Where to begin? So much marred history needs to be corrected.

Let's begin with the least obvious.

90,000 African Americans fought for the Confederacy, when the War for Southern Independence ended, these Confederates chose parole with their Southern Brethren, rather than Northern "Freedom". I purposely put freedom in quotations, as Northern "Freedom" was really "vote Republican and you will have land", the former was done, the latter was never really implimented as most of the wealth of the South was stolen by the North and the capital taken there, used to build and maintain the mighty industrial furnaces constructed for war. While that is a good thing for the nation, it was certainly an example of a conquerer taking tribute from its conquered colony.

The Confederacy, what is this very unknown Nation? Well, today most would associate it with slavery, so let us dispell the myths of slavery shall we?

Fact 1: Until the Nineteeth Century, the inhabitants of the world practiced and accepted the institution of slavery as a normal part of life. (Muslims today still accept this institution and the slave market from Muslim parts of the world still trades in 2 million people annually).

Fact 2: From ancient times to the eighteenth century, most religions allowed for and some encouraged slavery.

Fact 3: The majority of the original African slaves were captured by and sold into slavery by other Africans (commonly known today).

Fact 4: The majority of African slaves were sent to Western Hemisphere locations outside of what would become the United States. Only six percent were sent to the U.S.

Fact 5: Virtually all slave trade was done initially by the Portuguese and Spanish and later by the British, French, Dutch, and those from the New England colonies. (As opposed to Southern colonies).

Fact 6: Slavery was found in all the thirteen original colonies (duh).

Fact 7: Slave trade to the United States ended in 1808. (The Confederacy's first act was to also outlaw this Slave trade).

Fact 8: A major effort was made by Northerners to relocate all freed slaves to Africa in the early 1800s. (Which Abraham Lincoln also thought a wise and great idea).

Fact 9: The first person to be killed in John Brown's Raid by Brown's men at Harpers Ferry, was a freed African American. (Oh the Irony).

Fact 10: Even Abraham Lincoln condemned John Brown's "Slave Revolt" raid at Harpers Ferry, calling Brown insane.

Fact 11: The vast majority of Southerners did not own slaves; nearly three-fourths of all Southern families did not own slaves.

Fact 12: The vast majority of slave owners lived on small farms. The large plantations were a myth; only fifteen people in the entire South owned five hundred or more slaves. (Emphasis added, wow, only 15 men, that's amazing, the Abolitionists would have you believe everyone had 1,000 brutalized slaves).

Fact 13: There were nearly a half million free African Americans in the United States at the outbreak of the War between the States, and the majority of them lived in the South. (261,918 Freed Blacks lived in the South).

Fact 14: African Americans (slaves and freed men and women) in 1860 had a greater chance of reaching a senior age than whites. (Having read the 1860 census myself, I know to be fact that this only applied to Blacks in the South, those in the North had a less chance of living past the age of 50 than whites).

Fact 15: The vast majority of slaves were well fed and their nutrimental intake may well have exceeded modern-day standards. (Last part seems to be more hypothetical, the truth is however, that they were not beaten and whipped as Abolitionists liked to claim. Any slave beaten or whipped is not because he was a slave, but because the owner was a brutal man, the kind that beats and whips his own son with a belt...which we have plenty of those today).

Fact 16: Slave housing was typically one family ot a cabin, similar to most rural white housing in the South.

Fact 17: Slave workers were more than just field laborers. Many were skilled workers and managers. (Emphasis added)

Fact 18: Most slaves worked a work schedule common to everyone in the South. Most, like white workers, were off on Sunday and either off all day or a half day on Saturdays.

Fact 19: The number of overseers in the South was quite small, and on those farms and plantations that had overseers, the majority were African American.

Fact 20: Most slaves earned their own money from farming and craft production. Some were able to earn enough to buy their freedom.

Fact 21: The sale of a save(s) that resulted in the break up of a family was a very uncommon occurrence. Only rarely would slave families be split up.

Fact 22: The medical care received by most slaves was superior to that of the Southern Whites. (Census of 1860).

Fact 23: By state laws slaves were not permitted to read or write, but due to their own initiative, often aided by their slave owner, many did so.

Fact 24: Period data suggests that, at least from a financial sense, free Africans were better off in the South versus the North.

Fact 25: Thousands of free African Americans in the South owned their own Slaves. (Shocker!!!)

Fact 26: Abraham Lincoln was elected in 1860 strictly on a regional vote, receiving less than 40 percent of the overall popular vote. (Who complained about Bush not receiving the popular vote?) In some Southern states not a single vote was cast for Lincoln.

Fact 27: Abraham Lincoln was a strong proponent of removing African Americans from America and resettling them in other parts of the world.

Fact 28: The Emancipation Proclamation when issued on January 1, 1863, freed virtually no slaves, and the slaves that could have been freed in the border states were specifically excluded from being freed.

Fact 29: Slaves, former slaves, and freed African Americans served in the military of both the Union and the Confederacy, about 185,000 in the Union Army and perhaps as many as 90,000 in the Confederacy. (At least 65,000 which are recorded as the number of Freed African Americans serving in the Confederacy).

Fact 30: African Americans in the Union army served in segregated units and were paid less money than white soldiers. African Americans in the Confederate army served in integrated units and although not all were paid, when they were, they were paid the same as white soldiers. (I hate that movie "Glory", it's so full of lies).

From the book, Myths and Realities of American Slavery by John C. Perry. (My additions in parentheticals)

Phew, a lot of facts to read, but it allows more orderly discussion of the Noble Confederacy, since the Confederacy is so marred by lies and propoganda.

