 |
Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Message |
Author |
 |
skinnybishop |
The Civil War is one of my favorite subjects. For years, I believed it was about slavery. Every book I read, every movie I watched preached the same message: The righteous North fought the evil South, to free the slaves. The Righteous North vs. The Racist South.
Later I learned that what society was taught was pretty far from the truth.
Sadly, most people believe the fantasy rather than the facts.
_________________
Eddie Wiggins |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1055
1/19/16 7:59 pm
|
|
|
|  |
 |
|
|
| |
Resident Skeptic |
| UncleJD wrote: | Several of the Southern states seceded because of slavery, others because of the aggressive footing of the Federal government in response to secession, so slavery was a big part of the reason for secession (its in the declaration given by several states if you care to read them).
However, secession, not slavery was the cause of the war. Lincoln's own words spell it out clearly.
| Quote: | | If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it. … What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union. |
Clearly the war was not about slavery to Lincoln, slavery was to be a tool to preserve the Federal government supremacy by using it as leverage, either by an offer to preserve it, or as a threat to dissolve it. |
But even the secession "over slavery" was not secession over slavery for slavery's sake. It was because the party had come to power that had openly endorsed domestic terrorism against the south by inciting slaves to murder whites. That was the whole context of slavery being mentioned at all in the "Declaration of Causes" of four seceding States.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
1/19/16 8:06 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Dr. Duck... |
Resident Skeptic |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | Was "our cause" REALLY about Constitutional issues...or was it, ultimately, the fact that the South wanted to retain slavery?
Another way to put it is this: Would there have been a war if there had not been slavery? |
Isn't the real question, "would there have been a war had there not been cotton?" Had there not been a slave in the south, and if the south still had had a way to mass produce and harvest cotton mechanically, there would have been a war.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
1/19/16 8:11 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cojak |
Union deaths 364,511+
Confederate eaths 299,524+
Civil War: total deaths.. ..750,000 total
I can only feel sad, that politicians could not agree to solve the problem and WE AMERICANS killed over Seven Hundred fifty Thousand AMERICAN Men and women.
The un-civil war caused more heartache NORTH & SOUTH than has ever been know in America. I know Most of you cannot understand the terror we felt in the USA in WWII we lost 407,000 with modern weapons.
Can you imagine the deaths with the weapons in the 1850's.
WE can scream about what we feel was important and we do, but the most important thing is the deaths on both sides because stinking hardheaded politicians both sides could not settle a problem -IN HOUSE_.
The flag, I can live with or without it. It should be Preserved along with the names of those who suffered and died under it in places of history.
The people I know personally who fly it, fly it with the attitude of the middle finger to those who do not like it. I even hear the stupid statement: The South is going to rise again. Yeah lets kill two million this time! WE have better weapons... It makes me sick! 
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24277
1/19/16 8:24 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Redneck |
I think it resonates with southerners because of the fact that political correctness is trying to wipe everything away that dealt with slavery. It happened. It is what it is. A lot of it people are not necessarily proud of, but it happened. I think they have exhumed Forrest from where he was buried in Memphis and have taken down a statue of him downtown. People think that by doing all of that, it will do away with the past. Everything screams racism to people. It's just stupid.
The war of the states happened. Slavery happened. It is history. The more people try and re-write the history books, I think you will have more and more people become polarized by this and will take issue with the Rebel Flag.
_________________
That haircut of yorn may be citified, but your heart was shaped in a bowl.....................Briscoe Darling |
Acts-celerater
Posts: 664
1/19/16 8:46 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Cojak |
| Redneck wrote: | I think it resonates with southerners because of the fact that political correctness is trying to wipe everything away that dealt with slavery. It happened. It is what it is. A lot of it people are not necessarily proud of, but it happened. I think they have exhumed Forrest from where he was buried in Memphis and have taken down a statue of him downtown. People think that by doing all of that, it will do away with the past. Everything screams racism to people. It's just stupid.
