150 Years Ago Yesterday

[Strike For The South]

11 states illegaly seceded from our union and took up arms against her fragile soul

LONG LIVE THE REPUBLIC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUzE1WeMc2g&feature=fvst


4 years later the last vestige of feudialism and class would be eradicated from American society, it's a shame it took a 100 more years for de jure to become de facto

[Subotan]

It's sad that greatest traitors the United States has ever known took 650,000 lives before they were ground into powder.

[Greyblades]

You know whats even more sad? Our greatest traitors became our bosses.

[Rhyfelwyr]

UP THE CONFEDERACY!

https://img94.imageshack.us/img94/3192/ulsterscotsdixie.jpg (https://img94.imageshack.us/i/ulsterscotsdixie.jpg/)

[PanzerJaeger]

In memory of the Confederate soldiers, who bravely fought for their way of life, their constitutional rights, and their natural right of self determination established in the Declaration of Independence. With the eventual defeat of those patriots, the last vestiges of the nation the founders envisioned and the spirit of the revolution melted away as the states simply became districts in a monolithic and ever-growing federal system, their rights having become privileges to be given and taken away by Washington and whichever powerful regional block controlled it.

'Swear upon your country's alter, never to submit or falter...' :bow:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-I-3ISQK1E

[HoreTore]

I was going to write some ironic and nonsensical post about the "greatness" of the southern racists, but PJ already beat me to it...

[gaelic cowboy]

@ Rhyfelwyr I would be pretty confident that more Ulster Scots fought on the Union side so I would



Anyways fág an bealach or faugh a ballagh as the Yanks say (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Brigade_%28U.S.%29)

[Rhyfelwyr]

I don't know whether or not they did tbh Gaelic (all I know is that a lot of Ulster Scots settled the southern Appalachians), I think our love for the Confederacy is probably as much due to ideological connections as anything. Because we're proud to be WASP's.

[Subotan]

Oh boy oh boy this going to be fun.

If there was ever a more nefarious and despicable use of the word "rights" than in the statements made by the Confederates and their apologists when justifying an socio-economic system dependant upon the labour of owned men, then I have yet to see it.

[gaelic cowboy]

I don't know whether or not they did tbh Gaelic (all I know is that a lot of Ulster Scots settled the southern Appalachians), I think our love for the Confederacy is probably as much due to ideological connections as anything. Because we're proud to be WASP's.

West Virginia is around purely cos they would not break with the Union and Ohio would have had a lot of them too If had to lay money down I say they were in the main on the side of the Union

[Subotan]

As would Kentucky, which sided with the Union.

[gaelic cowboy]

I recently watched a 2 part documentary on the Irish Brigade on telly and to be honest I dunno how anyone stayed with the units after the first engagement in either side of the civil war.

[a completely inoffensive name]

In memory of the Confederate soldiers, who bravely fought for their way of life, their constitutional rights, and their natural right of self determination established in the Declaration of Independence. With the eventual defeat of those patriots, the last vestiges of the nation the founders envisioned and the spirit of the revolution melted away as the states simply became districts in a monolithic and ever-growing federal system, their rights having become privileges to be given and taken away by Washington and whichever powerful regional block controlled it.

You are a funny guy PJ.

[PanzerJaeger]

Oh boy oh boy this going to be fun.

If there was ever a more nefarious and despicable use of the word "rights" than in the statements made by the Confederates and their apologists when justifying an socio-economic system dependant upon the labour of owned men, then I have yet to see it.

How about when the founders used it?


You are a funny guy PJ.

I've been working on a stand up routine based around state's rights that I plan to debut at the Apollo.

[Subotan]

How about when the founders used it?
It is a permanent stain on the integrity of Jefferson, Washington and the other slave-holding Founders. That said, the FFs did not declare independence from Britain in order to defend slavery, as the Confederates did from the USA.

[PanzerJaeger]

It is a permanent stain on the integrity of Jefferson, Washington and the other slave-holding Founders. That said, the FFs did not declare independence from Britain in order to defend slavery, as the Confederates did from the USA.

The logic behind that one is quite fascinating. So it is not the act of slaveholding itself, but the rationale for succession that determines the level of moral outrage. I suppose if the Southern states had seceded over a belief that Lincoln looked ridiculous in a top hat, you would regard them in a more positive light?