So, what was the Confederacy fighting for? The Same thing that George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were fighting for (slave owners). Self-government. The right to not be boonswaggled.

What was happening to the South to cause it to secede? It was being robbed by the Northern dominated Congress. The South entered the Union under the Constitution, weary that the North would dominate the Congress (given too much power) and would attack the South for its wealth. The South was worth twice as much per-capita than the North. It's GDP was 2/3rds of the entire United States economy.

So the South seceded, to protect its rights. Was it seceding to protect Slavery?

No.

In fact, the Blacks would have faired better under the Confederacy than under the Union, for the Confederacy had enacted a program (President Jefferson Davis' greatest hope) to end slavery in good taste. This was by giving Slaves who fought for the Confederacy, not only freedom, but land. The program would then be furthered (in hopes after peace) by ending the sales of peoples within the Confederacy, and allow slavery to die out, letting the Blacks transition into society.

But, it was never to be, the South was conquered, the North forced Blacks to be "free" and gave them nearly nothing (taking most of the South's wealth for themselves).

The South lost most agrarian production, and lost almost all its industrial production, leaving it utterly impoverished.

The Blacks were used by the Republicans to gain "re-elections" in the Congress and Presidency, and this led to animosity between a new generation of whites and blacks that before did not exist.

The Confederacy was trying to preserve the nation that our Founding Fathers invisioned, the Republicans had different ideas, a nation that was strongly federal and was more what we see ourselves as "today", a single nation, little for the states.

What's better, is not really determinable right now, but certainly, a strong federal government is worse for rights in the long-run, as greater evils are committed by a Unitarian government than by a State-centered Union.

The fact that the South was Right is only shown by the massive efforts taken by the Federal Government to "win".

First, the Federal Government lost through-out most of the war, even though it had more men and more industry. The Federal Government had to spend the first year of the war just to suppress rebelions within their "Northern States". By the first year, Lincoln had 38,000 political prisoners (of which the prisoner death rates were about 60%). (And we complain about Abu Graib?)

Lincoln conducted the war without approval by Congress (a declaration of war was never issued).

The South on the other hand, had no troubles raising troops, freed black, slave or white. The South had integrated units of Native Americans, Hispanics and Blacks with their own White soldiers.

The North had no such thing.

The Confederacy had a Constitution (it was not the Confederacy of the Article of Confederation, for those who are so confused).

That Constitution expressly prohibited the "tax and spend" policies of Federal Government that plagued the nation then, and today. It limited the President to one 6 year term and it gave the President "Line-item Veto" (don't we all want that?)

Their Constitution had the amendments within it, that today most of us seem to be begging for. (Ironic, huh?)

The War for Southern Independence was a war against a hostile foreign government in Washington D.C., which had become uncontrolled and unrepresentative of the States within the Union. The Confederacy was an effort to maintain the Constitution, not to destroy it as Lincoln had "suggested". They were fighting to maintain the Constitution as the Founding Fathers invisioned. A republic for the peoples to be secure in their own government.

hey a question

what DID happen to the defeated people?

i mean did they lose and then just rejoin the USA?

No, they were at first readmitted to the United States, they then ratified the 13th Amendment, but because they would not (along with most States) ratify the 14th Amendment (and there-by forever change the structure of the US to what it is today...) they were "booted out of the Union" and held hostage by Federal occupation, their Governments were abolished (the ones that had ratified the 13th Amendment), Military Governments were established and they were kept out of the Union until they ratified an Amendment, that most Northern States themselves refused to Ratify.

This event was in part why they (the Republicans) impeached Andrew Johnson (who refused to change our nation from a Union into an Empire, for all intents and purposes).

It's a spooky time, ill-taught, about the Ratification of the 14th Amendment.

A time called the Reconstruction Era, when our Federal Government broke every grievance the Declaration of Independence made against King George III.

Where to begin? So much marred history needs to be corrected.

Let's begin with the least obvious.

From the book, Myths and Realities of American Slavery by John C. Perry. (My additions in parentheticals)

They were fighting to maintain the Constitution as the Founding Fathers invisioned. A republic for the peoples to be secure in their own government.

Where to begin? So much marred history needs to be corrected.

Let's begin with the least obvious.

Like a biased author, with biased sources for a start?


http://www.history-us.com/Myths_and_Realities_of_American_Slavery_The_True_H istory_of_Slavery_in_America_157249350X.html

...Mr. Perry presents a clearly one-sided account of the Civil War through use of SELECTIVE sources. He has also deliberately concealed his partisan "credentials" from his readers. Are you aware that Mr. Perry (perhaps we should address him as General) is the Commander of the "Army of the Trans-Mississippi". This is an extremely august position in the upper hierarchy of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV). General Perry is also the former "Texas Division" Commander of the SCV and has spent decades in this organization.
...



http://southerngrace.biz/bonnieblue/perry_profile.htm



Perry has been a member of the Texas Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) for twenty years.
...

www.mythsandrealities.com
...

In 1990, Perry became the very first Central Texas Brigade Commander. He served in that capacity for four years. During that time, four new SCV camps were formed.
He served as a Texas Division officer beginning in 1994 and was elected Texas Division Commander in 1998. During his term as Division Commander, the Division had its first Legislative Day in Austin. As a result of that effort, the Texas Division walked away with the coveted Senate Resolution #526 proclaiming April as Confederate History Month in Texas.
...