The war of the states happened. Slavery happened. It is history. The more people try and re-write the history books, I think you will have more and more people become polarized by this and will take issue with the Rebel Flag. |
True enough!
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/ |
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 24277
1/19/16 10:26 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
| Some thoughts...beginning with, "Yes, it was slavery." |
Aaron Scott |
I know that most of the Confederate soldiers had no slaves. Yet they fought to preserve their "way of life." The upper classes have ALWAYS used the lower classes to fight their wars for them. They spin it so that the lower classes feel some patriotic urge to go die to preserve the upper class' institutions, etc.
The planter class and others in the upper class framed the whole struggle as one where their way of life was being threatened. And, yes, it was. And, yes, the north had ulterior motives too. The north drafted men who could care less about slavery, but it was a paycheck, but it was protecting the north from the south, and other spins we put on it.
So it is very likely that the southern soldier was NOT fighting for slavery. But while it was not his intention to fight for slavery, perhaps, there was certainly that element involved in terms of protecting their "way of life," which DID include slavery. Further, despite whatever the intentions of the Confederate soldiers actually was, it served the purposes of that group of people who put them in harm's way in order to preserve slavery.
There are no great principles here from the north or the south. It was political and financial for the north, it appears; and it was slavery and escaping the legitimate power of the federal government for the south.
We had representation in Congress. The south, over and over and over again, from the founding of our nation onward, had played the "we better get our way or we're going home" game. See it in the 3/5th compromise; see it in the various compromises that were had because the south acted like we would go home.
To act like the south's struggle was ONLY about some noble cause is a lie. Had there been no slavery--which as one person put it, "no cotton,"--there would likely have not been issues. But in the south, slaves were thought to be a better efficiency than hiring workers, and we must not stop the planters from making even more money.
Further, had not their been a coastal plan (geographically) that facilitated plantations and cash crops, there would have been no or little slavery. In fact, if you take a map of the southern coastal plain, and overlay it with a may of where most of the slaves were, and then overlay it with a map of where most African American are today, you will be stunned. When I showed it to my classes, I told them that had that climate and condition been in the north, that's where the slaves would have been.
I put it down to "the love of money." The cotton gin, for instance, made it easier to harvest one's crops for market. But instead of being content, no, the wealthy now wanted slavery more than ever so they could grow even more, more, more.
It occurred to me the other day that those folks read the same Bible we do. They had the golden rule like we do. Yes, those were different times, but they had the truth in their hands. They chose wealth over everything. America has done it many times (check out the Native Americans who were removed, chased, etc. so we could have their lands).
We are the best nation on earth, yet our hands are not clean.
CONCLUSION: Slavery WAS the core issue for the south, even if southern soldiers were not slaveholders. The powers that be, to preserve slavery, used the poorer soldiers to try to preserve their way of doing things. Just look at the secession documents from various states--it makes it clear. |
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 6032
1/20/16 6:08 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Some thoughts...beginning with, "Yes, it was slavery." |
Resident Skeptic |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | I know that most of the Confederate soldiers had no slaves. Yet they fought to preserve their "way of life." The upper classes have ALWAYS used the lower classes to fight their wars for them. They spin it so that the lower classes feel some patriotic urge to go die to preserve the upper class' institutions, etc.
The planter class and others in the upper class framed the whole struggle as one where their way of life was being threatened. And, yes, it was. And, yes, the north had ulterior motives too. The north drafted men who could care less about slavery, but it was a paycheck, but it was protecting the north from the south, and other spins we put on it.
So it is very likely that the southern soldier was NOT fighting for slavery. But while it was not his intention to fight for slavery, perhaps, there was certainly that element involved in terms of protecting their "way of life," which DID include slavery. Further, despite whatever the intentions of the Confederate soldiers actually was, it served the purposes of that group of people who put them in harm's way in order to preserve slavery.
There are no great principles here from the north or the south. It was political and financial for the north, it appears; and it was slavery and escaping the legitimate power of the federal government for the south.