That does raise an interesting issue though. Slavery was certainly the political lightning rod of the day, but it was only a topical focal point that masked deeper divisions, much like the debate over the healthcare bill today or the one over taxes in the 1770's. With less than 5%* of Southern whites owning slaves, the reasons most Southerners fought were far deeper. They centered around the same type of regionalism, resistance to (real or perceived) outside oppression, and belief in self determination that inspired the first American patriots.

If one looks at the situation with certain biases and preconceived notions removed, it is quite clear that the Southerners were very much following in the footsteps of the first American patriots - a collection of wealthy slaveholding landowners with economic concerns and a bunch of relatively impoverished proles driven by far more ideological notions of freedom from tyranny joined together in rebellion against a country from which they had grown increasingly apart.

In 1776 they were patriots and in 1861 they were traitors. In the immortal words of Winston Churchill, "History is written by the victors".


*(Interestingly, free black and native American slave ownership far exceeded White ownership proportionally. Try and wrap your head around that one. ~;))

[Hax]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMHyovwX7JM

Relevant! Always!

[Rhyfelwyr]

West Virginia is around purely cos they would not break with the Union and Ohio would have had a lot of them too If had to lay money down I say they were in the main on the side of the Union

The thing is all the particular details of history tend to get swept up into the bigger picture. For various reasons loyalism is now heavily intertwined with the far-right and so they emphasise the links with the Confederacy over the Union forces. There is some truth in it, the term redneck comes from the red scarves worn by the Covenanters. Heck, the KKK was modelled off the Orange Order. So it shouldn't be surprising to see this...

https://img571.imageshack.us/img571/9581/orangeorderkkk.jpg (https://img571.imageshack.us/i/orangeorderkkk.jpg/)

https://img853.imageshack.us/img853/1941/loyalistnazis.jpg (https://img853.imageshack.us/i/loyalistnazis.jpg/)

https://img600.imageshack.us/img600/1164/vanguardnazis.jpg (https://img600.imageshack.us/i/vanguardnazis.jpg/)

https://img577.imageshack.us/img577/5619/rangersnazis.jpg (https://img577.imageshack.us/i/rangersnazis.jpg/)

I don't really like how its been hijacked by these neo-Nazi idiots. I mean, I'm right-wing, maybe far-right. But why celebrate an evil regime that our grandfathers fought to destroy? And by all means, celebrate the good things the Confederacy stood for and southern culture against northern imperialism, but slavery was an abomination. And being proud of your own race/ancestry and culture is fine, but there's no need to hate on others (well you can hate on bad cultures, but not the people).

Please excuse my mini-rant...

BACK TO TOPIC: Just to point out, the Confederates were 100% loyal to the Constitution so I have to disagree with Strike when he calls their rebellion illegal.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The logic behind that one is quite fascinating. So it is not the act of slaveholding itself, but the rationale for succession that determines the level of moral outrage. I suppose if the Southern states had seceded over a belief that Lincoln looked ridiculous in a top hat, you would regard them in a more positive light?
I would regard them in a more idiotic light. But yes, the context behind why they fought does tend to be important when looking at the situation. That seems to be "Reality 101" where I come from.



That does raise an interesting issue though. Slavery was certainly the political lightning rod of the day, but it was only a topical focal point that masked deeper divisions, much like the debate over the healthcare bill today or the one over taxes in the 1770's. With less than 5%* of Southern whites owning slaves, the reasons most Southerners fought were far deeper. They centered around the same type of regionalism, resistance to (real or perceived) outside oppression, and belief in self determination that inspired the first American patriots.
Not at all. All you have you do is read South Carolina's Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union and it is quite obvious why they split apart. Federal government wasn't following their part of the "compact" between SC and the Union by returning slaves back to slave territory under the Fugitive Slave Act and the new president was noted as declaring that there would be no peace with half slave and half free states, which they viewed as a transgression on the compact as well.

Read it yourself:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp



If one looks at the situation with certain biases and preconceived notions removed, it is quite clear that the Southerners were very much following in the footsteps of the first American patriots - a collection of wealthy slaveholding landowners with economic concerns and a bunch of relatively impoverished proles driven by far more ideological notions of freedom from tyranny joined together in rebellion against a country from which they had grown increasingly apart.
Except you have eliminated all context from the situation in order to fit your own world view.

