PDA

View Full Version : Roots of the American Civil War



IMPress Polly
04-28-2013, 02:36 PM
I have run across many in my online wanderings who held any of a number of myths about the American Civil War to be true. The most common in my observation have been that the Civil War was a tariff war that had nothing to do with slavery, that the South wanted but a peaceful separation from the Union, and that the Union was the aggressor who simply couldn't stand to strike 15 stars from its standard. Let's take a closer look at these myths:

First, let us examine to plea that the Civil War was simply about tariffs; the question of whether the United States would favor a protectionist or free trade system. Should the slaveholder be free to reap the full rewards of slavery or be cheated out of a portion of it by a malicious protectionist system? This, it is often argued, was the fundamental question of the American Civil War, with the more industrialized North supporting protection of their domestic businesses from foreign competition, and the South needing a free trade system to keep slavery as profitable as possible. (As noted earlier, the slaveholders, and therefore their political representatives, had developed a warm relationship to England’s cotton manufacturers that caused them to oppose patriotic protections of American industry.) Thus, the Civil War was simply over business approaches and not about any particular principle. This brilliant discovery was originally made in London by the English press (who naturally favored free trade) in 1861, after the outbreak of the war. After all, it certainly couldn't have been made in Charleston, where everyone realized that a free trade system had prevailed since 1846 and that the Morrill tariff did not go through Congress until after the outbreak of the war in 1861; a fact that would make it difficult to argue that Southern opposition to federal trade policy was the underlying root of the secessions that began in 1860 and the war that subsequently broke out early the next year. In fact, the exact opposite of the aforementioned allegation was true: Since the Morrill tariff was only successfully carried through Congress in the aftermath of a series of secessions, it would seem that Congress could only pass the protectionist tariff when the Southern Congressmen refrained from participation. To put all this another way, the tariff was consequential of the secessions, not the other way around. Moreover, it is to be duly noted that in the Secession Congress in Montgomery, all reference to the tariff question was avoided, since the cultivation of sugar in Louisiana, one of the most influential Southern states, depended entirely on protection from foreign competition. But if the secession movement and subsequent war were not truly about tariffs, then what were these happenings about? Surely there could be no principle that was fought over. Let us analyze some of the notable events that took place in the lead-up to secession. First though, we require a bit of background.

First, let us examine to plea that the Civil War was simply about tariffs; the question of whether the United States would favor a protectionist or free trade system. Should the slaveholder be free to reap the full rewards of slavery or be cheated out of a portion of it by a malicious protectionist system? This, it is often argued, was the fundamental question of the American Civil War, with the more industrialized North supporting protection of their domestic businesses from foreign competition, and the South needing a free trade system to keep slavery as profitable as possible. (As noted earlier, most of the slaveholders, and therefore their political representatives, had developed a warm relationship to England’s cotton manufacturers that caused them to oppose patriotic protections of American industry. (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/11912-The-U-S-Presidents-Favorable-or-Unfavorable?p=262363&viewfull=1#post262363)) Thus the Civil War was simply over business approaches and not about any particular principle. This brilliant discovery was originally made in London by the English press (who naturally favored free trade) in 1861, after the outbreak of the war. After all, it certainly couldn't have been made in Charleston, where everyone realized that a free trade system had prevailed since 1846 and that the Morrill tariff did not go through Congress until after the outbreak of the war in 1861; a fact that would make it difficult to argue that Southern opposition to federal trade policy was the underlying root of the secessions that began in 1860 and the war that subsequently broke out early the next year. In fact, the exact opposite of the aforementioned allegation was true: Since the Morrill tariff was only successfully carried through Congress in the aftermath of a series of secessions, it would seem that Congress could only pass the protectionist tariff when the Southern Congressmen refrained from participation. To put all this another way, the tariff was consequential of the secessions, not the other way around. Moreover, it is to be duly noted that in the Secession Congress in Montgomery, all reference to the tariff question was avoided, since the (slave-based) cultivation of sugar in Louisiana, one of the most influential Southern states, depended entirely on protection from foreign competition. But if the secession movement and subsequent war were not truly about tariffs, then what were these happenings about? Surely there could be no principle that was fought over. Let us analyze some of the notable events that took place in the lead-up to secession. First though, we require a bit of background.

IMPress Polly
04-28-2013, 02:38 PM
The final Continental Congress of 1787 and the first Constitutional Congress of 1789-1790 had established laws that excluded slavery from all the territories of the republic northwest of Ohio. The revolutionary fathers considered slavery a necessary evil to be contained until, in theory, it should eventually implode. By the 1850s though John Calhoun (remember him?) had concluded that these were silly prejudices of the 18th century and developed a whole philosophical defense of the slave system as a positive good for society; a superior alternative to the capitalist system. He reasoned, for example, that slave masters at least provided the rudimentary basics of life (food, clothing, shelter, etc.) for their workers, whereas the industrial capitalists cared nothing for the plight of theirs, leaving their toilers to find their own. While it can justly be said that 19th century industrial capitalism indeed obliged its wage-workers to fend for themselves, as Harriet Beecher Stowe soon pointed out in Uncle Tom's Cabin, enslavement, with its barbaric beatings, rapes, torture, kidnappings, and so on, was most certainly not a more humane alternative. Such were the natural fruits of being considered property rather than human. The timing of her famous novel's release was not historically coincidental: it came and found a receptive audience shortly after the Compromise of 1850 compelled every Northerner to play slave-catcher for the South. In any event, the point is that slavery had now developed its own ideology and sought to ultimately replace capitalism with itself.

Now our attention turns to 1854. Having by conquest filled in all the southeastern gaps they 'legally' could ('legally' being defined as, for example, the theft of Texas, New Mexico, and California from Mexico by the U.S. government and authorization of slavery in the former, whereas it had been outlawed by Mexico), the proponents of the slave system now authored a new piece of legislation called the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which allowed the settlers of any U.S. territory to vote on whether or not to authorize slavery. Having bribed the North with the establishment of a new railroad based in Chicago, Stephen Douglas (Northern mouthpiece of the South) of the Democratic Party (nationwide mouthpiece of the South) quickly passed his Kansas-Nebraska bill through the Democratic Congress and it was soon signed into law by the Democratic president Franklin Pierce, placing slavery on equal footing with freedom west of Missouri for the first time. Now every geographical barrier that the institution of slavery had previously faced was officially eliminated; slavery could now be legally established in any American territory. What the proponents of slavery hadn't counted on was the unpopularity of the concept amongst the settlers. Their presumption had been that Southern slave owners would quickly pour into Kansas and vote to make it a slave territory, while the others would take Nebraska. Instead, upwards of 20,000 Northerners became the ones to migrate to Kansas. Now the legalization of slavery was thrown into question. Would the common man vote to legalize slavery? It was quickly deemed too risky a proposition, and so armed emissaries of the slaveholders began conducting government-supported raids from western Missouri and Arkansas to dislodge by force the settlers from the territory they had colonized. If popular sovereignty would not legalize slavery, then force would have to suffice. Through these means, the forces of slavery were able to rig the subsequent vote on Congressional delegation: only half the ballots were cast by registered voters, and at one location, only 20 of over 600 voters were legal residents...and the pro-slavery line won. They then proceeded to similarly rig the March 30, 1855 vote on a territorial legislature in favor of slavery. One week after the new Congress convened in Pawnee on July 2nd, it adjourned to the Shawnee Mission on the Missouri border, where it began passing laws to institutionalize slavery in the Kansas Territory. In August though, in protest of these developments, a group of ordinary settlers convened a meeting and resolved to reject the pro-slavery laws passed by the territorial legislature. Shortly thereafter, they authored a separate territorial constitution that banned slavery in Kansas and formed a separate government, refusing to recognize that of the slaveholders' emissaries. On November 21st, Charles Dow -- a supporter of the alternative government -- was shot and killed by one of the said emissaries and open violence subsequently erupted. On December 1st, the sheriff of Douglas County, Kansas invited a group of 1,500 invaders from Missouri into the territory to attack Lawrence, Kansas on behalf of the slaveholders. The invaders broke into the United States Arsenal at Liberty, Missouri and stole the weaponry to conduct the attack. Free-soilers John Brown and James Lane organized a defending army and erected barricades. The subsequent siege ended quickly with a treaty of peace. In response, in a message to Congress on January 24, 1856, President Franklin Pierce declared the free-soil government of Topeka, Kansas a "revolution" against the 'rightful leaders.' Government-endorsed suppression of the "revolution" government and its supporters continued throughout the year. On May 22nd corresponding scenes of violence made their way into the halls of the U.S. Congress when South Carolina Senator Preston Brooks physically attacked Massachusetts Senator Charles Sumner in the Senate in chambers. In 1857, the 'legitimate' government of Kansas held a constitutional convention and drafted a Kansas state constitution for future statehood -- called the Lecompton Constitution -- in two alternate forms. They then called a vote on which form would be adopted. Since neither made slavery illegal, there was a boycott of the referendum and the free-soilers organized their own convention and drafted an alternative constitution that would make slavery illegal. The results of both referendums were subsequently sent to Washington for ratification. Democratic President James Buchanan decided to accept the Lecompton Constitution and sent it to Congress for approval. But Senator Stephen Douglas -- the same man who had originally proposed the Kansas-Nebraska Act -- argued that the Lecompton Constitution, and by proxy the referendum on it, was unfair because it did not offer an anti-slavery option. Instead of supporting it, he upheld his popular sovereignty line. (After all, representing a Northwestern state, he would naturally have lost all his influence had he conceded to the South the right to steal territories colonized by the North.) The measure was subsequently blocked in the U.S. House of Representatives, where Northern Congressmen refused to admit Kansas as a slave state. The entire saga became known as Bleeding Kansas.