He has received numerous Texas SCV Division honors. In 1998, the Texas Division of the SCV honored him by presenting Perry with the Division’s Confederate of the Year Award. In 2000 Perry was presented with the coveted Deo Vindice Award, the highest award given by the Texas Division, in honor of his service to the SCV.
He was elected the Army Commander of the Trans-Mississippi Department at the 2002 SCV Reunion in Memphis, Tennessee and serves the SCV as a member of its General Executive Council.
...

What was happening to the South to cause it to secede? It was being robbed by the Northern dominated Congress. The South entered the Union under the Constitution, weary that the North would dominate the Congress (given too much power) and would attack the South for its wealth. The South was worth twice as much per-capita than the North. It's GDP was 2/3rds of the entire United States economy.

So the South seceded, to protect its rights. Was it seceding to protect Slavery?

No.

You can't make that claim. While slavery certainly wasn't the only issue, the victory of Lincoln, the candidate of an anti-slavery party, in Nov. 1860 it was the trigger that drove the Deep South states out. Yes, tariffs had been an issue since the 1820s, the route of the transcontinental railroad, the Homestead act, all were sources of conflict, but if you examine sectionalism as it intensified between 1820 and 1860, it was the slavery issue more often than not that was the central source of conflict. The tariff issue had died down after the nullfication crisis in the early 1830s. The Homestead Act couldn't be passed without southern consent in Congress, so those weren't major sources of conflict in 1860, but the coming to power of an anti-slavery was that source of conflict. And thosed southern Fire-Eaters, particularly those in South Carolina, those who had pushed for secession for some time, recognized that they could use this issue, the threat of an assault on the institution of slavery in the South, to propel other southern state leaders to follow their lead, something they had failed to do in 1832 over the tariff issue.


The Confederacy had a Constitution (it was not the Confederacy of the Article of Confederation, for those who are so confused).

That Constitution expressly prohibited the "tax and spend" policies of Federal Government that plagued the nation then, and today. It limited the President to one 6 year term and it gave the President "Line-item Veto" (don't we all want that?)

Their Constitution had the amendments within it, that today most of us seem to be begging for. (Ironic, huh?)

That CSA constitution also made it unlawful for any member states to abolish slavery. So much for the argument that secession was all about states' rights and not slavery.


The War for Southern Independence was a war against a hostile foreign government in Washington D.C., which had become uncontrolled and unrepresentative of the States within the Union. The Confederacy was an effort to maintain the Constitution, not to destroy it as Lincoln had "suggested". They were fighting to maintain the Constitution as the Founding Fathers invisioned. A republic for the peoples to be secure in their own government.

Regardless of whether or not Lincoln was right or wrong (and I think he was, but am glad he did it anyway), the CSA was not a republic, but rather had been since 1787 an oligarchy run by an aristocratic ruling elite. Roughly 5% of the population, that small super-planter class, owned some 90% of the region's wealth, and controlled its politics. 12 families alone controlled politics in South Carolina, and literally passed the governorship and Senate seats back and forth among themselves*.

I'm a southerner, and let me be the first to say I'm glad the South lost the war and was forced, kicking and screaming perhaps, out of the feudal age.

* A good read on this is Look Away: The History of The Confederate States Of America, by the immenent Civil war historian, William C. Davis.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0684865858/102-9699341-2254551?v=glance

12 families alone controlled politics in South Carolina, and literally passed the governorship and Senate seats back and forth among themselves*.



I'm a southerner, and let me be the first to say I'm glad the South lost the war and was forced, kicking and screaming perhaps, out of the feudal age.


isnt that still happerning now? what about the bush family and how many of them have or are holding public office?

isnt that still happerning now? what about the bush family and how many of them have or are holding public office?

Please. Not even close.


I'm no history expert, but since when did slaves earn money? And if they earned money wouldn't that make them a non-slave?

Up until the late 1700s/early 1800s, when slaves began to seriously out-number whites in some southern states, slaves had been allowed considerably more freedom. Many were allowed their own small plots to grow personal crops, either for their own consumption or to sell if they chose. Those slaves with skills on plantations, blacksmiths, carpenters, etc. could hire themselves out on their off-time. They could also move about with some freedom in their off-time, leaving plantation and visiting others. As I said, this began to change especially in the late 18th/early 19th century, both with the population increases, and also following more frequent slave rebellions. As whites became more fearful, they began enacting more slave codes, restricting the few freedoms that slaves had once enjoyed. For the first couple hundred years of slavery in America, it had closely resembled indentured servitude, with some slaves even being able to earn their freedom after serving their time, but when northern states abolished slavery after the Constitution (and gave slaves an escape route), and with the rebellions, it began to become an increasingly oppresssive institution.

Spyke im not saying i know alot about american history but i can think of 2 familys off the top of my head who breed people to go into public service (or at least thats how it seems to me)

one is the Bush's, with the 2 gorges and i belive i herd that a jeb bush was governer of florider

the other is the kenerdys

now i might be wrong in my assesment. we have never had anything like this in australia (i cant even think of one example of 2 PMs with the same last name)

The South was a third world state that was lucky enough to last as long as it did. It didn’t even have enough liquid capital to sustain its war; the civil war was not won with guns but with money. Since the Southern ports were blockaded they couldn’t trade their cotton, and since their banking was even less developed the horrendous American banking system they had to print fiat money and inflation went up to 700% causing much poverty, and those blacks who fought for the confederacy…did they really have a choice? Honestly? If you concurrently look at the north her ability to incur and sustain her debt load through bonds, and tax hikes allowed her to win the day.