Hitler and the Nazi's were very much following in the footsteps of the first American patriots - a collection of subjected subjects of European powers without any real representation or self determination (Allies told them they couldn't even rebuild their army to defend themselves!) with economic concerns (getting out of the depression) and a bunch of relatively impoverished proles driven by far more ideological notions of freedom from tyranny (from the debt and subjection of those allies) joined together in rebellion against countries from which they had grown apart.

What's wrong with that statement? A lot. Because it leaves out all context and fudges the fact, just as you are doing.

The fact is that not all FF and leaders of the Revolution were slave owners, they didn't fight for economic concerns, they fought over representation over taxes. The FF sent letters to the king telling him that they will quiet down about the taxes and end the revolution before it started just as long as they had a say in parliament when it came to the taxes. When the king said no, then the revolution started kicking off.



In 1776 they were patriots and in 1861 they were traitors. In the immortal words of Winston Churchill, "History is written by the victors".
And sometimes it is just written by historians who are not Southern apologists.



*(Interestingly, free black and native American slave ownership far exceeded White ownership proportionally. Try and wrap your head around that one. ~;))
Yes, blacks owned slaves, therefore they are just as evil as the white slave owners. This makes no bit of difference, because most blacks were nevertheless...the slaves. This is just one of your offhanded comments to try and paint others in the same negative light to apologize for the horrific actions of those you are defending.

[a completely inoffensive name]

BACK TO TOPIC: Just to point out, the Confederates were 100% loyal to the Constitution so I have to disagree with Strike when he calls their rebellion illegal.

They were loyal to their interpretation of the Constitution.

[PanzerJaeger]

I
Not at all. All you have you do is read South Carolina's Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union and it is quite obvious why they split apart. Federal government wasn't following their part of the "compact" between SC and the Union by returning slaves back to slave territory under the Fugitive Slave Act and the new president was noted as declaring that there would be no peace with half slave and half free states, which they viewed as a transgression on the compact as well.

Read it yourself:
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Indeed, and the Mexican-American war was fought over the Thornton Affair, the Spanish-American War was fought over the sinking of the Maine, Vietnam was fought over the Tonkin incident, and the Gulf War was purely fought in defense of the Kuwaitis. :rolleyes:

If you're genuinely interested in discovering the true motivations behind why nations choose military action, you'll almost never find them in the immediate casus belli. You need to learn to look deeper than that.

I would suggest that you study the multitude of available diaries and other primary sources written by Southern leaders, soldiers, and civilians. From my own experience in doing so, I have noted a lot of nationalistic and liberation oriented rhetoric and precious little about keeping the black man down - which corresponds rather well with the fact that most Southerners had no experience in that particular practice.

The main cause of the Civil War was sectionalism. Everything else was simply an effect of it. The South had grown apart from the North in nearly every respect, economically, culturally, and ethnically - far more than it was in the 1700's and far more than it is today. Slavery was simply the political apex of the underlying reality that the United States was in fact two nations.



Except you have eliminated all context from the situation in order to fit your own world view.

I'm happy to entertain contextual examples that change the fundamental similarities that I noted. Two regional groups, led in part by wealthy slaveholders and embracing a very limited view of liberation ideology, rebelled against the broader nation from which they had fundamentally grown apart. The first revolution was successful and the second was not. :shrug:


Hitler and the Nazi's were very much following in the footsteps of the first American patriots - a collection of subjected subjects of European powers without any real representation or self determination (Allies told them they couldn't even rebuild their army to defend themselves!) with economic concerns (getting out of the depression) and a bunch of relatively impoverished proles driven by far more ideological notions of freedom from tyranny (from the debt and subjection of those allies) joined together in rebellion against countries from which they had grown apart.

Godwin? So soon?



What's wrong with that statement? A lot. Because it leaves out all context and fudges the fact, just as you are doing.

Which facts?



The fact is that not all FF and leaders of the Revolution were slave owners, they didn't fight for economic concerns, they fought over representation over taxes. The FF sent letters to the king telling him that they will quiet down about the taxes and end the revolution before it started just as long as they had a say in parliament when it came to the taxes. When the king said no, then the revolution started kicking off.

Not all Southern leaders were slaveholders either. In fact, most were not.

In any event, you may want to have another look at the history of the period if you honestly believe the colonists would have happily paid their taxes in exchange for a couple of seats in Parliament. The Revolution was about the realization that the colonies had become a wholly separate entity from Britain.