We had representation in Congress. The south, over and over and over again, from the founding of our nation onward, had played the "we better get our way or we're going home" game. See it in the 3/5th compromise; see it in the various compromises that were had because the south acted like we would go home.
To act like the south's struggle was ONLY about some noble cause is a lie. Had there been no slavery--which as one person put it, "no cotton,"--there would likely have not been issues. But in the south, slaves were thought to be a better efficiency than hiring workers, and we must not stop the planters from making even more money.
Further, had not their been a coastal plan (geographically) that facilitated plantations and cash crops, there would have been no or little slavery. In fact, if you take a map of the southern coastal plain, and overlay it with a may of where most of the slaves were, and then overlay it with a map of where most African American are today, you will be stunned. When I showed it to my classes, I told them that had that climate and condition been in the north, that's where the slaves would have been.
I put it down to "the love of money." The cotton gin, for instance, made it easier to harvest one's crops for market. But instead of being content, no, the wealthy now wanted slavery more than ever so they could grow even more, more, more.
It occurred to me the other day that those folks read the same Bible we do. They had the golden rule like we do. Yes, those were different times, but they had the truth in their hands. They chose wealth over everything. America has done it many times (check out the Native Americans who were removed, chased, etc. so we could have their lands).
We are the best nation on earth, yet our hands are not clean.
CONCLUSION: Slavery WAS the core issue for the south, even if southern soldiers were not slaveholders. The powers that be, to preserve slavery, used the poorer soldiers to try to preserve their way of doing things. Just look at the secession documents from various states--it makes it clear. |
Your theory has one problem. It makes it seem like the south fought over slavery for slavery's sake. Cotton was the only thing that gave slavery any meaning or significance. Cotton amounted to 60% of all exports from the USA. The south needed a way to mass harvest and produce it.
As I stated previously, had the south had a way to produce cotton mechanically without slaves, there still would have been a war. In such a scenario the north still would have been imposing massive protective tariffs against the south. The north still would have been depending upon the south for its economic well being. The north still would have been gobbling up 75% of all revenues to use for internal improvements in their own region. And the south would have still been bucking all of that causing northern business industry power brokers to go after them. The South still would not have needed the north for its economic survival and would still have yearned for independence. Thus cotton and the economic power it gave the south was the real issue. Slavery as an institution was just incidental.
Slavery is only mentioned in the secession documents of four seceding states and only in the context of objecting to the party coming to power that had openly advocated the murder of whites in the south by slaves. Those states no longer had the guarantee of "domestic tranquility" as the constitution promised, so they left. The States of the upper south only seceded due to Lincoln calling for war.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI
Last edited by Resident Skeptic on 1/20/16 8:04 am; edited 1 time in total |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
1/20/16 6:59 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Eddie Robbins |
| It's a diversion to justify flying the Confederate or Rebel flag anywhere other than a museum to bring us not he whole "my grandpa fought in the war." The fact is, it causes division among our black brothers and sisters and is not Christ-like. Other than that, I have no opinion. Do what you want. |
Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16509
1/20/16 7:27 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Resident Skeptic |
| Eddie Robbins wrote: | | It's a diversion to justify flying the Confederate or Rebel flag anywhere other than a museum to bring us not he whole "my grandpa fought in the war." The fact is, it causes division among our black brothers and sisters and is not Christ-like. Other than that, I have no opinion. Do what you want. |
I agree with some of what you say here. Though I think the flag is misunderstood and falsely maligned, I also live in realville and don't look to needlessly insult someone. Having said that......about 5 months ago, here in Ocala, Fl I saw a pick-up truck headed towards me loaded with confederate flags and pro-Confederate slogans. The truck was pulling a trailer loaded with more of the same. Much to my shock, the driver was BLACK! He explained that he was traveling all over the south participating in pro-Confederate flag rallies.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
1/20/16 8:20 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Some thoughts...beginning with, "Yes, it was slavery." |
skinnybishop |
| Aaron Scott wrote: | I know that most of the Confederate soldiers had no slaves. Yet they fought to preserve their "way of life." The upper classes have ALWAYS used the lower classes to fight their wars for them. They spin it so that the lower classes feel some patriotic urge to go die to preserve the upper class' institutions, etc.