The South on the other hand, had no troubles raising troops, freed black, slave or white. The South had integrated units of Native Americans, Hispanics and Blacks with their own White soldiers.

Does this imply the north had more trouble getting troops?


So the South seceded, to protect its rights. Was it seceding to protect Slavery?

No.

A hideously moronic statement stemming from your zeal to simplify everything into black and white (no pun intended) shades.

First, Undecided, that's absolutely not true, the South came out of their War for Independence without any debts. It was not until after the first Reconstruction Act that the South became unable to pay for all its needs.

Second, Spyke, I must disagree, especially on the subject of the causes of that war, they were most certainly not about Slavery (though we today can look back and say it was in their faces). Slavery was merely a dividing issue in that it could divide the States.

However, if you were well read, you'd probably have learned long ago that Partisanship was what truly divided the States, not Slavery.

Had there been no Slavery, partisanship would have divided the States geographically over some other issue, this very nearly happened in teh 1800 elections, but the animosity against the Federalists was so great, there was no motion for the larger States to seceded in order to secure a stronger Government for themselves. Almost no one wanted such a thing at that time.

The Civil War was in most, made possible, by immigrants, who did not share the same self-governing principles that the Colonists did, and thus were more liable to support the Federal Army and their agenda (which they did, in fact it is best described of immigrants of that time, mostly Scots and Irish, as taking-up a gun as soon as arriving on-shore).

Like wise, I disagree with your assertion that the State was dominated by 12 families, no Republic is dominated by any family, and Asguard brought that up. In the last 45 years, there have been 9 presidents of which 2 have been directly related, 3 presidents falling into the category of non-direct relationships, 1 being directly appointed to partially over-see the comission on another's Assassination, one gained office by scrupulous means, another gained office through that Assassination. Yet another had a "chance" of re-election because of yet another Assassination, of the brother of the formerly Assassinated President.

That President having had several men of his family in politics of the Nation, and the current President having a Governor in his family.

America has always had a political elite, some-what extended families that have more or less dominated politics.

BUT!

That does not deminish the strength of the people in dictating policy. The South's will to secede was not driven by 12 families, or they would have found themselves shouldering-arms alone.

Thirdly, to address "biased resource", the book from which I took the snippets of quotes is certainly from a biased author, but the raw data to look at (which he himself admits can not tell the actual or full story, we must merely piece together what we can), does not suggest that the Slavery of the time was the brutal institution that the Abolitionists wanted the nation to believe, or the same as the Apartheid was.

However, I also do not make it out to be a "good institution", nor does he, it merely is somewhere between on that level. If slavery is wrong, it is wrong for having someone your property, regardless of how well you take care of them or treat them, not allowing them to leave for more imopverished lifestyles by styles of their choosing, is the crime.

That is not, however, a demonic thing, it is something that continues to this day (2 million people are traded on the world's slave trade every year, reports the National Geographic.)

Human nature is to own things, and people try to own eachother, then it was out-right owning of a person.

Today it is the endebting of people to other entities, usually in the form of Banks.

Finally, Spyke, I want to see you specifically quote where the Confederate Constitution said no State may abolish Slavery, because I don't see it.

First, Undecided, that's absolutely not true, the South came out of their War for Independence without any debts. It was not until after the first Reconstruction Act that the South became unable to pay for all its needs.

I never insuinated anything about debt and the South in my post…that’s the first thing. Secondly I just finished reading an extensive history of the American economy, what I do know is this:


The Confederacy, with a far smaller middle class, few large banks, and little financial expertise, was able to raise only 40% of its revenues through borrowing. The situation for the South was made worse by the fact that the South had an economy notoriously lacking in liquidity. Thus the South’s wealth could not be easily translated into money and spent on war material. While the South had 30 percent of the country’s total assets at the outbreak of the war, it had only about 12 percent of the circulating currency and 21 percent of the banking assets. The word land poor was not invented until reconstruction days, but it also described the Southern economy in 1861 (Gordan 194).

The situation was desperate in the South:


The South, with its less developed and cash poor economy, was able to raise only about 6 percent of its revenues by taxation…the confederacy had to rely for more than half its revenues on…printing money…by the end of the war the south had issued more then a billion and a half dollars in paper money….because the South had no good paper mills or state-of-the-art printing facilities, counterfeiters had a field day….as [fiat money] flooded the Southern economy, inflation increased rapidly, more than 700 percent in the first two years of the war alone…the currency became essentially worthless. (Gordan 195- 196)

The end of the Southern economy:


The cotton crop, unable to be exported because of the Northern blockade…rotted in warehouses…the South retained the essential attributes of what today is called a Third World country: ownership of the means of production by a small, privileged elite; desperate poverty and grinding toil for most of the populationl and an economy based on agriculture and extractive industries rather than manufacturing and services (Gordan 203).

The South in retrospect stood no chance against the financial resources of the North, the only way the South could have probably won (which really meant being able to weather the Unions financial resources, and élan) is by a huge influx of capital by a major European power, and if those European powers accepted the South as a independent nation. To my imagination the South should it have gotten its independence would be the American equivalent of South Africa, and at that would have been a eugenic nation, although I believe that slavery would be outmoded by the end of the 19th century in the South, rights for non-whites would be a long time coming, it took South Africa until 1994 to get rid of apartheid.

First, I only assumed you must have been angling that the South was "bankrupt" because otherwise there is no point to what you posted? Their ability to manage finance worked within the South, which was what was important due to their nature of international trade. Which as an after-thought, I recall a case between the US and a defendent from Britain who had been trading with the South, if I'm not incorrect, though, they traded in raw goods. He would sell them arms and other supplies, running the blockade, and they'd in turn give him cotton and etc. (State of Alabama). It's foolish to think that coin is the only form of currency...it's just easier (as you were explaining in liquidity).