John Adams wrote of the fundamental ideological differences that had grown to separate the colonies from Britain:

"The Revolution was effected before the war commenced. The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people....This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people was the real American Revolution."



Yes, blacks owned slaves, therefore they are just as evil as the white slave owners. This makes no bit of difference, because most blacks were nevertheless...the slaves. This is just one of your offhanded comments to try and paint others in the same negative light to apologize for the horrific actions of those you are defending.

I don't think black slaveholders were evil. They were just living according to the standards of their time, and proportionately much more successfully than their white counterparts. ~;)

[Ice]

I'm rather happy this nation ended slavery with a Union victory. Who knows how long southern plantation owners would have let brown people work on their farms free of charge.

Standards of the time? Lol. Forcing a minority group to work for no pay or rights under god awful conditions is blatantly wrong. I don't care if you from this century or anytime before it.

That being said, yes it does indeed many of our founding fathers weren't as perfect as they are portrayed to be in history. It's quite sad really.

Edit:

I remember when I found out the founding fathers were slave owners. I got the same feeling as when I started to actually question and criticize Catholicism. It isn't pleasant.

[Crazed Rabbit]

In memory of the Confederate soldiers, who bravely fought for their way of life, their constitutional rights, and their natural right of self determination established in the Declaration of Independence.

Though not so much for the natural right of self determination of all men? No, no, no - just rights for tyrants who kept others in slavery, and their way of life, built on the immoral oppression of people held in bondage without freedom.

Anyways, time to read about Sherman's march and think warm fuzzy thoughts.


*(Interestingly, free black and native American slave ownership far exceeded White ownership proportionally. Try and wrap your head around that one. )

There's lies, damned lies, and statistics.

CR

[a completely inoffensive name]

Indeed, and the Mexican-American war was fought over the Thornton Affair, the Spanish-American War was fought over the sinking of the Maine, Vietnam was fought over the Tonkin incident, and the Gulf War was purely fought in defense of the Kuwaitis. :rolleyes:

If you're genuinely interested in discovering the true motivations behind why nations choose military action, you'll almost never find them in the immediate casus belli. You need to learn to look deeper than that.

So the Southern leaders were actively lying why they decided to go to war. I think you got things a bit mixed up. You don't trust the Gulf of Tonkin report because the US gov was asking for a reason to go to war for a while. The Southern states did not want to go to war, otherwise they would have taken the Missouri Compromise as an excuse or the Compromise of 1850 as an excuse. They finally got fed up after four score and five years of compromises and "attacks" on their institution and finally proclaimed that they will fight to keep it.

But no, the Southerners were lying about protecting slavery in their declarations, the real truth was that they wanted freedom... Just like Osama bin Laden was lying when he kept saying he was going to attack us for our support of Israel and our presence in Saudi Arabia and the entire muslim world, he really was attacking us because he hated our freedom.



I would suggest that you study the multitude of available diaries and other primary sources written by Southern leaders, soldiers, and civilians. From my own experience in doing so, I have noted a lot of nationalistic and liberation oriented rhetoric and precious little about keeping the black man down - which corresponds rather well with the fact that most Southerners had no experience in that particular practice.
You mean, the average soldier thought he was fighting for something great and patriotic? Oh wow, that's interesting because I am sure soldiers when they are on the wrong side usually agree with the atrocities of the nation they are fighting for.



The main cause of the Civil War was sectionalism. Everything else was simply an effect of it. The South had grown apart from the North in nearly every respect, economically, culturally, and ethnically - far more than it was in the 1700's and far more than it is today. Slavery was simply the political apex of the underlying reality that the United States was in fact two nations.
And the sectionalism was caused by the inherent difference in the geography between the northern, coastal states which were not suitable for widespread agricultural domination as the southern inland states were. So of course the economies of these different regions developed along different paths. And these differences in geography were the result of a natural process of erosion and tectonic shifting over millions of years. So in the end the cause of the Civil War was the natural development of the Earth. Thus, there were no evil men in this whole ordeal, just an unfortunate result of nature, now run along kids.