IMPress Polly
04-28-2013, 02:39 PM
In the early days of Bleeding Kansas, a relief organization was formed to support the Kansas settlers with men, arms, and money. Out of this relief organization, in 1854, arose the Republican Party. Thus, the Republican Party owes its origin to the struggle for Kansas. In 1856, the new party put forward it's platform: not a foot of fresh territory will be further conceded to slavery. They proposed, in other words, to return the nation to the stance of the revolutionary fathers on the slavery question and re-establish a land barrier beyond which slavery would not be permitted.

In 1857 the U.S. Supreme Court made a ruling on the case a slave by the name of Dred Scott. Scott was filing suit for his freedom, having resided, at the will of his master, extensively in Illinois and Wisconsin (a free state and a free territory, respectively), arguing that his time in a state and a territory in which slavery was illegal had made him legally free. The Supreme Court (the majority of whose members belonged to the South) responded by striking down the popular sovereignty provision of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, effectively legalizing slavery in all U.S. territories without so much as a vote on the matter required.

Briefly recapping: The Kansas-Nebraska Act had erased the slave system's geographical boundary and set up a political boundary instead. The subsequent Dred Scott ruling erased the political boundary as well, transforming the all the American territories into nurseries of slavery. Meanwhile, the Compromise of 1850 obliged all Northerners to catch the South's runaway slaves on sight regardless of their views on the subject.

Now around rolls the 1860 presidential election. The national Democratic Party -- to the horror of the South -- nominated Stephen Douglas, the Northern Democrat who maintained his popular sovereignty line, as their official candidate for the presidency. The South had lost its Northern proxy. In response, the Southern Democrats rebelled and chose John Breckinridge -- another Buchanan-like faithful, mindless shill of the plantation owners -- as their candidate. The result was a vote-split in the Democratic Party, with the Democrats in the North voting for Douglas and the Southern Democrats voting for Breckinridge. Meanwhile, the Republican Party ran a man by the name of Abraham Lincoln as their candidate, who ran on a platform identical to the Republican platform from 1856, but with a few enrichments. Finally, a new party called the Constitutional Union Party, ran John Bell, seeking to hold the Union together regardless of the question of slavery (it was supported by the remaining members of the Whig Party, though the vast majority had bolted for the new Republican Party). The split in the Democratic vote enabled Lincoln to emerge victorious with 40% of the vote (a plurality), which translated into 180 electoral votes (a majority). (I am quite proud to report that my home state of Vermont gave Lincoln his largest margin of victory. :D) On November 6, 1860, Lincoln was declared the winner. Exactly two days later, a message telegraphed from the state government of South Carolina (the same state responsible for the 1830s secession crisis) read "Secession is hereby regarded as an accomplished fact". A wave of secessions quickly followed. On November 10th, the Georgia legislature occupied itself with secession plans. On November 13th, a special session of the Mississippi legislature was convened to consider secession. By December, the first secession was official. Given the impeccable timing these events, there is little doubt as to the connection between the election results and the decision of so many Southern states to secede from the Union. But who is to say that it was in any way connected to the issue of slavery?...

IMPress Polly
04-28-2013, 02:41 PM
Actually, the new Southern Confederacy itself was to answer the above inquiry. Stephens, the Vice-President of the Southern Confederacy, declared in the Secession Congress that what essentially distinguished the constitution newly hatched at Montgomery from the constitution of Washington and Jefferson was that now, for the first time, slavery was recognized as an institution good in itself, and as the foundation of the whole state edifice, whereas the revolutionary fathers, men steeped in the prejudices of the 18th century, had treated slavery as an evil imported from England and to be eliminated in the course of time. Another great matador of the South, Mr. Spratt, declared: "For us it is a question of founding a great slave republic." Features like these made it clear that the founders of this new government believed in Calhoun's ideology. The economic necessity of secession was also expressed in the Secession Congress at Montgomery when Senator Toombs, one of the spokesmen of the South, strikingly assessed this very economic law that commands the constant expansion of the territory of slavery to be true, saying that: "In fifteen years, without a great increase in slave territory, either the slaves must be permitted to flee from the whites, or the whites must flee from the slaves." And even if it didn't implode economically by way of containment, it may well have socially, as the escapades to new territories were the only motivation keeping the poor Southerners on the side of the slaveholders. Denied these adventures, they would be subject to possibility of turning on the 'slave power' themselves. I think these factoids make the matter very clear: the founding of the Confederacy had everything to do with the question of slavery. The 'slave power' found itself in a state of emergency following the victory of Lincoln and responded with the only logical course of action for their line.

Now that we have established the cause of secession though, I think it time we examined the matter of who it was that started the American Civil War itself and for what purposes:

Little sooner had the secessions begun than had the South begun to seize the Union's forts, shipyards, customs houses, pay offices, ships, and supply of arms, insult its flag, and take prisoner bodies of its troops. During all of this, the Union government quietly looked on. Lincoln proposed, in his inaugural address, a general convocation of the American people as a peaceful means to resolve the issue. Indeed, that was the only Constitutional way out of such a scenario. But the Confederacy resolved to force the Union out of its passive attitude with a blatant act of war. On April 11, 1861, Confederate General Beauregard had learned in a meeting with Major Anderson, the Union Commander of Fort Sumter, that the fort was only supplied with provisions adequate for three more days. Instead of allowing the arrival of the required supplies, the Confederate forces attacked the fort early the following morning, resulting in its fall in a matter of hours. News of these events had hardly reached Montgomery (the seat of the Secession Congress) when War Minister Walker publicly declared in the name of the new Confederacy: "No man can say where the war opened today [emphasis mine] will end." He continued on, predicting that by May 1st, the Confederate flag would wave the dome of the Union Capitol in Washington DC and, within a short period, also from the Faneuil Hall in Boston, Massachusetts. Only now did President Lincoln make his request for 75,000 troops to defend the Union. When you do the attacking, announce that it's the start of a war, and that your aim in that war is to overthrow the Union government, that's what's called launching a war with the explicit aim of conquest. I detest the revisionist interpretations of these events that somehow manage to say otherwise.

I scoff when I hear people proclaim Lincoln a treasonous mass murderer because he subsequently did what it took to win the war. They contend that Lincoln violated the United States Constitution by declaring total war at a certain later point. What this reasoning fails to consider is the fact that there would BE NO United States Constitution if he hadn't!! SHEEEESH!! The ridiculous legalism of some people! As Karl Marx pointed out in a letter to Lincoln from that time, confining himself to a constitutional framework in the face of a revolutionary adversary was a mistake. He needed to adopt revolutionary methods to win. And he did, and he won. After all, the Confederacy was being armed not only by itself, but also by England and other extensions of the British Empire (like Canada, which partially seceded from Britain after the war precisely in protest of the Union's victory). And it was precisely this shift to revolutionary methods that led to Lincoln's eventual full-throttle attack on the slave system itself first in order to break the economic backbone of the South (thus crippling its ability to wage war) and then as a matter of principle. The war seemed to revolutionize Lincoln himself in this way.

By the time of the Civil War, the pro-Union Republicans could claim not only the industrial capitalists as part of their alliance, but also the organized wage-workers who were only just beginning to emerge upon the stage of history, as well as the early women's movement and, of course, the runaway slaves. This was the grand alliance against the slave system by the time the war got underway. Yet of course, with the common enemy that bound them together defeated at war's end, it's unsurprising to find that these disparate elements began to part ways more at that point. The politically-represented advance guard of this alliance was a group called the Radical Republicans.

Sytha
04-28-2013, 03:10 PM
Did you write all of that in the above 4 posts ^^^^ or is this a copy and past of someone else work?

IMPress Polly
04-28-2013, 03:15 PM
My writing. I'd provide attribution otherwise.

I'm continuing what's sort of turning into a running series on various key junctures in American history. Here's the first part, discussing the conspiracy that led to the establishment of the current U.S. Constitution. (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/5492-The-Treason-of-the-U-S-Constitution) And here's the second part discussing the significance of the Jacksonian era. (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/11912-The-U-S-Presidents-Favorable-or-Unfavorable?p=262363&viewfull=1#post262363)

Chris
04-28-2013, 03:15 PM
The North American Civil War (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/10/25.htm).

jillian
04-28-2013, 03:16 PM
the civil war was about slavery.

everything else is nonsense.

IMPress Polly
04-28-2013, 03:24 PM
Nice find, Chris! My commentary is philosophically and stylistically similar to Marx's, as I'm sure you've noticed. Obviously my perspective was greatly inspired by his on this subject (as I mentioned in my writing). Everyone should also read Marx's classic commentary on this subject that Chris linked too!

Agravan
04-28-2013, 03:28 PM
Revisionist history from a wanna-be Socialist.

IMPress Polly
04-28-2013, 03:33 PM
Agravan:

Wanna-be? I'm an actual socialist. :tongue:

Since you disagree with my commentary, do you have any corrective points to offer, or just mindless, one-liner type criticisms?

jillian
04-28-2013, 03:33 PM
Revisionist history from a wanna-be Socialist.

the 'revisionist history' is from anyone who pretends it wasn't about slavery.