How do you expect us to cross-reference you with that method of citation...Gordon? Gordon who? You left out the actual reference.

Anyway, I don't think exactly what you're arguing is an issue. The Continental Congress went through the same thing, I'd argue that the South was more financial savvy than just what Gordan claims, but then when you read John C. Calhoun's letters with John Alexander in 1841(?) about some banking problems in the State of Mississippi, they probably were not as well developed as those who followed Hamilton's methods in the North.

But, Hamilton bailed out the US, prior to that, they were in the same predicament.

It didn't help the South any that they were completely lacking in any source of Gold or Silver of any significance, so claiming that fiat money was due to incompetancy is odd, and we do use fiat money today.

By Gordan's definition (which I find to be wrong, or lacking, I haven't read any more than what you have posted so I'm not sure) of a 3rd world nation the US is a 3rd world nation. The US, most of production is owned by an elite, we have not "desperate poverty" but we have a large gap in wealth, and what is produced or how has nothing to do with the actual position of a nation in the "worlds". (another debate though for that ;))

Now, sure, I'll agree, financially the South was worse off, but they were fighting at a time where that did not matter so much, most of the South's equipment was captured from the Union forces. Today, a powerful economy does matter in War, at that time, not so much so as did a population. Though the Northern Economy certainly helped.

And yes, let me remind you that the Apartheid did not last even past the Generation that enacted it. You may say it lasted until 1994, but you have to look at when it began (which I can't remember specifically, 1940s or 1950s.)

It was gotten rid of by whites and blacks alike, popularly disavowed.

There is no reason to believe the South would have maintained such a long system as well. Would they have needed outside pressure? Sure, but they already had it, that pressure was felt every day that the British did not recognize their independence.

I do attribute their failure, to their pride, or stupidity, however you wish to explain their stalwart defense of that tradition.

Thirdly, to address "biased resource", the book from which I took the snippets of quotes is certainly from a biased author, but the raw data to look at (which he himself admits can not tell the actual or full story, we must merely piece together what we can), does not suggest that the Slavery of the time was the brutal institution that the Abolitionists wanted the nation to believe, or the same as the Apartheid was.
from my standpoint, anyone that defends the South's insurrection against the central government, is biased; there was no reason to secede from the Union, those people that fomented revolution, were hotheads, they could not see a way to resolve issues, & if you understand politics, why it's about compromise, you fight, argue, make deals, work it out. If they had had people like Jefferson, Washington & all those Southern thinkers, why, I think they would have come up with another solution, especially, if they had thought about what a problem it would be in the future for the country, what do you think?
to put it in present tense, in todays world, look at what happens when you control both Houses, the Supreme Court & the Prez, so under those conditions FreeMason, would you suggest that the Blue States secede also? I mean, those “Red” people don't speak from me; the S. Court, the Congress & Prez are anti-Blue, anti-me, anti-almost everything I believe in, I must be free from their control, start the 'Revolution', I want my freedom, what do you think?


However, I also do not make it out to be a "good institution", nor does he, it merely is somewhere between on that level.

If slavery is wrong, it is wrong for having someone your property, regardless of how well you take care of them or treat them, not allowing them to leave for more impoverished lifestyles by styles of their choosing, is the crime.
so, if slavery was legal today, would you own one? Do you think its 'right'?

At Rio Hondo Junior College in Whittier, Cal, one of the History profs, said that Lincoln was against slavery, not for what we all think was the reason, but because he felt that it was going to be applied to 'Whites' too, that there were enough poor people that they could be 'indentured' soon. Look at the Appalachian & Ozarks regions, yahoo!! are we ready for Hillbilly slaves!!!

First, I only assumed you must have been angling that the South was "bankrupt" because otherwise there is no point to what you posted?

The South was unable to win the war because of her innate financial inferiority which exists to this day. Wars are won by economics, who can produce more of a weapon, who can produce more technological innovations to give that nation a cutting edge, who is more able to weather the collapse of international trade, and which nation's society is more stable. The South lacked in all these areas, and I give much credit to the South for being to last as long as she did, unless the South got major international support she was destined to fail.

How do you expect us to cross-reference you with that method of citation...Gordon? Gordon who? You left out the actual reference.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060093625/102-1096471-0964134?v=glance

It didn't help the South any that they were completely lacking in any source of Gold or Silver of any significance, so claiming that fiat money was due to incompetancy is odd, and we do use fiat money today.

It was the way the South spent it way through the war, great nations like Britian and the Northern Union won wars by their ability to raise capital, and not loot and steal. The ability to raise debt was nessecary, and nessecity the South could not copy from the North. There was no Middle class in the Southern state's, there were only a few who could actually purchase bonds. The North was a different story, she raised most of her funds through taxes and debt, not fiat money.

By Gordan's definition (which I find to be wrong, or lacking, I haven't read any more than what you have posted so I'm not sure) of a 3rd world nation the US is a 3rd world nation.

He didn't say the US was a third world nation, he said the South was a 3rd world nation.

Now, sure, I'll agree, financially the South was worse off, but they were fighting at a time where that did not matter so much, most of the South's equipment was captured from the Union forces. Today, a powerful economy does matter in War, at that time, not so much so as did a population. Though the Northern Economy certainly helped.

It did matter, because it is regularly noted that the American civil war was the first modern war, it wasn't won by battles so much as by economics, and stragety.