The planter class and others in the upper class framed the whole struggle as one where their way of life was being threatened. And, yes, it was. And, yes, the north had ulterior motives too. The north drafted men who could care less about slavery, but it was a paycheck, but it was protecting the north from the south, and other spins we put on it.
So it is very likely that the southern soldier was NOT fighting for slavery. But while it was not his intention to fight for slavery, perhaps, there was certainly that element involved in terms of protecting their "way of life," which DID include slavery. Further, despite whatever the intentions of the Confederate soldiers actually was, it served the purposes of that group of people who put them in harm's way in order to preserve slavery.
There are no great principles here from the north or the south. It was political and financial for the north, it appears; and it was slavery and escaping the legitimate power of the federal government for the south.
We had representation in Congress. The south, over and over and over again, from the founding of our nation onward, had played the "we better get our way or we're going home" game. See it in the 3/5th compromise; see it in the various compromises that were had because the south acted like we would go home.
To act like the south's struggle was ONLY about some noble cause is a lie. Had there been no slavery--which as one person put it, "no cotton,"--there would likely have not been issues. But in the south, slaves were thought to be a better efficiency than hiring workers, and we must not stop the planters from making even more money.
Further, had not their been a coastal plan (geographically) that facilitated plantations and cash crops, there would have been no or little slavery. In fact, if you take a map of the southern coastal plain, and overlay it with a may of where most of the slaves were, and then overlay it with a map of where most African American are today, you will be stunned. When I showed it to my classes, I told them that had that climate and condition been in the north, that's where the slaves would have been.
I put it down to "the love of money." The cotton gin, for instance, made it easier to harvest one's crops for market. But instead of being content, no, the wealthy now wanted slavery more than ever so they could grow even more, more, more.
It occurred to me the other day that those folks read the same Bible we do. They had the golden rule like we do. Yes, those were different times, but they had the truth in their hands. They chose wealth over everything. America has done it many times (check out the Native Americans who were removed, chased, etc. so we could have their lands).
We are the best nation on earth, yet our hands are not clean.
CONCLUSION: Slavery WAS the core issue for the south, even if southern soldiers were not slaveholders. The powers that be, to preserve slavery, used the poorer soldiers to try to preserve their way of doing things. Just look at the secession documents from various states--it makes it clear. |
I actually agree with some of your thoughts here. However, I don't think anyone has argued that the "South's struggle was 'ONLY' about some noble cause." Further, I don't think anyone is trying to disconnect slavery from secession.....or from the War. As I said in an earlier post....the relationship between slavery and the War is there.
Aaron, I may have asked you this in the past, but humor me. What if Lincoln simply lets the South go? Do you think there would have been a war? Forget everything else and just think about that for a minute. Lincoln lets the South go and what happens next?
Personally? I don't think the CSA would have lasted very long. I don't think it COULD have lasted long. I think in less than 20 years, the states that left would be wanting to rejoin the union.....and slavery would have died.
Why not say, "You want to leave? Hit the road!"
Instead the South was told secession was illegal (another fascinating debate, for another day),even though that is basically what happened between us and England in the previous century.
You previously asked if there were no slaves, would there have been a war.
I ask, if Lincoln had just let the South leave, would there have been a war.
Great discussion btw....I appreciate responses without name calling and accusations.
_________________
Eddie Wiggins |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1055
1/20/16 9:02 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Some thoughts...beginning with, "Yes, it was slavery." |
Resident Skeptic |
| skinnybishop wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | I know that most of the Confederate soldiers had no slaves. Yet they fought to preserve their "way of life." The upper classes have ALWAYS used the lower classes to fight their wars for them. They spin it so that the lower classes feel some patriotic urge to go die to preserve the upper class' institutions, etc.