Agravan
04-28-2013, 03:44 PM
the 'revisionist history' is from anyone who pretends it wasn't about slavery.

You can revise it all you want, that does not change the facts or root cause.

roadmaster
04-28-2013, 03:48 PM
The preservation of liberty and freedom was the motivating factor in the South's decision to fight the Second Revolution. The tenacity with which Confederate soldiers fought underscored their belief in the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. These attributes are the underpinning of our democratic society and represent the foundation on which this nation was built. The breaking point was nearly reached in 1785when the north sought to stop the development of the south by giving the Mississippi river to Spain in 1801 when it attempted the immoral act of turning the presidents ticket upside down and making aaron burr and in 1833 when it imposed upon the south a high tariff for the benefit of the northern manufactures. Secession is a mere civil process having no necessary connection with war. Norway seceded from Sweden and there was no war. The south fought to establish it's own government not destroying the union. It was Lincoln that clamed this and was no more the truth than if King George 111 had said. Lincoln began the war by secretly attempting to land troops at Fort Pickens in Florida.

Agravan
04-28-2013, 03:51 PM
Agravan:

Wanna-be? I'm an actual socialist. :tongue:

Since you disagree with my commentary, do you have any corrective points to offer, or just mindless, one-liner type criticisms?

No point in offering corrections. you view history from a socialist perspective and believe what you want to believe. I get it. I don't have to agree withit, but I understood your Anti-American point of view.
As far as "wanna-be socialist" - as long as you continue to live here, you are a pretend socialist. If you were as true to your beliefs as you claim, you would move to somewhere that actually practices your form of government. Hell, go to Cuba for a few months, not as a visiting socialist, but as a regular citizen and interview actual victims (citizens) under socialism. try living like they do, under the same restrictions and rules. But you won't. Not because you don't want to leave the US, but because, deep down, you know you would not be able to tolerate it and it would jade you and your views on the Utopian aspects of socialism that you hold so dear.

roadmaster
04-28-2013, 03:51 PM
You can revise it all you want, that does not change the facts or root cause. The south knows the facts. They can turn it all they want but we have the real facts.

jillian
04-28-2013, 03:52 PM
The south knows the facts. They can turn it all they want but we have the real facts.

the south is trying to revise the facts to pretend it wasn't about preserving an economic system that rested on owning other humans.

Agravan
04-28-2013, 03:55 PM
the south is trying to revise the facts to pretend it wasn't about preserving an economic system that rested on owning other humans.

Still forgetting the fact that the majority of Southerners did not own slaves, and that many freed slaves, and hispanics fought in the Confederate forces? Or has that part been revised from your version of history?

Also remember: History is written by the victors...often to the detriment of the vanquished.

zelmo1234
04-28-2013, 03:55 PM
WOW! that is an interesting take in Fantasy or revision as another poster put it!

The Tarriffs of taxes of the time had in fact been an area of controversy as far back as the 1820's

And while there can be no denying that Slavery was one of the important factors of the War, to say that it was the only reason would be a mistake!

This is a pretty good article that talks about the West, the economy and Slavery! among other factors!

http://www.historycentral.com/CivilWar/AMERICA/Economics.html

This is why it is so important for conservatives to not only persue education jobs, but also get involved with the writing of history!

Otherwise you will have the leftest fantasy of history being taught as fact!

I am sure that the is no indoctrination going on in Polly's class?????

roadmaster
04-28-2013, 03:56 PM
the south is trying to revise the facts to pretend it wasn't about preserving an economic system that rested on owning other humans. 1% owned slaves and the constitution was already there. In fact in Louisiana blacks owed slaves but it's the north that started the slave trades not the south.

jillian
04-28-2013, 03:56 PM
Still forgetting the fact that the majority of Southerners did not own slaves, and that many freed slaves, and hispanics fought in the Confederate forces? Or has that part been revised from your version of history?

you're funny.

keep making things up.

roadmaster
04-28-2013, 03:57 PM
Still forgetting the fact that the majority of Southerners did not own slaves, and that many freed slaves, and hispanics fought in the Confederate forces? Or has that part been revised from your version of history?

Also remember: History is written by the victors...often to the detriment of the vanquished. The north was bringing in slaves to replace the Native Americans.

jillian
04-28-2013, 03:57 PM
WOW! that is an interesting take in Fantasy or revision as another poster put it!

The Tarriffs of taxes of the time had in fact been an area of controversy as far back as the 1820's

And while there can be no denying that Slavery was one of the important factors of the War, to say that it was the only reason would be a mistake!

This is a pretty good article that talks about the West, the economy and Slavery! among other factors!

http://www.historycentral.com/CivilWar/AMERICA/Economics.html

This is why it is so important for conservatives to not only persue education jobs, but also get involved with the writing of history!

Otherwise you will have the leftest fantasy of history being taught as fact!

I am sure that the is no indoctrination going on in Polly's class?????

but for the issue of slavery. the civil war wouldn't have happened. and calling people "leftist" for living in reality is kind of silly.

roadmaster
04-28-2013, 03:59 PM
but for the issue of slavery. the civil war wouldn't have happened. and calling people "leftist" for living in reality is kind of silly. Slavery had nothing to do with the civil war.

zelmo1234
04-28-2013, 04:00 PM
the 'revisionist history' is from anyone who pretends it wasn't about slavery.

I know that my son was tought that it was only about Slavery, but we had visited most of the important battlefields in the north and the south, so he had a really good grip on the actual history!

So while anyone that says that Slavery was not a factor is not being truthful! Neiteher sre those that are not willing to look at the economic reasons!

Do you mind if I ask how old you are??? Just wondering if you went thri=ough the same course as my son?

Agravan
04-28-2013, 04:03 PM
you're funny.

keep making things up.

http://www.scv357.org/blkconf/pdf/RoleofBlacksConfederateArmy.pdf

http://thomaslegion.net/blackconfederates.html

zelmo1234
04-28-2013, 04:09 PM
http://www.scv357.org/blkconf/pdf/RoleofBlacksConfederateArmy.pdf

http://thomaslegion.net/blackconfederates.html

You are not going to try and use facts to win an argument with a liberal are you????? That will make no difference at all! they have spoken, that becomes their reality! :)

roadmaster
04-28-2013, 04:35 PM
Thanks for the link. "I've had to re-examine my feelings toward the [Confederate] flag started when I read a newspaper article about an elderly black man whose ancestor worked with the Confederate forces. The man spoke with pride about his family member's contribution to the cause, was photographed with the [Confederate] flag draped over his lap that's why I now have no definite stand on just what the flag symbolizes, because it no longer is their history, or my history, but our history." Our History!

Mister D
04-28-2013, 05:41 PM
Polly, did you really just claim that the conquest of the northern US was a Confederate war aim and that Washington only called for volunteers because of an imminent invasion by the Confederates? That laughable finale tarnishes otherwise thoughtful comments.

On a less ridiculous note, the south was heavily outnumbered and outgunned. The Confederacy did not receive much in the way of help from any foreign power although she tried desperately to receive recognition from England and France because her leadership knew that was the only way to achieve independence and security. The north's massive advantages are what Lincoln used to subdue the south not "revolutionary" methods.

Greenridgeman
04-28-2013, 05:53 PM
WOW! that is an interesting take in Fantasy or revision as another poster put it!

The Tarriffs of taxes of the time had in fact been an area of controversy as far back as the 1820's

And while there can be no denying that Slavery was one of the important factors of the War, to say that it was the only reason would be a mistake!

This is a pretty good article that talks about the West, the economy and Slavery! among other factors!

http://www.historycentral.com/CivilWar/AMERICA/Economics.html

This is why it is so important for conservatives to not only persue education jobs, but also get involved with the writing of history!

Otherwise you will have the leftest fantasy of history being taught as fact!

I am sure that the is no indoctrination going on in Polly's class?????



It HAS to be only about slavery to them.

100%, absolutely about slavery.

No use even talking to them about it.

Greenridgeman
04-28-2013, 05:54 PM
you are not going to try and use facts to win an argument with a liberal are you????? That will make no difference at all! They have spoken, that becomes their reality! :)

bingo!

Agravan
04-28-2013, 08:21 PM
You are not going to try and use facts to win an argument with a liberal are you????? That will make no difference at all! they have spoken, that becomes their reality! :)
You're right. Logic and facts are whatever the left declares them to be for that day.

Chloe
04-28-2013, 08:29 PM
I don't understand you guys sometimes. Polly wrote a really smart and well thought out post earlier and the best that everybody can do is make fun of it, her, and "liberals". Just because you are from the south does not automatically make you guys right either you know.

Greenridgeman
04-28-2013, 08:47 PM
I don't understand you guys sometimes. Polly wrote a really smart and well thought out post earlier and the best that everybody can do is make fun of it, her, and "liberals". Just because you are from the south does not automatically make you guys right either you know.

Polly destroyed all credibility with me by posting a poll of a small group of high school kids, in Los Angeles, taken in 1978, and using it to post a topic accusing over half of US high school boys of approving of rape.

Greenridgeman
04-28-2013, 08:49 PM
I don't understand you guys sometimes. Polly wrote a really smart and well thought out post earlier and the best that everybody can do is make fun of it, her, and "liberals". Just because you are from the south does not automatically make you guys right either you know.