And yes, let me remind you that the Apartheid did not last even past the Generation that enacted it. You may say it lasted until 1994, but you have to look at when it began (which I can't remember specifically, 1940s or 1950s.)

That was only because of international pressures, it would still be around today if it wasn't for the worldwide effort to stamp it out. Apartheid really started much further back in the 20's it got its catchy name in the time frame alluded too.

There is no reason to believe the South would have maintained such a long system as well. Would they have needed outside pressure? Sure, but they already had it, that pressure was felt every day that the British did not recognize their independence.

Then why would the South even exist? The existential reason d'etre of the South was black suppression if that was gone, why would the South be independant?

Second, Spyke, I must disagree, especially on the subject of the causes of that war, they were most certainly not about Slavery (though we today can look back and say it was in their faces). Slavery was merely a dividing issue in that it could divide the States.


Isn't that exactly what I said? I noted that there were several issues that had caused 40 years of sectionalism. But the slavery issue, other than the tariff issue, which had been there through the 1820s, came to a head in 1832 with the nullification crisis, and then died down with the Clay/Calhoun compromise, was the cause of the most heated congressional debates between 1820 and 1860. If you take away the issue of slavery the South would not have seceeded. Remember, when South Carolina threatened to secede in 1832 over tariff's and a state's right to secede if it disagreed with a law, Calhoun had to back down because no other southern state was willing to back that threat.


However, if you were well read, you'd probably have learned long ago that Partisanship was what truly divided the States, not Slavery.

And if you were well read, you would know that Calhoun, when he failed to gain southern support for secession in the tariff nullification crisis, decided to make slavery a major issue because he knew that if slavery were threatened he could gain more southern support.

But there were so many crises over slavery betwen 1820-1860, more so than over any other issue:

Missouri Compromise in 1820 - slavery not allowed in Louisiana Compromise territory above the 36*30" parallel (Missouri's southern border)
Annex Mexico - Southern states called for annexation of Mexico during Mexican-American War so as to carry slavery there
Wilmot Proviso - Introduced by Northern Democrat to prevent slavery from being allowed in territories annexed from Mexico. Long fight in Congress results in uneasy compromise
Bleeding Kansas - brutal fighting in state over whether it will be a free state or slave state. Congress rejects state constitution, which protects slavery, when discovered Missouri slavery supporters illegally stuffed ballots
Dred Scott decision - Supreme Court basically says Missouri Compromise is illegal, that Congress had no right to ban slavery from any state
John Brown's Raid - Brown, the anti-slavery zealot, attempts raid into Virginia to start a slave insurrection. Fails, and he is executed. Southern leaders accuse Republican party of being behind it.
Lincoln-Douglas debates - For Douglas' Illinois Senate seat - the central issue of the seven debates becomes the issue of slavery. Douglas a Democrat) issues his famous Freeport Doctrine. When Lincoln asks him how territories could keep slavery out, in light of the Dred Scott decision, Douglas states that if those territories don't enact slave codes then slaveowners will never risk bringing their 'property' into those territories with out some sort of protection. This causes a major rift in the Democratic party, angering southern Democrats.
1860 presidential election - Southern Democrats refuse to support Douglas, who is nominated at the Democrat's convention, for president. Instead, they walk out of the convention and nominate John Breckenridge, a southerner who supports slavery, for president. The Democrats actually have 2 presidential candidates in the 1860 election. The Constitutional Union party, which is anti-secession, also enters the race and draws enoguh votes away from Breckenridge that Lincoln, despite the fact that the Republican party is strictly a regional party, with support only in the North, is able to win with less than 40% of the popular vote.

So please. Let's not suggest that slavery was not an issue.



Had there been no Slavery, partisanship would have divided the States geographically over some other issue, this very nearly happened in teh 1800 elections, but the animosity against the Federalists was so great, there was no motion for the larger States to seceded in order to secure a stronger Government for themselves. Almost no one wanted such a thing at that time.

That's an irrelevant argument. There were always inflammatory issues, but none ever so continuous as the slavery issue.


The Civil War was in most, made possible, by immigrants, who did not share the same self-governing principles that the Colonists did, and thus were more liable to support the Federal Army and their agenda (which they did, in fact it is best described of immigrants of that time, mostly Scots and Irish, as taking-up a gun as soon as arriving on-shore).

Immigrants had nothing to do with the war decision. They took up arms off the boats because most of them, especially the Irish, arrived dirt poor, and were met on the docks by recruiters offering them pay for joining the army and waiving the normal naturalization process.


Like wise, I disagree with your assertion that the State was dominated by 12 families, no Republic is dominated by any family, and Asguard brought that up.

As I said, read Wm. Davis's Look Away. He gives an excellent account, complete with personal letters of those families. And South Carolina did not have a Republican form of government pre-Civil War. Those wealthy families easily bought votes in large blocks if they were challenged by non-slaveowning candidates.


That does not deminish the strength of the people in dictating policy. The South's will to secede was not driven by 12 families, or they would have found themselves shouldering-arms alone.

I didn't say those 12 families alone drove the South to secede. I merely noted how few people actually controlled state governments in the South. Each of the southern states, especially the Deep South states that were dominated by cotton, had their own ruling elite. It was easy for those in power in those states, through their own propaganda campaigns, to say that if Lincoln, the candidate of the anti-slave party, were to be elected, then slavery would be challenged in the South, despite Lincoln's protestations. But those same Southern leaders had accused the Republican party of sponsoring John Brown's raid in 1857. They argued that if Lincoln was elected, there would be more raids into the South. They also claimed that if the Republicans gained power, they would pay the Upper South states to abolish slavery, where they were much fewer, which could give the anti-slavery North enough support among states to pass an amendment abolishing slavery. It wasn't that hard to scare slaveowners into believing secession was the only way to protect the institution.