The planter class and others in the upper class framed the whole struggle as one where their way of life was being threatened. And, yes, it was. And, yes, the north had ulterior motives too. The north drafted men who could care less about slavery, but it was a paycheck, but it was protecting the north from the south, and other spins we put on it.
So it is very likely that the southern soldier was NOT fighting for slavery. But while it was not his intention to fight for slavery, perhaps, there was certainly that element involved in terms of protecting their "way of life," which DID include slavery. Further, despite whatever the intentions of the Confederate soldiers actually was, it served the purposes of that group of people who put them in harm's way in order to preserve slavery.
There are no great principles here from the north or the south. It was political and financial for the north, it appears; and it was slavery and escaping the legitimate power of the federal government for the south.
We had representation in Congress. The south, over and over and over again, from the founding of our nation onward, had played the "we better get our way or we're going home" game. See it in the 3/5th compromise; see it in the various compromises that were had because the south acted like we would go home.
To act like the south's struggle was ONLY about some noble cause is a lie. Had there been no slavery--which as one person put it, "no cotton,"--there would likely have not been issues. But in the south, slaves were thought to be a better efficiency than hiring workers, and we must not stop the planters from making even more money.
Further, had not their been a coastal plan (geographically) that facilitated plantations and cash crops, there would have been no or little slavery. In fact, if you take a map of the southern coastal plain, and overlay it with a may of where most of the slaves were, and then overlay it with a map of where most African American are today, you will be stunned. When I showed it to my classes, I told them that had that climate and condition been in the north, that's where the slaves would have been.
I put it down to "the love of money." The cotton gin, for instance, made it easier to harvest one's crops for market. But instead of being content, no, the wealthy now wanted slavery more than ever so they could grow even more, more, more.
It occurred to me the other day that those folks read the same Bible we do. They had the golden rule like we do. Yes, those were different times, but they had the truth in their hands. They chose wealth over everything. America has done it many times (check out the Native Americans who were removed, chased, etc. so we could have their lands).
We are the best nation on earth, yet our hands are not clean.
CONCLUSION: Slavery WAS the core issue for the south, even if southern soldiers were not slaveholders. The powers that be, to preserve slavery, used the poorer soldiers to try to preserve their way of doing things. Just look at the secession documents from various states--it makes it clear. |
I actually agree with some of your thoughts here. However, I don't think anyone has argued that the "South's struggle was 'ONLY' about some noble cause." Further, I don't think anyone is trying to disconnect slavery from secession.....or from the War. As I said in an earlier post....the relationship between slavery and the War is there.
Aaron, I may have asked you this in the past, but humor me. What if Lincoln simply lets the South go? Do you think there would have been a war? Forget everything else and just think about that for a minute. Lincoln lets the South go and what happens next?
Personally? I don't think the CSA would have lasted very long. I don't think it COULD have lasted long. I think in less than 20 years, the states that left would be wanting to rejoin the union.....and slavery would have died.
Why not say, "You want to leave? Hit the road!"
Instead the South was told secession was illegal (another fascinating debate, for another day),even though that is basically what happened between us and England in the previous century.
You previously asked if there were no slaves, would there have been a war.
I ask, if Lincoln had just let the South leave, would there have been a war.
Great discussion btw....I appreciate responses without name calling and accusations. |
Since the south depended on the north for nothing economically, why do you think the CSA would not have made it and rejoined the Union? The secession of just the 7 States of the lower South caused the northern economy to implode.
Another interesting thought is, if Lincoln had let the first 7 States depart in peace, would the states of the upper south have ever joined the CSA?