Furthermore, if the silly agitprop poll were not enough, this would surely stop any thinking person: "My commentary is philosophically and stylistically similar to Marx's.

Chris
04-28-2013, 08:52 PM
I don't understand you guys sometimes. Polly wrote a really smart and well thought out post earlier and the best that everybody can do is make fun of it, her, and "liberals". Just because you are from the south does not automatically make you guys right either you know.

I think it comes across as personal jabs sometimes because ignored, dismissed and denied are criticisms of the underlying assumptions and narrow view of polly's post taken from Marx's paper written in 1861. What did Marx know of America except through eyes that didn't even understand economics?

Chloe
04-28-2013, 08:57 PM
I just thought that her treatment was a little unfair considering the effort that she obviously put into writing those posts.

Greenridgeman
04-28-2013, 09:00 PM
I just thought that her treatment was a little unfair considering the effort that she obviously put into writing those posts.


As the father of three sons, none of which ever committed a rape, I think I have treated her fairly.

I basically ignore her agitation and propaganda.

One cannot be more polite than to ignore those that seek to agitate and provoke.

Greenridgeman
04-28-2013, 09:21 PM
I just thought that her treatment was a little unfair considering the effort that she obviously put into writing those posts.



Oh, how totally unfair you are.

Changing that avatar! "Too cute to chide" a new form of "Too big to fail"?

I can't make little girls cry in good conscience.

Jeez, my neice use to do me like that.

Your poor. poor daddy.

Chloe
04-28-2013, 09:23 PM
Better?

Greenridgeman
04-28-2013, 09:23 PM
I just thought that her treatment was a little unfair considering the effort that she obviously put into writing those posts.



I just think that your changing of your avatar is a little unfair considering the effort you have obviously put into guilt-tripping me!


(lol for those noseys that don't know jack)

Greenridgeman
04-28-2013, 09:24 PM
Better?


No, go back.

It would get you beheaded in Saudi Arabia, but, it was very nice.

Chloe
04-28-2013, 09:33 PM
I just think that your changing of your avatar is a little unfair considering the effort you have obviously put into guilt-tripping me!


(lol for those noseys that don't know jack)

I wasn't trying to guilt trip you or anything like that I just know that if it were me i'd be frustrated if I put in all that effort to write out those responses Polly made only for them to be mocked basically.

I am playing with some pictures right now I recently downloaded some pictures from a dinner party thing that my family and I went to last week.

Greenridgeman
04-28-2013, 09:44 PM
I wasn't trying to guilt trip you or anything like that I just know that if it were me i'd be frustrated if I put in all that effort to write out those responses Polly made only for them to be mocked basically.

I am playing with some pictures right now I recently downloaded some pictures from a dinner party thing that my family and I went to last week.




I speak only for myself, all the research in the world is invalidated by one phony poll.

I first noticed her as a poster of prejudiced agitprop, and nothing I have ever bothered to read since has altered that impression.

And I don't read single-spaced Marxian screeds either.

Greenridgeman
04-28-2013, 09:45 PM
I wasn't trying to guilt trip you or anything like that I just know that if it were me i'd be frustrated if I put in all that effort to write out those responses Polly made only for them to be mocked basically.

I am playing with some pictures right now I recently downloaded some pictures from a dinner party thing that my family and I went to last week.




It was a very nice picture.

Chloe
04-28-2013, 09:50 PM
It was a very nice picture.

thank you

Chris
04-28-2013, 09:53 PM
I wasn't trying to guilt trip you or anything like that I just know that if it were me i'd be frustrated if I put in all that effort to write out those responses Polly made only for them to be mocked basically.

I am playing with some pictures right now I recently downloaded some pictures from a dinner party thing that my family and I went to last week.

You shouldn't fall for everything said.

Agravan
04-28-2013, 11:07 PM
I don't understand you guys sometimes. Polly wrote a really smart and well thought out post earlier and the best that everybody can do is make fun of it, her, and "liberals". Just because you are from the south does not automatically make you guys right either you know.

So, Southerners should not dispute liberal/socialist propaganda that is clearly biased and inaccurate?
Sure, it was a well written, well thought out piece. But it was also wildly inaccurate and full of misconceptions, myths and outright falsehoods. It was a piece written from a viewpoint that is basically un-American, and definitely anti-South. It was a piece of revisionist trash and deserves to be treated as such. That she took so much time and effort to put it down in words just shows how deeply flawed her thinking and how deep her indoctrination is. This is not an attack on IMPress Polly, just an observation from one who's culture and history is the one under attack.

Chris
04-29-2013, 07:29 AM
So, Southerners should not dispute liberal/socialist propaganda that is clearly biased and inaccurate?
Sure, it was a well written, well thought out piece. But it was also wildly inaccurate and full of misconceptions, myths and outright falsehoods. It was a piece written from a viewpoint that is basically un-American, and definitely anti-South. It was a piece of revisionist trash and deserves to be treated as such. That she took so much time and effort to put it down in words just shows how deeply flawed her thinking and how deep her indoctrination is. This is not an attack on IMPress Polly, just an observation from one who's culture and history is the one under attack.

Revisionist? Perhaps repititionist. Read The North American Civil War (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1861/10/25.htm)..

Chloe
04-29-2013, 09:27 AM
So, Southerners should not dispute liberal/socialist propaganda that is clearly biased and inaccurate?
Sure, it was a well written, well thought out piece. But it was also wildly inaccurate and full of misconceptions, myths and outright falsehoods. It was a piece written from a viewpoint that is basically un-American, and definitely anti-South. It was a piece of revisionist trash and deserves to be treated as such. That she took so much time and effort to put it down in words just shows how deeply flawed her thinking and how deep her indoctrination is. This is not an attack on @IMPress Polly (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=399), just an observation from one who's culture and history is the one under attack.

Well no I'm not saying that inaccuracies and stuff like that shouldn't be disputed I was just saying that being southern doesn't automatically make that opinion correct either. Bias can exist even more with people who support it and that are from those areas too. I'm not saying you are biased but you have an emotional attachment to it as well which could lead to bias in my opinion.

Greenridgeman
04-29-2013, 10:08 AM
Well no I'm not saying that inaccuracies and stuff like that shouldn't be disputed I was just saying that being southern doesn't automatically make that opinion correct either. Bias can exist even more with people who support it and that are from those areas too. I'm not saying you are biased but you have an emotional attachment to it as well which could lead to bias in my opinion.


Have you taken any upper division US history courses yet?

Are you familiar with Sherman's boast to "Make Georgia howl"?

Chloe
04-29-2013, 10:14 AM
Have you taken any upper division US history courses yet?

Are you familiar with Sherman's boast to "Make Georgia howl"?

No not yet

Greenridgeman
04-29-2013, 10:32 AM
No not yet


Perhaps after you have learned how a Union army came through the South like Nazis, burning out almost every white family it came upon, you might have a bit more empathy.

Chloe
04-29-2013, 10:45 AM
Perhaps after you have learned how a Union army came through the South like Nazis, burning out almost every white family it came upon, you might have a bit more empathy.

I know that the war was horrible and thousands of people died and that there were atrocities on both sides, but how does that explain the root cause of the war? I'm sure there was hatred from both sides during the war.

Greenridgeman
04-29-2013, 10:52 AM
I know that the war was horrible and thousands of people died and that there were atrocities on both sides, but how does that explain the root cause of the war? I'm sure there was hatred from both sides during the war.


I wasn't explaining root cause there, but, current sensitivity by those directly effected.

As for the hatred, more of that arose from the brutal occupation and reconstruction than from the war directly.

Can I ask a hopefully not too personal question?

Don't answer if you do not think it relevant.

How deep are your family's roots in America?

I am just curious as to what kind of family lore you grew up with, American, or other.

Agravan
04-29-2013, 10:56 AM
Perhaps after you have learned how a Union army came through the South like Nazis, burning out almost every white family it came upon, you might have a bit more empathy.

Much as I hate to say this, it has been my experience that Chloe has little empathy for those people who will/have suffered in pursuit of her ideal world or policies. Not because she's a bad person, she's not, it's just that she has lived a sheltered existence up to this point so she has no experience with the real world and the problems that exist outside of her own little world. That Southerners suffered at the hands of the Yankee aggressors has no meaning to her since it is not her ancestral kin that actually lived thru and suffered during that period. All she has to go by is the liberal propaganda being force-fed kids in school, and that propaganda places the blame solely on the South and slavery. As I said, History is written by the victors.

Greenridgeman
04-29-2013, 11:01 AM
Much as I hate to say this, it has been my experience that @Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565) has little empathy for those people who will/have suffered in pursuit of her ideal world or policies. Not because she's a bad person, she's not, it's just that she has lived a sheltered existence up to this point so she has no experience with the real world and the problems that exist outside of her own little world. That Southerners suffered at the hands of the Yankee aggressors has no meaning to her since it is not her ancestral kin that actually lived thru and suffered during that period. All she has to go by is the liberal propaganda being force-fed kids in school, and that propaganda places the blame solely on the South and slavery. As I said, History is written by the victors.


Cannot disagree.

So far, I have found headstones of my direct ancestors back to one born in 1812. I think I can find his daddy, and am going looking for that gravesite soon.

Beyond that, I have to go up to Virginia, which is pretty far away.

My people have been building this country since 1701.