I'm happy to entertain contextual examples that change the fundamental similarities that I noted. Two regional groups, led in part by wealthy slaveholders and embracing a very limited view of liberation ideology, rebelled against the broader nation from which they had fundamentally grown apart. The first revolution was successful and the second was not. :shrug:
John Adams did not own slaves.
John Jay heavily advocated emancipation, curiously he did own slaves but had this as his reason: “I purchase slaves and manumit them at proper ages and when their faithful services shall have afforded a reasonable retribution.”
Benjamin Franklin did own slaves but also went on to support emancipation.

This is the kind of context that you leave out. "Oh all the FF owned slaves, it's a direct parallel." But that in itself borders on wrong (John Adams) to shaky ground. It seems that for many of the slave owning FF, after the Revolution was over, they took to the principles of it a little close to the heart and actually pushed for eliminating slavery from the Union. These Founding Fathers seemed to think that the "states rights" of the Southern states were not as important as the fact that slavery is completely wrong and atrocious to the ideals of human rights. Again, this is a context you neglect, because to bring up the fact that many of the Founding Fathers started to think that slavery should be abolished conflicts with the direct comparison that the Southern leaders were just like the FF, fighting for freedom, including the freedom of slavery.




Godwin? So soon?
Learn Godwin bro. Didn't call you Hitler, I used Hitler as an example of a description without any context. If you don't think that institutionalized slavery is comparable with the atrocities of Hitler, than you have some screws loose.





Which facts?
See above.




Not all Southern leaders were slaveholders either. In fact, most were not.

In any event, you may want to have another look at the history of the period if you honestly believe the colonists would have happily paid their taxes in exchange for a couple of seats in Parliament. The Revolution was about the realization that the colonies had become a wholly separate entity from Britain.
So what was it, both groups were slave owning or what? Are you already admitting your comparison has holes in it?

Your quote from John Adams unfortunately is sullied by the fact that he was not an impartial man in the manner. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_Branch_Petition
Most of the representatives still wanted to prevent war, only after the king showed how stubborn he was, Adams and the other ideologues took to the public with their rhetoric and succeeded.




I don't think black slaveholders were evil. They were just living according to the standards of their time, and proportionately much more successfully than their white counterparts. ~;)
There is no such thing as standards of your time. A year is just a number, morals and ethics have been around since humans could understand them.

[PanzerJaeger]

So the Southern leaders were actively lying why they decided to go to war. I think you got things a bit mixed up. You don't trust the Gulf of Tonkin report because the US gov was asking for a reason to go to war for a while. The Southern states did not want to go to war, otherwise they would have taken the Missouri Compromise as an excuse or the Compromise of 1850 as an excuse. They finally got fed up after four score and five years of compromises and "attacks" on their institution and finally proclaimed that they will fight to keep it.

But no, the Southerners were lying about protecting slavery in their declarations, the real truth was that they wanted freedom... Just like Osama bin Laden was lying when he kept saying he was going to attack us for our support of Israel and our presence in Saudi Arabia and the entire muslim world, he really was attacking us because he hated our freedom.

I am not saying that slavery had nothing to do with the South's secession. I am saying that it was only a nominal casus belli in a conflict that had much deeper roots in sectionalism, the politics of self determination, and ultimately power and influence. The election of Lincoln guaranteed permanent minority status for Southern states in Congress, which in those days even more than today meant the North would enjoy regional favoritism in allocation of resources, trade deals, tariffs etc. at the expense of the South. (The nearly diametrically opposed economies of the two regions often meant that a policy that was positive in the North had negative effects in the South.)

And so the South, much like the founders, found themselves paying taxes to a nation they had grown increasingly estranged from and facing the prospect of rapidly declining representation as Westward expansion increased. They had little reason to stay in the Union and a powerful precedent (and in their opinion a constitutional right) to justify their secession.



You mean, the average soldier thought he was fighting for something great and patriotic? Oh wow, that's interesting because I am sure soldiers when they are on the wrong side usually agree with the atrocities of the nation they are fighting for.

I would think that if you're interested in an accurate picture of why people fought, it would be difficult to ignore the thoughts and opinions of those who actually fought.

However, if you wish to disregard the motivations of the average soldier, how about their leadership? Apart from outliers such as Forrest, you'll find a loyalty to state that is unheard of today, but very little dedication to the preservation of slavery. Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, Bragg, ect.... those men did not fight for slavery.