Other thoughts....Had the north and south avoided war in 1861, somewhere down the line and long after slavery would have died a natural death, there still eventually would have been some sort of situation where States felt compelled to withdraw from the Union. We are inching towards such a crisis right now. Secession will be the natural reaction some day to States that want to retain some semblance of what America was intended to be like.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
1/20/16 9:07 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
UncleJD |
The factual conclusions:
1. The South seceded largely over slavery (and the way it was being used by Lincoln)
2. The North (Lincoln) invaded solely over secession.
3. Lincoln used slavery as a pawn and was willing to play it either way to enforce his idea of federal supremacy
4. The average southerner fought for one reason, to protect his family and country from invasion (much of this thread has really over complicated this one)
My opinion on the whole matter
If not flying the flag helps heal our racial division, then by all means don't fly it.
on the other hand if you want to stir up racial division by demonizing those that do fly it or historical sites that mean something to southerners, then you are the problem |
Golf Cart Mafia Consigliere
Posts: 3139
1/20/16 9:23 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
Quiet Wyatt |
| I always find it remarkable whenever anyone tries to justify Lincoln's actions as if he were a saint, the savior of the Republic. But that is how he is typically portrayed in American culture today, even by many historians, whom one would think would know better. |
[Insert Acts Pun Here]
Posts: 12792
1/20/16 10:53 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Some thoughts...beginning with, "Yes, it was slavery." |
skinnybishop |
| Resident Skeptic wrote: | | skinnybishop wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | I know that most of the Confederate soldiers had no slaves. Yet they fought to preserve their "way of life." The upper classes have ALWAYS used the lower classes to fight their wars for them. They spin it so that the lower classes feel some patriotic urge to go die to preserve the upper class' institutions, etc.
The planter class and others in the upper class framed the whole struggle as one where their way of life was being threatened. And, yes, it was. And, yes, the north had ulterior motives too. The north drafted men who could care less about slavery, but it was a paycheck, but it was protecting the north from the south, and other spins we put on it.
So it is very likely that the southern soldier was NOT fighting for slavery. But while it was not his intention to fight for slavery, perhaps, there was certainly that element involved in terms of protecting their "way of life," which DID include slavery. Further, despite whatever the intentions of the Confederate soldiers actually was, it served the purposes of that group of people who put them in harm's way in order to preserve slavery.
There are no great principles here from the north or the south. It was political and financial for the north, it appears; and it was slavery and escaping the legitimate power of the federal government for the south.
We had representation in Congress. The south, over and over and over again, from the founding of our nation onward, had played the "we better get our way or we're going home" game. See it in the 3/5th compromise; see it in the various compromises that were had because the south acted like we would go home.
To act like the south's struggle was ONLY about some noble cause is a lie. Had there been no slavery--which as one person put it, "no cotton,"--there would likely have not been issues. But in the south, slaves were thought to be a better efficiency than hiring workers, and we must not stop the planters from making even more money.
Further, had not their been a coastal plan (geographically) that facilitated plantations and cash crops, there would have been no or little slavery. In fact, if you take a map of the southern coastal plain, and overlay it with a may of where most of the slaves were, and then overlay it with a map of where most African American are today, you will be stunned. When I showed it to my classes, I told them that had that climate and condition been in the north, that's where the slaves would have been.
I put it down to "the love of money." The cotton gin, for instance, made it easier to harvest one's crops for market. But instead of being content, no, the wealthy now wanted slavery more than ever so they could grow even more, more, more.
It occurred to me the other day that those folks read the same Bible we do. They had the golden rule like we do. Yes, those were different times, but they had the truth in their hands. They chose wealth over everything. America has done it many times (check out the Native Americans who were removed, chased, etc. so we could have their lands).
We are the best nation on earth, yet our hands are not clean.
CONCLUSION: Slavery WAS the core issue for the south, even if southern soldiers were not slaveholders. The powers that be, to preserve slavery, used the poorer soldiers to try to preserve their way of doing things. Just look at the secession documents from various states--it makes it clear. |
I actually agree with some of your thoughts here. However, I don't think anyone has argued that the "South's struggle was 'ONLY' about some noble cause." Further, I don't think anyone is trying to disconnect slavery from secession.....or from the War. As I said in an earlier post....the relationship between slavery and the War is there.
