life is too short to continue this.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Had the South been successful in succeeding from the Union, it today would be the North Korea of the Americas.

In a way, it's not far off.

Do you want to know what I learned in History class growing up in the Ohio?

It was the South's fault because they had slaves. Lincoln was killed by Booth. Lincoln freed the slaves. That is it. We were not taught that Lincoln personally didn't care about the slaves. That their freedom was a political move. We had a vague telling of Sherman's march. Of the Emancipation Proclamation, and who won.
That was 20 yrs ago.

Not including the bloody war, that sums up the first half of the 1860s pretty well.

Do you want to know what my daughter learned in history class growing up Mississippi and Arkansas?

It was the North's fault because the tried to take away our rights. Lincoln was killed by Booth. Lincoln freed the slaves. That is it. She were not taught that Lincoln personally didn't care about the slaves. That their freedom was a political move. She had a vague telling of Sherman's march. Of the Emancipation Proclamation, and who won.
That was only 3 yrs ago.
Who is smarter? her or me?

Yet again, conservatives commit the very same sin that they accuse the Big Bad Liberals of--revisionist history, in this case.

If only Reconstruction had been powerful enough to crush the psyche of the old South, perhaps much of that pro-slavery BS could have died. As the speech I quoted in my previous post said: The [Civil] War is about slavery, and nothing else.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mercy,

As the speech I quoted in my previous post said: The [Civil] War is about slavery, and nothing else.

Wow, one quote proves this, you're good.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Hi Mercy,



Wow, one quote proves this, you're good.

For your information, you'll have a better chance of persuading me if you put the childish insults aside. In the meantime, my original premise stands: The Civil war was about slavery, and nothing else; to say otherwise is revisionist history, plan and simple.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mercy,

For your information, you'll have a better chance of persuading me if you put the childish insults aside. In the meantime, my original premise stands: The Civil war was about slavery, and nothing else; to say otherwise is revisionist history, plan and simple.

Read my exchange between Smoke where I cite specific pieces of evidence showing that the CSA's secession was legal and was not to protect slavery.

But, hey, you have a quote, so what can I say?

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Hi Mercy,



Read my exchange between Smoke where I cite specific pieces of evidence showing that the CSA's secession was legal and was not to protect slavery.

Bullcrap that it was legal. The United States of America never recognized the Confederacy as a legitimate government. The Confederacy was by definition an anti-American institution, a b****rd child of America. I recognize the pro-America stance, which is inherently anti-Confederacy; what about you?

But, hey, you have a quote, so what can I say?

Oh noes.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mercy,

Bullcrap that it was legal. The United States of America never recognized the Confederacy as a legitimate government. The Confederacy was by definition an anti-American institution, a b****rd child of America. I recognize the pro-America stance, which is inherently anti-Confederacy; what about you?

What an odd argument. By that same logic it was illegal for the colonists to secede from the Crown because the Crown didn't think it was their right. Since when does the victim have to prove her case to the aggressor? Does the Iranian government have to allow permission to the Iranian dissidents to seek to establish democratic reforms to the government? By your logic, almost no independence movements would be recognized by you because the governments in question don't bless the independence movement's attempt to establish an independent political authority.

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

Hi Mercy,



What an odd argument. By that same logic it was illegal for the colonists to secede from the Crown because the Crown didn't think it was their right.

Joe, let me explain something to you: I am an American, through and through. I don't give a damn what the English crown thought of our secession, because once we did, our loyalty was to America. Neither do I give a damn if the Confederacy considered itself legitimate, because as far as I, the United States of America, and every other country having diplomatic relations with America considered, the Confederacy was and will forever be an impostor child.

Since when does the victim have to prove her case to the aggressor?

You're kidding, right? That's exactly what the Declaration of Independence did!

Does the Iranian government have to allow permission to the Iranian dissidents to seek to establish democratic reforms to the government? By your logic, almost no independence movements would be recognized by you because the governments in question don't bless the independence movement's attempt to establish an independent political authority.