Not that that makes me any more of a citizens, it justs gives me more perspective on the American experience.

That, and being old as dirt and having lived a good portion of it.

Chloe
04-29-2013, 01:25 PM
I wasn't explaining root cause there, but, current sensitivity by those directly effected.

As for the hatred, more of that arose from the brutal occupation and reconstruction than from the war directly.

Can I ask a hopefully not too personal question?

Don't answer if you do not think it relevant.

How deep are your family's roots in America?

I am just curious as to what kind of family lore you grew up with, American, or other.

I don't really know. I know basically where my family came from like my heritage and stuff but I'm not sure when my family actually came here or anything like that. All of my grandparents were born here but I don't know about their parents or grandparents. I'd have to ask.

Chloe
04-29-2013, 01:29 PM
Much as I hate to say this, it has been my experience that @Chloe (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=565) has little empathy for those people who will/have suffered in pursuit of her ideal world or policies. Not because she's a bad person, she's not, it's just that she has lived a sheltered existence up to this point so she has no experience with the real world and the problems that exist outside of her own little world. That Southerners suffered at the hands of the Yankee aggressors has no meaning to her since it is not her ancestral kin that actually lived thru and suffered during that period. All she has to go by is the liberal propaganda being force-fed kids in school, and that propaganda places the blame solely on the South and slavery. As I said, History is written by the victors.

It's not that I don't want to respond to what you said, it's just honestly I don't really know how to respond. I don't really know how I am supposed to have empathy for historical figures and things that were hundreds of years ago. I understand if somehow a family member that I knew died or something but nobody in the US has ever met someone who fought or died in that war. I think it would be cool to know If your family was involved but beyond that I would still have no idea if that relative was actually a good person or not.

Agravan
04-29-2013, 01:42 PM
It's not that I don't want to respond to what you said, it's just honestly I don't really know how to respond. I don't really know how I am supposed to have empathy for historical figures and things that were hundreds of years ago. I understand if somehow a family member that I knew died or something but nobody in the US has ever met someone who fought or died in that war. I think it would be cool to know If your family was involved but beyond that I would still have no idea if that relative was actually a good person or not.
Do you think that being a Confederate automatically made you a bad person?

Chloe
04-29-2013, 01:44 PM
Do you think that being a Confederate automatically made you a bad person?

Well no of course not. I just don't agree with what they were fighting to help preserve even if it wasn't their primary reason for fighting the war.

Agravan
04-29-2013, 01:59 PM
Well no of course not. I just don't agree with what they were fighting to help preserve even if it wasn't their primary reason for fighting the war.
You do know that the Confederacy offered to emancipate the slaves in exchange for English recognition, right? And that free blacks and freed slaves were fighting in the Confederate ranks? And that the Confederacy offered freedom to any slave that would fight? Does that sound like they were trying to preserve slavery to you?? How long do you think slavery would have lasted with thousands of free black and armed Confederate soldiers returning from the war where they saw actual combat? Do you think the Confederacy did not recognize this fact? Yet they enlisted blacks anyway. Look past your liberal propaganda and you'll see the true reasons the war was fought.

Greenridgeman
04-29-2013, 02:03 PM
It's not that I don't want to respond to what you said, it's just honestly I don't really know how to respond. I don't really know how I am supposed to have empathy for historical figures and things that were hundreds of years ago. I understand if somehow a family member that I knew died or something but nobody in the US has ever met someone who fought or died in that war. I think it would be cool to know If your family was involved but beyond that I would still have no idea if that relative was actually a good person or not.



You have not hesitated to paint the ancestors of others with a pretty broad brush.

Cigar
04-29-2013, 02:09 PM
You have not hesitated to paint the ancestors of others with a pretty broad brush.

Wowa ...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_K9DDwiaaEu0/Scnl3xlAqrI/AAAAAAAAARs/vOdkeAqyYmw/s320/pot+meet+kettle.jpg

nic34
04-29-2013, 02:13 PM
You do know that the Confederacy offered to emancipate the slaves in exchange for English recognition, right? And that free blacks and freed slaves were fighting in the Confederate ranks? And that the Confederacy offered freedom to any slave that would fight? Does that sound like they were trying to preserve slavery to you?? How long do you think slavery would have lasted with thousands of free black and armed Confederate soldiers returning from the war where they saw actual combat? Do you think the Confederacy did not recognize this fact? Yet they enlisted blacks anyway. Look past your liberal propaganda and you'll see the true reasons the war was fought.

Talk about denial....

Greenridgeman
04-29-2013, 02:16 PM
Wowa ...

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_K9DDwiaaEu0/Scnl3xlAqrI/AAAAAAAAARs/vOdkeAqyYmw/s320/pot+meet+kettle.jpg



You have links?

Chloe
04-29-2013, 02:28 PM
You have not hesitated to paint the ancestors of others with a pretty broad brush.

Im sorry if thats what i am doing. I'm not trying to do that at all. It's tough on my part because it seems like unless I praise the south I'm accused of being mean to people's history and ancestors. Slavery was horrible. It was a disgusting part of this country's history, however, slavery primarily existed in the southern states and so I don't see how acknowledging that fact and condemning that fact is a slap in the face to all southerners who lived then and are alive today. I think we can all agree that the treatment of native Americans by white Americans was wrong for example but that doesn't mean that when you condemn our actions during those times it's somehow a judgment of every single white person in America.

im sure there were plenty of southerners that didn't like slavery, but the south is primarily where slavery and the slave trade focused on. Just because you acknowledge that doesn't make you hate your own heritage or something. Do you understand what I am trying to say?

Agravan
04-29-2013, 02:34 PM
Talk about denial....
Then stop denying the facts. Did you even look at the links I posted earlier? Or does your closed liberal mind prevent you from learning facts that are not on the approved liberal indoctrination list?

Agravan
04-29-2013, 02:36 PM
Im sorry if thats what i am doing. I'm not trying to do that at all. It's tough on my part because it seems like unless I praise the south I'm accused of being mean to people's history and ancestors. Slavery was horrible. It was a disgusting part of this country's history, however, slavery primarily existed in the southern states and so I don't see how acknowledging that fact and condemning that fact is a slap in the face to all southerners who lived then and are alive today. I think we can all agree that the treatment of native Americans by white Americans was wrong for example but that doesn't mean that when you condemn our actions during those times it's somehow a judgment of every single white person in America.

im sure there were plenty of southerners that didn't like slavery, but the south is primarily where slavery and the slave trade focused on. Just because you acknowledge that doesn't make you hate your own heritage or something. Do you understand what I am trying to say?
Slavery started in the Northern states where the majority of slave ships and traders were registered.

Chris
04-29-2013, 03:06 PM
Slavery started in the Northern states where the majority of slave ships and traders were registered.

Indeed, speaking of nic's denial, it was in not only in the North were slavery and slave trade began but in its denial of this so too did the myth the war was about slavery.

Slavery in the North (]http://www.slavenorth.com/index.html) is a good introduction to this. This is from the section called "DENYING the PAST":


As the reality of slavery in the North faded, and a strident anti-Southern abolitionism arose there, the memory of Northern slaves, when it surfaced at all, tended to focus on how happy and well-treated they had been, in terms much reminiscent of the so-called "Lost Cause" literature that followed the fall of the Confederacy in 1865.

...Yet the petitions for freedom from New England and Mid-Atlantic blacks, and the numbers in which they ran off from their masters to the British during the Revolution, suggest rather a different picture.

...The cleansing of history had a racist motive as well, denying blacks -- slave or free -- a legitimate place in New England history. But most importantly, the deliberate creation of a "mythology of a free New England" was a crucial event in the history of sectional conflict in America. The North, and New England in particular, sought to demonize the South through its institution of slavery; they did this in part by burying their own histories as slave-owners and slave-importers. At the same time, behind the potent rhetoric of Daniel Webster and others, they enshrined New England values as the essential ones of the Revolution, and the new nation. In so doing, they characterized Southern interests as purely sectional and selfish....

...The attempt to force blame for all America's ills onto the South led the Northern leadership to extreme twists of logic. Abolitionist leaders in New England noted the "degraded" condition of the local black communities. Yet the common abolitionist explanation of this had nothing to do with northerners, black or white. Instead, they blamed it on the continuance of slavery in the South. "The toleration of slavery in the South," Garrison editorialized, "is the chief cause of the unfortunate situation of free colored persons in the North."

...Melish's perceptive book, "Disowning Slavery," argues that the North didn't simply forget that it ever had slaves. She makes a forceful case for a deliberate re-writing of the region's past, in the early 1800s. By the 1850s, Melish writes, "New England had become a region whose history had been re-visioned by whites as a triumphant narrative of free, white labor." And she adds that this "narrative of a historically free, white New England also advanced antebellum New England nationalism by supporting the region's claims to a superior moral identity that could be contrasted effectively with the 'Jacobinism' of a slave-holding, 'negroized' South." The demonizing adjective is one she borrows from Daniel Webster, who used it in the Webster-Hayne debate of 1830.

...Webster's "Second Reply," given in January 1830 during his debate with Robert Young Hayne of South Carolina....

Webster "articulated a clear and compelling vision of an American nation made up of the union of northern and western states, bonded by an interpretation of the origin and meaning of the union and the U.S. Constitution and reflecting the core values of New England political culture and history. Coded implicitly among those essential values were claims to historical freedom and whiteness, against which Webster could effectively contrast a South isolated by its historical commitment to slavery. Such an interpretation, appealing as it did to the widespread desire among northern states outside New England to eradicate their black populations and achieve a 'whiteness' like that of New England, could rally and solidify northern opposition to Slave Power."