Aaron, I may have asked you this in the past, but humor me. What if Lincoln simply lets the South go? Do you think there would have been a war? Forget everything else and just think about that for a minute. Lincoln lets the South go and what happens next?
Personally? I don't think the CSA would have lasted very long. I don't think it COULD have lasted long. I think in less than 20 years, the states that left would be wanting to rejoin the union.....and slavery would have died.
Why not say, "You want to leave? Hit the road!"
Instead the South was told secession was illegal (another fascinating debate, for another day),even though that is basically what happened between us and England in the previous century.
You previously asked if there were no slaves, would there have been a war.
I ask, if Lincoln had just let the South leave, would there have been a war.
Great discussion btw....I appreciate responses without name calling and accusations. |
Since the south depended on the north for nothing economically, why do you think the CSA would not have made it and rejoined the Union? The secession of just the 7 States of the lower South caused the northern economy to implode.
Another interesting thought is, if Lincoln had let the first 7 States depart in peace, would the states of the upper south have ever joined the CSA?
Other thoughts....Had the north and south avoided war in 1861, somewhere down the line and long after slavery would have died a natural death, there still eventually would have been some sort of situation where States felt compelled to withdraw from the Union. We are inching towards such a crisis right now. Secession will be the natural reaction some day to States that want to retain some semblance of what America was intended to be like. |
Basically, I think agriculture was decreasing and interest in technology/manufacturing was increasing.
I think without a major industrial revolution in the South, they would have wanted to return to the Union. Of course, who knows what could have been accomplished if the North had been open to a working relationship with the South.
As far as secession: Everybody says it was and is illegal. But, what alternative do states have, when the federal government assumes powers not outlined in the Constitution? I think that was the fear when the Constitution was ratified.....as you said it is the fear now.
If you and I enter into a contract....but I break the agreement.....how can I expect YOU to be loyal to what I was not?
"Hey sign up for our time share and we won't charge you a maintenance fee".
(1 yr later)
"I'm leaving, you are charging me maintenance fee."
"You can't leave. You signed the contract".
How can secession be illegal, if the government violates its own constitution?
_________________
Eddie Wiggins |
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1055
1/20/16 11:52 am
|
|
|
| |
|
| Re: Some thoughts...beginning with, "Yes, it was slavery." |
Resident Skeptic |
| skinnybishop wrote: | | Resident Skeptic wrote: | | skinnybishop wrote: | | Aaron Scott wrote: | I know that most of the Confederate soldiers had no slaves. Yet they fought to preserve their "way of life." The upper classes have ALWAYS used the lower classes to fight their wars for them. They spin it so that the lower classes feel some patriotic urge to go die to preserve the upper class' institutions, etc.
The planter class and others in the upper class framed the whole struggle as one where their way of life was being threatened. And, yes, it was. And, yes, the north had ulterior motives too. The north drafted men who could care less about slavery, but it was a paycheck, but it was protecting the north from the south, and other spins we put on it.
So it is very likely that the southern soldier was NOT fighting for slavery. But while it was not his intention to fight for slavery, perhaps, there was certainly that element involved in terms of protecting their "way of life," which DID include slavery. Further, despite whatever the intentions of the Confederate soldiers actually was, it served the purposes of that group of people who put them in harm's way in order to preserve slavery.
There are no great principles here from the north or the south. It was political and financial for the north, it appears; and it was slavery and escaping the legitimate power of the federal government for the south.
We had representation in Congress. The south, over and over and over again, from the founding of our nation onward, had played the "we better get our way or we're going home" game. See it in the 3/5th compromise; see it in the various compromises that were had because the south acted like we would go home.
To act like the south's struggle was ONLY about some noble cause is a lie. Had there been no slavery--which as one person put it, "no cotton,"--there would likely have not been issues. But in the south, slaves were thought to be a better efficiency than hiring workers, and we must not stop the planters from making even more money.