It also really wasn't hard to convince many of those yeoman farmers to go along with it since those who weren't slaveowners always held out that they would one day. And the poor white trash had no problem with slavery because as long as slavery existed they weren't at the bottom of society.


Finally, Spyke, I want to see you specifically quote where the Confederate Constitution said no State may abolish Slavery, because I don't see it.

This is in Section IX of the CSA Constitution:

4. No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves, shall be passed.
http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/csa.constitution.html

That seems to me to read that no state can pass a law denying the right of an individual to own slaves.

There is no way to make slavery a good thing.
It is morally wrong whether you own 1 person or 500.
It can also be noted that some states went so far as to ban giving freedom to slaves.

The Confederacy was a lot more than slavery. That we see it as such suggests fearful, cowering judgmentalism... I'd like to see the Confederate governmental model instead of the all-powerful Federal centralized entity, for example.

Take out the clauses that protected slavery and the CSA Constitution was a pretty good document, because it was more of a reflection of the states' rights philosophy of the Articles of Confederation.

Freemason: I love you.

Okay, that might be a bit of overkill, but the point is I agree with you. I don't know much about the Civil War, but what I do know is atleast outside the (mostly untrue) things that children are generally taugh in school and thus that society believes.

The minute I start trying to tell someone that I think the South was actually more in the right than the North, they look at me like I just said "let's legalize slavery again" and won't listen to anything else I say. Of course, they don't really listen to what I say before then, because I generally don't start discussions off with "the South was right" since I know how they'll react...

(End of part to Freemason, the rest is just for the general purposes of the thread.)

The war wasn't about slavery. The North didn't care about the slaves... one source I read said that the Emancipation Proclamation was mostly to keep Europe from getting involved, and anyhow it wasn't written until the middle of war. The South was fighting for their own freedom, and the North was fighting to keep them from it, not to free the slaves. Also (I know people are likely to get very accusative on me about this, but I'm saying this anyhow) slavery wasn't as bad as we're encouraged to believe. Just think about it... there would be no logical reason to majorly mistreat slaves. The majority of slaves were treated as well as the majority of free southerners... granted, there weren't any wealthy slaves, but they were at least getting fed and clothed which was pretty hard to come by for a lot of southerners. Slavery has a ton of potential to go majorly bad, but it doesn't always. It's wrong, but the South would have done away with it eventually on their own.

So, I think the South was more in the right than the North.

The war wasn't about slavery.

Afraid that is incorrect. Spyke has provided ample evidence otherwise.


slavery wasn't as bad as we're encouraged to believe. Just think about it... there would be no logical reason to majorly mistreat slaves. The majority of slaves were treated as well as the majority of free southerners

That is just plain stupid, insensitive, and well, ignorant. Christ, I can't even believe an intelligent human being can say that, especially the last sentence.


but the South would have done away with it eventually on their own.

Just like the Klu Klux Klan would have gone away eventually on its own. Asinine.

§outh§tar: Well, plenty of sources that I trust much more than Spyke have agreed with me. I know plenty of people think that's incorrect, that's sort of what my post was saying...

You preach your ignorance, I'll preach mine ;) but for the record, I think that it's far from insensitive. Insensitive would be having no compassion for the slaves whatsoever, whereas I have much compassion for them... I just don't feel that our modern view is completely accurate. It would also be insensitive to imply that all free southerners were evil aristocrats who loved to beat and starve slaves just because they could. As I said (and you tactfully excluded in your quote), slavery is wrong... but so is "freeing" people and then sending them off to starve to death. Also... since you said my statement was stupid, doesn't that mean you don't think I'm intelligent? And therefore your disbelief that an intelligent human being can say that is rather void in this case? Since I consider myself intelligent, I don't really have any arguments with your doing so too... but I do wish people would stick with their own stories.

The KKK may yet go away on its own... that is, without a huge war fought to stop it. Of course there are influences that would change it, but there are influences that change everything... doing something on your own doesn't mean that you have never been influenced by anything. Regardless, the KKK and the Confederacy are (were?) based on very different principles.

ell, plenty of sources that I trust much more than Spyke have agreed with me.

Well let's see some of those sources please.


but so is "freeing" people and then sending them off to starve to death.

No historical accuracy. The slaves were known and able to cultivate their own vegetable patches, kill game and catfish, and when the Union came through, some were even given land to farm on. I don't see how imagining them as so stupid to be unable to cultivate their own food and sustain themselves in a land they were familiar with can be classified as 'sensitive' or even corroborates with any known historical evidence.



The KKK may yet go away on its own... that is, without a huge war fought to stop it. Of course there are influences that would change it, but there are influences that change everything... doing something on your own doesn't mean that you have never been influenced by anything. Regardless, the KKK and the Confederacy are (were?) based on very different principles.

If there is no change by the people, the oppression stays. Read 1984, read Thomas Paine's pamphlets, look at the French Revolution... Saying it is just going to go away on its own is grasping. Did I mention you are the same person who said "The majority of slaves were treated as well as the majority of free southerners". Of course if you would like to provide your 'sources' for this statement as well..

Can't post my sources ;) copyright infringement, my friend.

I'm not stupid, I know they didn't just all starve to death, my point was that the Union didn't seem overly concerned with their welfare.