In the speech, Webster, like Pilate, washes his hands of anything to do with American slavery. "The domestic slavery of the Southern States I leave where I find it, -- in the hands of their own governments. It is their affair, not mine." This allows him to keep within the frame of the Constitution, and at the same time cleverly disavow more than a century and a half of New England slavery and slave-trading, which had financed the first families and institutions of his home district.

...This was the opening salvo. Within a few months, Webster's speech had been reprinted whole in newspapers across the country and published in pamphlets that ran through 20 editions. A single printing of it churned out 40,000 copies. Other Northern speakers and writers picked up the tone and carried it like a battle-flag down the years to the Civil War....

roadmaster
04-29-2013, 10:04 PM
There are always two sides to every story. It was clear Lincoln didn't think blacks were equal to whites and said it in his speech. The north started slavery with the Native Americans and African Americans but they chose not to put that in History books. Yes the Confederacy offered to emancipate the slaves and wanted their own government. Both were guilty of owning slaves but that was not what the war was about.

IMPress Polly
05-01-2013, 04:54 PM
While I do thank Zelmo for providing the best counter-argument, there is just no getting around the fact that the American Civil War was about slavery far more than anything else. In case there are any lingering doubts though, let us recall the lyrics of the Confederate national anthem:


I Wish I Was in Dixie Land

Oh, I wish I was in the land of cotton,
Old times there are not forgotten.
Look away, look away, look away Dixie Land!

In Dixie Land, where I was born in,
early on one frosty mornin'.
Look away, look away, look away Dixie Land!

I wish I was in Dixie, Hooray! Hooray!
In Dixie Land I'll take my stand,
to live and die in Dixie.
Away, away, away down south in Dixie!
Away, away, away down south in Dixie!

There's buckwheat cakes and Injun batter,
Makes you fat or a little fatter.
Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land

Then hoe it down and scratch your gravel,
To Dixie's Land I'm bound to travel.
Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land

I wish I was in Dixie, Hooray! Hooray!
In Dixie Land I'll take my stand,
to live and die in Dixie.
Away, away, away down south in Dixie!
Away, away, away down south in Dixie!

The entire song is little more than a celebration of the cotton industry! I believe we're familiar with the production relations that were bound up with the Southern cotton industry at the time.

As to the case that Jefferson Davis offered to emancipate the slaves, one notices that this didn't happen until AFTER U.S. President Lincoln had already long since ordered the Confederate's slaves freed; long after the Emancipation Proclamation. Mr. Davis made such a plea out of pure desperation, as it was clear by that point that the South was going to lose without some sort of more direct foreign intervention. In other words, this was but a belated recognition of the fact that the slave system was most likely doomed anyway.

Now I can see this argument coming because I've heard it a million times before from proponents of the South: the Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves. Bull. It obliged the Union troops to free the slaves of the Confederate enemy whenever the opportunity arose precisely because breaking the Southern slave system would break the Southern economy and thus cripple the South's ability to wage war.

As to the pleas that the war was devastating to the South, I'll add that it wasn't exactly a cakewalk for the North either. Out of the 618,000 people who died in the American Civil War, 360,000 were Northerners while 258,000 were Southerners. The North paid the greater human price. In fact, proportionally speaking, my native Vermont paid the highest human price of all, losing more troops (again, proportionally speaking) than any other state.

The Confederates were not angels in their approach to the war either. My grandparents come from Missouri, so let's take Missouri as an example. The Confederate government proclaimed Missouri to be part of its natural territory. When the Missouri legislature disagreed by voting down a proposal to join the Confederacy, the Confederates invaded, kicked out the Missouri government, and imposed martial law. Whereas Missouri had been on the fence before, after they were liberated by Union troops, Missourians voted to re-elect Lincoln in the 1864 U.S. presidential election, which contextually was a vote for the complete defeat of the South.

War is hell. We all know that. Let's not pretend that only one side suffered here.

Chris
05-01-2013, 04:58 PM
The song is a celebration of the land. And maybe buckwheat pancakes.

roadmaster
05-01-2013, 04:59 PM
the Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves Wrong again. What's your views on the slave trade of the North?

IMPress Polly
05-01-2013, 05:10 PM
The international slave trade was formally outlawed by Jefferson and enforcement mechanisms were finally negotiated by Daniel Webster in the early 1840s. But alas, there was no stopping it at that point, for Southern demand was too high. Nonetheless, there is no getting around the fact of where the demand was coming from by that point. Almost all Northern states had outlawed slavery by then. If the matter wasn't clear though, let us recall President Buchanan's plans developed late in his presidency to end the ban altogether!

zelmo1234
05-01-2013, 05:33 PM
While I do thank Zelmo for providing the best counter-argument, there is just no getting around the fact that the American Civil War was about slavery far more than anything else. In case there are any lingering doubts though, let us recall the lyrics of the Confederate national anthem:



The entire song is little more than a celebration of the cotton industry! I believe we're familiar with the production relations that were bound up with the Southern cotton industry at the time.

As to the case that Jefferson Davis offered to emancipate the slaves, one notices that this didn't happen until AFTER U.S. President Lincoln had already long since ordered the Confederate's slaves freed; long after the Emancipation Proclamation. Mr. Davis made such a plea out of pure desperation, as it was clear by that point that the South was going to lose without some sort of more direct foreign intervention. In other words, this was but a belated recognition of the fact that the slave system was most likely doomed anyway.

Now I can see this argument coming because I've heard it a million times before from proponents of the South: the Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves. Bull. It obliged the Union troops to free the slaves of the Confederate enemy whenever the opportunity arose precisely because breaking the Southern slave system would break the Southern economy and thus cripple the South's ability to wage war.

As to the pleas that the war was devastating to the South, I'll add that it wasn't exactly a cakewalk for the North either. Out of the 618,000 people who died in the American Civil War, 360,000 were Northerners while 258,000 were Southerners. The North paid the greater human price. In fact, proportionally speaking, my native Vermont paid the highest human price of all, losing more troops (again, proportionally speaking) than any other state.

The Confederates were not angels in their approach to the war either. My grandparents come from Missouri, so let's take Missouri as an example. The Confederate government proclaimed Missouri to be part of its natural territory. When the Missouri legislature disagreed by voting down a proposal to join the Confederacy, the Confederates invaded, kicked out the Missouri government, and imposed martial law. Whereas Missouri had been on the fence before, after they were liberated by Union troops, Missourians voted to re-elect Lincoln in the 1864 U.S. presidential election, which contextually was a vote for the complete defeat of the South.

War is hell. We all know that. Let's not pretend that only one side suffered here.

If in fact Dixe was the song that sums up your conclusion that it was only about slavery,

You would think that it was writen in the south???????

No it was written in the North, by an northern!

http://nativeground.com/articles/88-dan-emmett-the-man-who-wrote-qdixieq-by-wayne-erbsen.html

The fact is the economic reasons and the quest to make the new western territories slave friendly were much more on the mids of that states that separated themselves frm the UNION!

I how that you will take this into account before teaching your children propaganda! You conclusions are built of false information viewed through the eyes of a Marxist! And trying to relate this to a political againda!

While there can be no doubt that Salvery was one if not the formost issue of the day! It was in fact the straw that broke the camels back!

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/southcarolina_declaration.asp

Not in the article of separation, that salvery is mentions as ONe and Yes the formost reason! but the failure to honor the rights of these slave holding states di in fact apply economic hardship no the southern states!

If in fact Salvery would have been the formost on the minds of the republic, it should not have taken nearly 4 years for this to happen

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/emancipate.htm

Slavery is a black eye on the history of this coutnry, yet is is little different that that of other nations!

To state that the south and slavery were the only reason for the war is revisionist history, and has no place in the educational system!

zelmo1234
05-01-2013, 05:37 PM
The international slave trade was formally outlawed by Jefferson and enforcement mechanisms were finally negotiated by Daniel Webster in the early 1840s. But alas, there was no stopping it at that point, for Southern demand was too high. Nonetheless, there is no getting around the fact of where the demand was coming from by that point. Almost all Northern states had outlawed slavery by then. If the matter wasn't clear though, let us recall President Buchanan's plans developed late in his presidency to end the ban altogether!

Yet the north had its own form of slavery?

http://www.google.com/search?q=child+labor+in+the+north+industrial+revol ution&hl=en&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=k5iBUaN_hcfSAb3sgeAB&ved=0CD4QsAQ&biw=911&bih=398

Another black eye on this countries past!

Greenridgeman
05-01-2013, 05:59 PM
While I do thank Zelmo for providing the best counter-argument, there is just no getting around the fact that the American Civil War was about slavery far more than anything else. In case there are any lingering doubts though, let us recall the lyrics of the Confederate national anthem:



The entire song is little more than a celebration of the cotton industry! I believe we're familiar with the production relations that were bound up with the Southern cotton industry at the time.

As to the case that Jefferson Davis offered to emancipate the slaves, one notices that this didn't happen until AFTER U.S. President Lincoln had already long since ordered the Confederate's slaves freed; long after the Emancipation Proclamation. Mr. Davis made such a plea out of pure desperation, as it was clear by that point that the South was going to lose without some sort of more direct foreign intervention. In other words, this was but a belated recognition of the fact that the slave system was most likely doomed anyway.