Further, had not their been a coastal plan (geographically) that facilitated plantations and cash crops, there would have been no or little slavery. In fact, if you take a map of the southern coastal plain, and overlay it with a may of where most of the slaves were, and then overlay it with a map of where most African American are today, you will be stunned. When I showed it to my classes, I told them that had that climate and condition been in the north, that's where the slaves would have been.
I put it down to "the love of money." The cotton gin, for instance, made it easier to harvest one's crops for market. But instead of being content, no, the wealthy now wanted slavery more than ever so they could grow even more, more, more.
It occurred to me the other day that those folks read the same Bible we do. They had the golden rule like we do. Yes, those were different times, but they had the truth in their hands. They chose wealth over everything. America has done it many times (check out the Native Americans who were removed, chased, etc. so we could have their lands).
We are the best nation on earth, yet our hands are not clean.
CONCLUSION: Slavery WAS the core issue for the south, even if southern soldiers were not slaveholders. The powers that be, to preserve slavery, used the poorer soldiers to try to preserve their way of doing things. Just look at the secession documents from various states--it makes it clear. |
I actually agree with some of your thoughts here. However, I don't think anyone has argued that the "South's struggle was 'ONLY' about some noble cause." Further, I don't think anyone is trying to disconnect slavery from secession.....or from the War. As I said in an earlier post....the relationship between slavery and the War is there.
Aaron, I may have asked you this in the past, but humor me. What if Lincoln simply lets the South go? Do you think there would have been a war? Forget everything else and just think about that for a minute. Lincoln lets the South go and what happens next?
Personally? I don't think the CSA would have lasted very long. I don't think it COULD have lasted long. I think in less than 20 years, the states that left would be wanting to rejoin the union.....and slavery would have died.
Why not say, "You want to leave? Hit the road!"
Instead the South was told secession was illegal (another fascinating debate, for another day),even though that is basically what happened between us and England in the previous century.
You previously asked if there were no slaves, would there have been a war.
I ask, if Lincoln had just let the South leave, would there have been a war.
Great discussion btw....I appreciate responses without name calling and accusations. |
Since the south depended on the north for nothing economically, why do you think the CSA would not have made it and rejoined the Union? The secession of just the 7 States of the lower South caused the northern economy to implode.
Another interesting thought is, if Lincoln had let the first 7 States depart in peace, would the states of the upper south have ever joined the CSA?
Other thoughts....Had the north and south avoided war in 1861, somewhere down the line and long after slavery would have died a natural death, there still eventually would have been some sort of situation where States felt compelled to withdraw from the Union. We are inching towards such a crisis right now. Secession will be the natural reaction some day to States that want to retain some semblance of what America was intended to be like. |
Basically, I think agriculture was decreasing and interest in technology/manufacturing was increasing.
I think without a major industrial revolution in the South, they would have wanted to return to the Union. Of course, who knows what could have been accomplished if the North had been open to a working relationship with the South.
As far as secession: Everybody says it was and is illegal. But, what alternative do states have, when the federal government assumes powers not outlined in the Constitution? I think that was the fear when the Constitution was ratified.....as you said it is the fear now.
If you and I enter into a contract....but I break the agreement.....how can I expect YOU to be loyal to what I was not?
"Hey sign up for our time share and we won't charge you a maintenance fee".
(1 yr later)
"I'm leaving, you are charging me maintenance fee."
"You can't leave. You signed the contract".
How can secession be illegal, if the government violates its own constitution? |
Fear of such an industrial awakening in an independent South was on the minds of the northern elite. There are writings to back up that claim. Unless the north had adopted a free trade policy and low tariffs, they never could have competed with the CSA globally. But to implement such policies would have made the world ask why they didn't do so before hand to prevent southern secession. Clearly they wanted complete control.
_________________
"It is doubtful if any Trinitarian Pentecostals have ever professed to believe in three gods, and Oneness Pentecostals should not claim that they do." - Daniel Segraves UPCI |
Acts-dicted
Posts: 8065
1/20/16 12:32 pm
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