Stop trying to paint that issue as absolute, black-and-white, when it simply isn't. Of greater concern is what the pro-America stance and the anti-America stance is, strictly within this one issue, the Civil War. I stand with the pro-America, anti-Confederate stance. Where do you stand?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Mercy,

Joe, let me explain something to you: I am an American, through and through. I don't give a damn what the English crown thought of our secession, because once we did, our loyalty was to America. Neither do I give a damn if the Confederacy considered itself legitimate, because as far as I, the United States of America, and every other country having diplomatic relations with America considered, the Confederacy was and will forever be an impostor child.

But why was it okay for the colonists to secede and not the South? So far, no one in this thread has answered that question.

You're kidding, right? That's exactly what the Declaration of Independence did!

But the Crown didn't buy any of those claims, yet the colonists didn't care what the Crown's reaction was, so why would the South have to worry what the US federal government’s reaction was?

Stop trying to paint that issue as absolute, black-and-white, when it simply isn't. Of greater concern is what the pro-America stance and the anti-America stance is, strictly within this one issue, the Civil War. I stand with the pro-America, anti-Confederate stance. Where do you stand?

Don't you find it ironic that you say that the issue isn't black or white and then tell me to choose the pro-American side or the anti-American side, which is black or white? You sound like a jingoistic American that you no-doubt delightfully denounce (and who is also probably a southerner, oh, more irony).

I would hope you would know my position from reading my posts in this thread. Just as I support the secession of the colonists from the Crown I support the South's secession from the US federal government. I would hope that just as Great Britain and the US could live together in this world peacefully (later on after The War of 1812) I would hope that the USA and the CSA could live together in this world peacefully.

 

[Smoke]

But why was it okay for the colonists to secede and not the South? So far, no one in this thread has answered that question.

It's not hard to understand how someone could favor the first group of oathbreakers, traitors, and armed insurrectionists, who were motivated to establish the first modern democracy, but not favor the second group of oathbreakers, traitors, and armed insurrectionists, who were motivated solely by a desire to preserve the institution of slavery.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

It's not hard to understand how someone could favor the first group of oathbreakers, traitors, and armed insurrectionists, who were motivated to establish the first modern democracy, but not favor the second group of oathbreakers, traitors, and armed insurrectionists, who were motivated solely by a desire to preserve the institution of slavery.

Isn't there a glaring contradiction here? Presumably, the North contained descendents of these unsavory fellows you so colorfully describe. If that is the case, why do these people all of sudden become paragons of moral virtue to stop the unsavory elements that only wanted to secede to protect slavery?

 

[Smoke]

Isn't there a glaring contradiction here? Presumably, the North contained descendents of these unsavory fellows you so colorfully describe. If that is the case, why do these people all of sudden become paragons of moral virtue to stop the unsavory elements that only wanted to secede to protect slavery?

Is it your view that the great-grandson of an oathbreaker, traitor, or insurrectionist is guilty by descent?

 

[Joe_Stocks]

Hi Smoke,

Is it your view that the great-grandson of an oathbreaker, traitor, or insurrectionist is guilty by descent?

Well, one could surmise that these unsavory fellows of the revolution would impart these immoral values to their children.

On another note here is a quote from a Confederate soldier:

I was a soldier in Virginia in the campaign of Lee and Jackson, and I declare I never met a Southern soldier who had drawn his sword to perpetuate slavery ... What he had chiefly at heart was the preservation of the supreme and sacred right of self-government ... It was a very small minority of men who fought in the Southern armies who were financially interested in the institution of slavery (Sons of Confederate Veterans, The Gray Book, p. 36)

This just confirms the many pieces of evidence that the South didn't secede to protect slavery, the others being:

1. Over 70% of Confederate soldiers weren't slave owners or from slave owning families.

2. The James McPherson diary evidence of only 20% of Confederate soldiers holding pro-slavery convictions.

3. Top generals in the Confederate army that were not slave owners.

4. And blacks that fought for the Confederacy.

But, hey, keep repeating that the South seceded simply to protect slavery. Just know that it is not based on any evidence.

 

[Smoke]

What he had chiefly at heart was the preservation of the supreme and sacred right of self-government

If that were true they would have risen against their own state governments, overthrown the institution of slavery, and established universal suffrage.