"The people" generally implies from WITHIN, which counts as "on its own."

Can't post my sources copyright infringement, my friend.

I'm not stupid, I know they didn't just all starve to death, my point was that the Union didn't seem overly concerned with their welfare.

That's not what you said earlier on and besides, many German and Irish immigrants suffered without "welfare". And so we ask, what is the difference between immigrants competing with themselves and nativists and freed slaves doing the same?Also the Union didn't seem 'overly concerned' with the welfare of planters during Sherman's March. In fact, I didn't even know the Union had any welfare program as you are insinuating. If you could provide your source for this.


"The people" generally implies from WITHIN, which counts as "on its own."

I don't know about you, but I am currently unaware that members of the KKK feel oppressed by their grand masters, or grand dragons, or whatever they are called. Therefore I don't see how a revolution within the organization to overthrow tyranny is even possible, much less how the statement is relevant.

The war wasn't about slavery. The North didn't care about the slaves...

Well, you can't say the North didn't care about slavery since all of the Northern states had either abolished slavery outright or introduced gradual manumission, since Northern abolitionists had been trying to end slavery in the nation since 1790, and since Northern congressmen had been trying to insure since 1820 that at least slavery didn't spread into the new territories of the West, but if you're going to try and make that a case you would be better suited to say that Lincoln specifically didn't care about slaves, since it was he said the Union was perpetual and secession was illegal, and thus made the war inevitable, but again, saying he didn't care about slavery would be untrue (read a copy of the Lincoln-Douglas debates), but rather what he had said is he wouldn't attack slavery where it already existed, i.e. the southern states, but as president he would work to prevent its spread into the new terrotories.

Now let me say that I think southern states had the constitutional right to secede, but I also think that no sitting president would ever sit idly and not resist such action during his tenure. Whether the war itself was actually fought over slavery is a moot point - it was fought because the South chose to secede, and the Deep South states (as separate from the 4 Upper South states that seceded months later) chose to secede because they feared an assault on slavery by the new Republican government. That cannot be disputed by any credible source. There were simply too many criticial issues involving slavery, particularly between 1854-1860, causing tensions between North and South to suggest otherwise. The mere fact that the southern wing of the Democratic party walked out of the convention and refused to accept Stephen Douglas as the presidential candidate in 1860, and instead nominated John Breckenridge, a Southern Democrat who supported slavery should give some idea as to how seriously southern leaders took the threat of a Republican president to slavery.


Can't post my sources copyright infringement, my friend.

Of course you can post them, as long as you cite them and don't attempt to present them as your own.

Beryl,
There is no evidence to support your assumption that the Southern states would have ended slavery on their own. The fact is that Southern states had no great belief in individual rights or states rights. The Southern states did not believe an individual had the right to free people that they held as slaves. It was a crime to free your slaves. Southern states did not support free states right to decide what happened in their states when it came to the Fugative Slave Act.

Exactly, if the South got rid of slavery why would it exist? If not slavery, prejudice?

§outh§tar - What isn't what I said before? I don't see anything that was contradicting my previously stated opinions...

Spyke - Can you post them? Copyright laws confuse me... I mean, it isn't legal to copy a whole book, even if you don't try to claim it as your own... I should think it therefore isn't legal to copy large portions of books... but some things it is okay to copy, even if they're copyrighted... and small sections of books is okay, like if you're doing a review... *sighs* laws are weird.

Beryl -

Reprinting text on the Internet is no different than using an author's direct quote or paraphrasing it if you were writing your own article or book. In a written paper you either use endnotes, foot-notes, or parenthetical references. If you're going to directly cut & paste a quote an Internet article to another Internet website (such as here), you need to also give the link (which is a Sciforums rule anyway), whereas if you're using a direct quote (verbatim) from a text, I would give the title, author, and specific page number. If you're not specifically quoting from a text, but rather you note that the information you presented came from a specific non-Internet source, but rather a text, you should at least give the title and author, such as I did when referring anyone to further reading about the 12 South Carolina families (William C. Davis, Look Away: The History Of The Confederate States Of America).

Only illiterates think the Civil War was about slavery! LOL

Only illiterates think the Civil War was about slavery! LOL

Without offering something of substance to support that statement, it's rather meaningless.

I've read that the rich southerners just wanted to make tidy profits from cotton plantations, sit back drinking iced tea and lashin blacks while the north did whatever they wanted north of the Missouri state lane. The economy they loved wasnt right for the whole USA, so the Confederates wanted to go on alone.

Slavery's just a useful word to justify defeating them, no single issue caused the Civil war.

Coming from a small country (comparitive to the US) I can understand the reasons for the individual states wanting to look after their own affairs without being told what to do by the Federal authorities. Independence of action is to be valued by everyone.

Ah, how fitting my avatar is!

I think Lincoln should've let those states separate from the Union. It would've saved a lot of bloodshed. The US of the time was hit hard, and unnecessarily, by the Civil War.

Besides, if those states didn't wanna be part of the Union, the Union as a whole wouldn't've been very stable. So it was a choice between one weak union and two stable unions. I like the latter better.

Theres loads of fiction about how the world might beif the Confedracy had become permanetly independent.. 1 writer imagined that theyd grown rich + powerful by the 1920s, but the reduced USA wouldve become a poor backwater by comparson. (then a northern inventr came up with a time machine, went back to gettysburrg to see what went down, + acidently changed things to make the South lose the war..)

this thread ties in with the WORLDS OF WHAT IF thread.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=44458