And the sectionalism was caused by the inherent difference in the geography between the northern, coastal states which were not suitable for widespread agricultural domination as the southern inland states were. So of course the economies of these different regions developed along different paths. And these differences in geography were the result of a natural process of erosion and tectonic shifting over millions of years. So in the end the cause of the Civil War was the natural development of the Earth. Thus, there were no evil men in this whole ordeal, just an unfortunate result of nature, now run along kids.

You can leave your stupid sarcasm in your pocket! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfUj4QJGnok)

Seriously though, I would argue that there were in fact very few evil men in the conflict, and that both sides were comprised largely of patriots.

You'll note that many Southerners had far more in common with Washington and Jefferson than their industrialized Northern neighbors, and the parallels to the Revolution I've highlighted in this thread did not go unnoticed. The words of the founders including the Declaration of Independence, the 10th amendment, and the ideology self determination were extremely powerful in the South and they certainly had reason to believe that a historical precedent had been set.

It was the North, not the South, that was attempting to alter the fundamental compact that brought the two regions together in the first place - the agreement that was established and supported by both slaveholding and non slaveholding founders.

I have no problem accepting and celebrating the fact that slavery is considered an evil practice by today's moral standards. Where I take issue is first the erroneous assumption that all or even most Southerners fought primarily to preserve the institution of slavery and then the retroactive application of contemporary morals to a people more than 150 years removed from those standards to cast them as "evil" or "traitors". It reeks of historical ignorance and smug self-righteousness.


This is the kind of context that you leave out. "Oh all the FF owned slaves, it's a direct parallel." But that in itself borders on wrong (John Adams) to shaky ground. It seems that for many of the slave owning FF, after the Revolution was over, they took to the principles of it a little close to the heart and actually pushed for eliminating slavery from the Union. These Founding Fathers seemed to think that the "states rights" of the Southern states were not as important as the fact that slavery is completely wrong and atrocious to the ideals of human rights. Again, this is a context you neglect, because to bring up the fact that many of the Founding Fathers started to think that slavery should be abolished conflicts with the direct comparison that the Southern leaders were just like the FF, fighting for freedom, including the freedom of slavery.

Such facts simply draw them closer to their Southern ancestors, many of whom also questioned the institution both during and after the Civil War and engaged in the same type of patriarchal justification for its continuance.


Learn Godwin bro. Didn't call you Hitler, I used Hitler as an example of a description without any context. If you don't think that institutionalized slavery is comparable with the atrocities of Hitler, than you have some screws loose.

Fascinating. It seemed to me that you were clearly using Hitler to make a reductio ad absurdum regarding my comparison of the Southern secessionists to the founders - a clear example of Godwin.


So what was it, both groups were slave owning or what? Are you already admitting your comparison has holes in it?

Both groups had some slaveholders and some non slaveholders.


There is no such thing as standards of your time. A year is just a number, morals and ethics have been around since humans could understand them.

Such sentiments are betrayed by historical reality. Do me a favor - grab a Bible and skim through the Old Testament. Hell, it's long an boring as sin (pardon the pun), a superficial reading of Leviticus will do. After your reading, come back and tell me that moral standards aren't transitory. :beam:

[rory_20_uk]

It was completely about slavery, and nothing else. Slavery is Wong and was why the North attacked the South, as slavery has to be rooted out wherever it is...

Then they stopped at the border of Spanish Mexico as they appear to have been unaware there was any slavery just over the border...

~:smoking:

[Greyblades]

It was completely about slavery, and nothing else.
No, it wasn't, the North attacked the South because they were splitting from the union, while dissent over the North's attempts at aboloishing slavery was the reason the South wanted to leave the union it wasn't the only reason for the war.

[Banquo's Ghost]

It was completely about slavery, and nothing else. Slavery is Wong and was why the North attacked the South, as slavery has to be rooted out wherever it is...


No, it wasn't, the North attacked the South because they were splitting from the union...

I was under the impression that the Confederacy attacked the North at Fort Sumter on April 12th 1861 and thus initiated the war.

[Greyblades]

Realy? Huh. My history class didn't cover that just the reasons behind the war.

[Ice]

Realy? Huh. My history class didn't cover that just the reasons behind the war.