Now I can see this argument coming because I've heard it a million times before from proponents of the South: the Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves. Bull. It obliged the Union troops to free the slaves of the Confederate enemy whenever the opportunity arose precisely because breaking the Southern slave system would break the Southern economy and thus cripple the South's ability to wage war.

As to the pleas that the war was devastating to the South, I'll add that it wasn't exactly a cakewalk for the North either. Out of the 618,000 people who died in the American Civil War, 360,000 were Northerners while 258,000 were Southerners. The North paid the greater human price. In fact, proportionally speaking, my native Vermont paid the highest human price of all, losing more troops (again, proportionally speaking) than any other state.

The Confederates were not angels in their approach to the war either. My grandparents come from Missouri, so let's take Missouri as an example. The Confederate government proclaimed Missouri to be part of its natural territory. When the Missouri legislature disagreed by voting down a proposal to join the Confederacy, the Confederates invaded, kicked out the Missouri government, and imposed martial law. Whereas Missouri had been on the fence before, after they were liberated by Union troops, Missourians voted to re-elect Lincoln in the 1864 U.S. presidential election, which contextually was a vote for the complete defeat of the South.

War is hell. We all know that. Let's not pretend that only one side suffered here.




Of course, you have a link to an act of the Confederate Congress making "Dixie" the Confederate national anthem.

Peter1469
05-01-2013, 06:00 PM
If in fact Dixe was the song that sums up your conclusion that it was only about slavery,

You would think that it was writen in the south???????

No it was written in the North, by an northern!

http://nativeground.com/articles/88-dan-emmett-the-man-who-wrote-qdixieq-by-wayne-erbsen.html

The fact is the economic reasons and the quest to make the new western territories slave friendly were much more on the mids of that states that separated themselves frm the UNION!

I how that you will take this into account before teaching your children propaganda! You conclusions are built of false information viewed through the eyes of a Marxist! And trying to relate this to a political againda!

While there can be no doubt that Salvery was one if not the formost issue of the day! It was in fact the straw that broke the camels back!

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/southcarolina_declaration.asp

Not in the article of separation, that salvery is mentions as ONe and Yes the formost reason! but the failure to honor the rights of these slave holding states di in fact apply economic hardship no the southern states!

If in fact Salvery would have been the formost on the minds of the republic, it should not have taken nearly 4 years for this to happen

http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/emancipate.htm

Slavery is a black eye on the history of this coutnry, yet is is little different that that of other nations!

To state that the south and slavery were the only reason for the war is revisionist history, and has no place in the educational system!

Polly did not say that the Civil War was only about slavery. She said it was a major factor. I agree. I have read the Congressional Record from the 1830s until the war, and there is no doubt that the States Rights issues were centered on the question of slavery, and the political power of the southern states (or rather the loss of it if the new territories were to be slave-free).

Greenridgeman
05-01-2013, 06:05 PM
Of course, you have a link to an act of the Confederate Congress making "Dixie" the Confederate national anthem.FYI: www.nationalanthems.info/csa.htmThe Confederate States of America (also referred to as "The Confederacy" or simply "The South") had, like the United States (http://thepoliticalforums.com/us-31.htm) at the time, several patriotic songs in use which could have been considered anthems, like "Dixie", "The Bonnie Blue Flag", and "God Save the South", none of which were officially declared (possibly because declaring an official anthem wasn't as important to a new nation then as it is now). "God Save the South" does have more of an anthemaic quality in the music and lyrics, and several publications of the song refer to it as a (or the) "anthem", and was also the first song to be published in the Confederacy in at least nine editions."God Save the South" was written by George H. Miles under the pseudonym Earnest Halphin, soon after the war started. Miles was a Marylander, a state that did not officially secede and join the confederacy, but, being a border state, had several citizens with sympathies for the south. An interesting thing to note about the song is the reference to George Washington (the first president of the United States) in the song's fifth verse. Apparently, the author of the song meant to tie in Washington's stance as a rebel against the British in the American revolution with the South's rebellion against the northern United States in the civil war.

roadmaster
05-01-2013, 06:05 PM
Polly did not say that the Civil War was only about slavery. She said it was a major factor. I agree. I have read the Congressional Record from the 1830s until the war, and there is no doubt that the States Rights issues were centered on the question of slavery, and the political power of the southern states (or rather the loss of it if the new territories were to be slave-free). She did pretty much without knowing the real History.

Greenridgeman
05-01-2013, 06:10 PM
Polly did not say that the Civil War was only about slavery. She said it was a major factor. I agree. I have read the Congressional Record from the 1830s until the war, and there is no doubt that the States Rights issues were centered on the question of slavery, and the political power of the southern states (or rather the loss of it if the new territories were to be slave-free).


I tried to read the original Marxian screed, and I have a question.

Is the word plagiarism no longer used, and are ideas no longer required to be acknowleged by footnoting?

I was in college in the old rough draft, copy by hand then type it out type of writing.

It would be a joy to write today, with the computer, especially if you do not have to document anything.

roadmaster
05-01-2013, 06:13 PM
The entire song is little more than a celebration of the cotton industry! I believe we're familiar with the production relations that were bound up with the Southern cotton industry at the time.
You think cotton and tobacco was only picked by slaves? My parents and grandparents all picked and never owned slaves. The majority of the people in the south picked their own.

Greenridgeman
05-01-2013, 06:17 PM
You think cotton and tobacco was only picked by slaves? My parents and grandparents all picked and never owned slaves. The majority of the people in the south picked their own.



Black agricultural labor was soon replaced by the internal combustion engine, and the resulting skill/demand gap has not been successfully addressed from the days of the Freedmen's Bureau until today.

zelmo1234
05-01-2013, 06:38 PM
Polly did not say that the Civil War was only about slavery. She said it was a major factor. I agree. I have read the Congressional Record from the 1830s until the war, and there is no doubt that the States Rights issues were centered on the question of slavery, and the political power of the southern states (or rather the loss of it if the new territories were to be slave-free).

I think that if you read the secession letter it becomes really clear that as you have said it is at the center fo the argument!

But not the abolition of slavery, but the expansion, as you have stated again! the problem that I have is the teaching of it as the only reason for the separation, and not noting the economic and political pressures that were being placed on the south as well!

Including the encouragement of slaves to head north, where they were paid so little to work that they cold not support themselves!

But that is another story! Like I said I beleive that Polly is a teacher, and to take the post that she started this thread with and use this as a baisis to indoctrinate children is not cool in my opnion!

Peter1469
05-01-2013, 09:09 PM
I think that if you read the secession letter it becomes really clear that as you have said it is at the center fo the argument!

But not the abolition of slavery, but the expansion, as you have stated again! the problem that I have is the teaching of it as the only reason for the separation, and not noting the economic and political pressures that were being placed on the south as well!

Including the encouragement of slaves to head north, where they were paid so little to work that they cold not support themselves!

But that is another story! Like I said I beleive that Polly is a teacher, and to take the post that she started this thread with and use this as a baisis to indoctrinate children is not cool in my opnion!

You have no evidence that Polly does not stick to the established curriculum.

Agravan
05-01-2013, 09:12 PM
While I do thank Zelmo for providing the best counter-argument, there is just no getting around the fact that the American Civil War was about slavery far more than anything else. In case there are any lingering doubts though, let us recall the lyrics of the Confederate national anthem:



The entire song is little more than a celebration of the cotton industry! I believe we're familiar with the production relations that were bound up with the Southern cotton industry at the time.

As to the case that Jefferson Davis offered to emancipate the slaves, one notices that this didn't happen until AFTER U.S. President Lincoln had already long since ordered the Confederate's slaves freed; long after the Emancipation Proclamation. Mr. Davis made such a plea out of pure desperation, as it was clear by that point that the South was going to lose without some sort of more direct foreign intervention. In other words, this was but a belated recognition of the fact that the slave system was most likely doomed anyway.

Now I can see this argument coming because I've heard it a million times before from proponents of the South: the Emancipation Proclamation freed no slaves. Bull. It obliged the Union troops to free the slaves of the Confederate enemy whenever the opportunity arose precisely because breaking the Southern slave system would break the Southern economy and thus cripple the South's ability to wage war.

As to the pleas that the war was devastating to the South, I'll add that it wasn't exactly a cakewalk for the North either. Out of the 618,000 people who died in the American Civil War, 360,000 were Northerners while 258,000 were Southerners. The North paid the greater human price. In fact, proportionally speaking, my native Vermont paid the highest human price of all, losing more troops (again, proportionally speaking) than any other state.

The Confederates were not angels in their approach to the war either. My grandparents come from Missouri, so let's take Missouri as an example. The Confederate government proclaimed Missouri to be part of its natural territory. When the Missouri legislature disagreed by voting down a proposal to join the Confederacy, the Confederates invaded, kicked out the Missouri government, and imposed martial law. Whereas Missouri had been on the fence before, after they were liberated by Union troops, Missourians voted to re-elect Lincoln in the 1864 U.S. presidential election, which contextually was a vote for the complete defeat of the South.

War is hell. We all know that. Let's not pretend that only one side suffered here.