Wikipedia is your friend:


The Battle of Fort Sumter (April 12–13, 1861) was the bombardment and surrender of Fort Sumter, near Charleston, South Carolina, that started the American Civil War. Following declarations of secession by seven Southern states, South Carolina demanded that the U.S. Army abandon its facilities in Charleston Harbor. On December 26, 1860, U.S. Major Robert Anderson surreptitiously moved his small command from the indefensible Fort Moultrie on Sullivan's Island to Fort Sumter, a substantial fortress controlling the entrance of Charleston Harbor. An attempt by U.S. President James Buchanan to reinforce and resupply Anderson, using the unarmed merchant ship Star of the West, failed when it was fired upon by shore batteries on January 9, 1861. South Carolina authorities then seized all Federal property in the Charleston area, except for Fort Sumter.

During the winter months of 1861, the situation around Fort Sumter increasingly began to resemble a siege. In March, Brig. Gen. P.G.T. Beauregard, the first general officer of the newly formed Confederate States of America, was placed in command of Confederate forces in Charleston. Beauregard energetically directed the strengthening of batteries around Charleston harbor aimed at Fort Sumter. Conditions in the fort grew dire as the Federals rushed to complete the installation of additional guns. Anderson was short of men, food, and supplies.

The resupply of Fort Sumter became the first crisis of the administration of President Abraham Lincoln. He notified the Governor of South Carolina, Francis W. Pickens, that he was sending supply ships, which resulted in an ultimatum from the Confederate government: evacuate Fort Sumter immediately. Major Anderson refused to surrender. Beginning at 4:30 a.m. on April 12, the Confederates bombarded the fort from artillery batteries surrounding the harbor. Although the Union garrison returned fire, they were significantly outgunned and, after 34 hours, Major Anderson agreed to evacuate. There was no loss of life on either side as a direct result of this engagement, although a gun explosion during the surrender ceremonies on April 14 caused two Union deaths.

Following the battle, there was widespread support from both North and South for further military action. Lincoln's immediate call for 75,000 volunteers to suppress the rebellion resulted in an additional four states also declaring their secession and joining the Confederacy. The Civil War had begun.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I am not saying that slavery had nothing to do with the South's secession. I am saying that it was only a nominal casus belli in a conflict that had much deeper roots in sectionalism, the politics of self determination, and ultimately power and influence. The election of Lincoln guaranteed permanent minority status for Southern states in Congress, which in those days even more than today meant the North would enjoy regional favoritism in allocation of resources, trade deals, tariffs etc. at the expense of the South. (The nearly diametrically opposed economies of the two regions often meant that a policy that was positive in the North had negative effects in the South.)

And so the South, much like the founders, found themselves paying taxes to a nation they had grown increasingly estranged from and facing the prospect of rapidly declining representation as Westward expansion increased. They had little reason to stay in the Union and a powerful precedent (and in their opinion a constitutional right) to justify their secession.
But the point I am making is that of all the issues that they decided to rebel over, it was slavery. When it came to slavery, that is when they drew the line and said, "You shall not pass!"
And I have already given you the direct declaration of SC, they said nothing of tariffs, nothing of trade deals, nothing in allocation of resources. It was slavery, slavery, slavery that they said was what they were protecting under the guise of "freedom of property". For you to say, well it was more complex, there was also tariffs and such they were angry about...is completely irrelevant. They didn't make a big deal out of any of them, which tells you that the emphasis was on the slavery, hence why it was the key motivation behind it all. As I said before, there were tariffs and northern encroachment for 80+ years, they worked through compromises, but when there was a big anti-slavery president, oops there goes the south.

Dressing up the refusal to change their slave economy as "self determination" is putting lipstick on a pig.

The US has been since the very beginning a combination of wildly differing cultures and economies. But the purpose of all of them sticking together after the British threat was over, was to try and show the world that the biggest experiment in democracy that had ever been seen up till then was not only successful but the way of the future. Democracy has it's winners and it's losers just like any other system, except ideally the citizens themselves, not a tyrant chooses who wins and loses. The "growing separation" was the polarization of the public into those that wanted and those did not want slavery. Over time, the abolitionists won the argument and the public response in Congress showed accordingly. The South attempted to kill off the American experiment and refuse to accept the rules of Democracy because they had lost the argument. People didn't want blacks in chains, but the South depended on it for it's economy and way of life. If you are going to say, that is justification for breaking apart, then there is literally justification in breaking apart over any kind of loss in the public opinion. Healthcare bill doesn't sit right with us? Secession. Hmm our county seems surrounded by all these left leaning counties who dictate to us through the state government. Secession. My homeowner association didn't agree with my proposal for a new type of grass on people's lawns. Secession.




I would think that if you're interested in an accurate picture of why people fought, it would be difficult to ignore the thoughts and opinions of those who actually fought.

However, if you wish to disregard the motivations of the average soldier, how about their leadership? Apart from outliers such as Forrest, you'll find a loyalty to state that is unheard of today, but very little dedication to the preservation of slavery. Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, Bragg, ect.... those men did not fight for slavery. Why people fought does not equal why they were sent to fight. Again, with generals the picture given by them is not the accurate picture of "why". It was Eisenhower that said, "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.", and yet this same man was waist deep in commanding the largest conflict the world had ever seen.



You can leave your stupid sarcasm in your pocket! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfUj4QJGnok)

Seriously though, I would argue that there were in fact very few evil men in the conflict, and that both sides were comprised largely of patriots.

You'll note that many Southerners had far more in common with Washington and Jefferson than their industrialized Northern neighbors, and the parallels to the Revolution I've highlighted in this thread did not go unnoticed. The words of the founders including the Declaration of Independence, the 10th amendment, and the ideology self determination were extremely powerful in the South and they certainly had reason to believe that a historical precedent had been set.
YOU ARE TEARING ME APART LISA PJ! Those same words and ideology have been extremely powerful across the entire world for many regimes: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1945vietnam.html Inspiration from the same ideological well does not make your particular goal any purer.



It was the North, not the South, that was attempting to alter the fundamental compact that brought the two regions together in the first place - the agreement that was established and supported by both slaveholding and non slaveholding founders.
It was the American public that was attempting to alter the compact, under their right to alter their government say they see fit. The abolitionists won the war of rhetoric and the majority of the population was leaning towards removing slavery.



I have no problem accepting and celebrating the fact that slavery is considered an evil practice by today's moral standards. Where I take issue is first the erroneous assumption that all or even most Southerners fought primarily to preserve the institution of slavery and then the retroactive application of contemporary morals to a people more than 150 years removed from those standards to cast them as "evil" or "traitors". It reeks of historical ignorance and smug self-righteousness.
The big disconnect here is when you say you accept slavery is considered evil "by today's moral standards". Do you really believe that morality is completely subjective? Can anything be right in one culture and everything be wrong in another? When a society feels that rape is acceptable because women are inferior are we really going to sit back and say, we should not be so harsh, their moral standards are different? That's ludicrous.

Not all Southerners fought to preserve slavery, but the goals of the Southern political leadership was to primarily defend slavery on behalf of their comfortable way of living and the economic prosperity it brought to the richest plantation owners in the South.



Such facts simply draw them closer to their Southern ancestors, many of whom also questioned the institution both during and after the Civil War and engaged in the same type of patriarchal justification for its continuance.
So now your pool is growing smaller. They don't have parallels to the Founding Father's, the Southerner's of the 1860s had parallels to...southerner's of the 1780s. That seems given.



Fascinating. It seemed to me that you were clearly using Hitler to make a reductio ad absurdum regarding my comparison of the Southern secessionists to the founders - a clear example of Godwin.
Nope, I was not arguing that your logic is flawed by reducing it to absurdity, I was illustrating that your interpretation is riddled with lies by omission.



Both groups had some slaveholders and some non slaveholders.
Alright, just trying to make sure what the argument was.



Such sentiments are betrayed by historical reality. Do me a favor - grab a Bible and skim through the Old Testament. Hell, it's long an boring as sin (pardon the pun), a superficial reading of Leviticus will do. After your reading, come back and tell me that moral standards aren't transitory. :beam:
They are not. Lets go back to Hammurabi's Code where he calls for so many crimes to be punishable by death. oh hey, there is a thread in this very backroom where someone is also suggesting the death penalty for crimes that are not rape or murder. We all agree that is a ridiculous and disgusting idea, are we suddenly going to take pity on Hammurabi for living in a different time and start justifying the harshness of his code? No, you can talk about how primitive civilization was primitive and say that the crimes of the past are justified by that somehow but morality is not only applied when it is "known". A rape by a tribesman in an undiscovered tribe in the Amazon is no less despicable than a rape by a modern western man.