I WISH I WAS IN DIXIE'S LAND
(or just DIXIE) Dan D. Emmett 1859
This song, which has come to be a kind of symbol of the South, is known and loved and sung all over the U.S. However, it was written by a Northerner to enliven the show given by Bryant's Minstrels on the New York stage.

http://www.trivia-library.com/a/origins-of-famous-songs-i-wish-i-was-in-dixie-land.htm

Greenridgeman
05-01-2013, 09:18 PM
I WISH I WAS IN DIXIE'S LAND
(or just DIXIE) Dan D. Emmett 1859
This song, which has come to be a kind of symbol of the South, is known and loved and sung all over the U.S. However, it was written by a Northerner to enliven the show given by Bryant's Minstrels on the New York stage.



http://www.trivia-library.com/a/origins-of-famous-songs-i-wish-i-was-in-dixie-land.htm


From all I can gather, it was not widely known during the war either.

IMPress Polly
05-02-2013, 06:16 AM
Sorry to pull this quote from several pages back, but it stuck out so much that I felt compelled to respond to it specifically:


Agravan wrote:
So, Southerners should not dispute liberal/socialist propaganda that is clearly biased and inaccurate?
Sure, it was a well written, well thought out piece. But it was also wildly inaccurate and full of misconceptions, myths and outright falsehoods. It was a piece written from a viewpoint that is basically un-American, and definitely anti-South. It was a piece of revisionist trash and deserves to be treated as such. That she took so much time and effort to put it down in words just shows how deeply flawed her thinking and how deep her indoctrination is. This is not an attack on @IMPress Polly (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=399), just an observation from one who's culture and history is the one under attack.

Not that patriotism is necessarily always virtuous (I don't believe that it is), but since you're making this into a contest...in what universe is supporting the Confederacy the more patriotic position to take here?

zelmo1234
05-02-2013, 06:34 AM
You have no evidence that Polly does not stick to the established curriculum.

That would be correct, but you have to admit it is scarry?

IMPress Polly
05-02-2013, 06:37 AM
Please. What I write here is understood to be my interpretation of history. I don't interpret history in the classroom. I simply present the course standard material. If I taught history from my POV, I'd get fired and rightly so. Last I intend to say about the matter.

zelmo1234
05-02-2013, 06:40 AM
Please. What I write here is understood to be my interpretation of history. I don't interpret history in the classroom. I simply present the course standard material. If I taught history from my POV, I'd get fired and rightly so. Last I intend to say about the matter.

I thank you for that! I fought a system here in MI that did not take your view, It took a long while to get the situation corrected but I am satisfied with your answer and Thank You for makeing this clear!

Chris
05-02-2013, 06:56 AM
Please. What I write here is understood to be my interpretation of history. I don't interpret history in the classroom. I simply present the course standard material. If I taught history from my POV, I'd get fired and rightly so. Last I intend to say about the matter.

Polly, it was Marx's interpretation.

Greenridgeman
05-02-2013, 07:34 AM
Polly, it was Marx's interpretation.


I guess the newer writing handbooks left out the "P" word.*







*can you spell plagiarism?

Chris
05-02-2013, 07:38 AM
I guess the newer writing handbooks left out the "P" word.*





*can you spell plagiarism?


She did at one point earlier acknowledge it. And it's so old it's public domain. I would guesstimate 99.99999999999...% of what we say is borrowed. And 95% of what you hear is BS.

Greenridgeman
05-02-2013, 07:43 AM
She did at one point earlier acknowledge it. And it's so old it's public domain. I would guesstimate 99.99999999999...% of what we say is borrowed. And 95% of what you hear is BS.


I had no idea times had put Marx in public domain, or, that other people's works could be paraphrased and claimed as one's own in"scholarly" works.


Mrs. Sandifer, my 11th and 12th grade English teacher would roll over in her grave, where she is buried with a gross of red pens.

Chris
05-02-2013, 07:50 AM
I had no idea times had put Marx in public domain, or, that other people's works could be paraphrased and claimed as one's own in"scholarly" works.


Mrs. Sandifer, my 11th and 12th grade English teacher would roll over in her grave, where she is buried with a gross of red pens.

It was acknowledged earlier when I posted source.

Greenridgeman
05-02-2013, 07:55 AM
It was acknowledged earlier when I posted source.


Academically, wouldn't sourcing be her responsibility?

My point is, the whole screed seemed to lean heavily on "borrowing".

IMPress Polly
05-02-2013, 01:44 PM
Chris wrote:
Polly, it was Marx's interpretation.

Although most of what I wrote in the OP is similar thematically to Marx's POV, you'll find it is not the same. Forgive me for largely agreeing with Marx. I am a Marxist, after all. I disagree though with some of the views articulated by Marx in the article you're referring to. For instance, Marx believed slavery to be a natural stage of history that corresponded to a lack of economic development. Thus, in his view, the slave system could not be adapted to industry. It had to remain agrarian in form. Therefore economic development necessarily doomed it. That's not really correct. This subject has been studied scientifically at much greater depth since Marx's time and we can now see that slavery appears to be an aberration, historically speaking. It doesn't correspond to a natural stage that every human society undergoes in the course of its economic development. Few societies have historically relied primarily on slave systems. Slavery is the exception to the rule. And there's no real evidence that slavery can't be adapted to urban conditions either. It didn't in our case per se, but there's no reason to believe that such adaptation was impossible by any means. Indeed, though illegal, slavery has been adapted to use as a system in some industrial fields in the modern world, like textiles for example. This speaks to why we actually needed to have the Civil War in a world-historic sense: because there was no other way to outlaw it and every possibility it might have found a way of adapting to the industrialization of society if we hadn't. The slave system wasn't just metaphysically doomed by virtue of being the slave system, as Marx believed.

The key points where I agree with Marx concern the main cause of the Civil War itself (the disputes over slavery) and unequivocal support for the Union in that conflict.

roadmaster
05-02-2013, 05:29 PM
I think the people know the real History.

Ivan88
05-23-2013, 08:00 PM
For tariffs to be fair, tariffs should simply put imports under the same tax burden as domestic production. Otherwise, tariffs increase the cost of production which in turn makes us even less competitive.

In the case of the run up to cesssation, tariffs were imposed to provide a greivance for the South. The big bankers had a plan and they got their agents installed in the South to agitate for sessession, while their agents in the North pushed for more aggrevating policies.

The war itself was run by the Bankers through their agents in the Confederate and Yankee administrations/regimes.

The result of our un-civil war was that the commercial interests gained immensely and the American people lost ground.
Then the commercial interests turned their covetousness to the West and sent Sherman to wipe out the buffalo to starve the American nations into losing their lands, which is what happened.
The railroads got a lot of land from those nations and sold some of it off while using other portions for their own purposes.

On top of all that, the nature of American government was now based on Marxism dressed up as Capitalism.
Yes, the public image of Marxism is that it is against the rich. In reality, Marxism was invented by the super-rich to more efficiently rip off the rest of humanity.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51T6szmOqvL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpghttp://i.ebayimg.com/t/Transfer-of-Power-by-Elliott-Germain-True-Origins-of-The-Civil-War-/00/s/MTAwOFg2NjA=/$(KGrHqZHJ!0E63RuD!RWBO4pJ+nU,!~~60_12.JPG

BB-35
05-23-2013, 08:53 PM
the civil war was about slavery.

everything else is nonsense.

The civil war was about southern autonomy
it quickly became entangled with the slavery issue.

jillian
05-23-2013, 09:13 PM
The civil war was about southern autonomy
it quickly became entangled with the slavery issue.

the purpose of the "autonomy" was so they could own slaves

roadmaster
05-23-2013, 09:46 PM
For tariffs to be fair, tariffs should simply put imports under the same tax burden as domestic production. Otherwise, tariffs increase the cost of production which in turn makes us even less competitive.

In the case of the run up to cesssation, tariffs were imposed to provide a greivance for the South. The big bankers had a plan and they got their agents installed in the South to agitate for sessession, while their agents in the North pushed for more aggrevating policies.

The war itself was run by the Bankers through their agents in the Confederate and Yankee administrations/regimes.

The result of our un-civil war was that the commercial interests gained immensely and the American people lost ground.
Then the commercial interests turned their covetousness to the West and sent Sherman to wipe out the buffalo to starve the American nations into losing their lands, which is what happened.
The railroads got a lot of land from those nations and sold some of it off while using other portions for their own purposes.

On top of all that, the nature of American government was now based on Marxism dressed up as Capitalism.
Yes, the public image of Marxism is that it is against the rich. In reality, Marxism was invented by the super-rich to more efficiently rip off the rest of humanity.
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51T6szmOqvL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpghttp://i.ebayimg.com/t/Transfer-of-Power-by-Elliott-Germain-True-Origins-of-The-Civil-War-/00/s/MTAwOFg2NjA=/$(KGrHqZHJ!0E63RuD!RWBO4pJ+nU,!~~60_12.JPG

The south was upset because of the electoral college that determined who got to be president. Just look even at the map today and the north pretty much runs who wins. The south wanted one and the north wanted another. To make matters worse the north put high tariffs on the south because they knew most of the south were poor farmers. It was the north that brought slaves into America after using Native Americans for their slaves. If it was about slavery the south only less than 1% owned slaves. Common sense will tell you these men would not fight for something the majority didn't own. Reminds me of Israel because they have power, it's ok in their eyes to run people out of their homes to build. The civil war was the bloodiest war America has ever been in to date. While the south didn't have factories making them bullets and giving them guns, they still put up a fight people will never forget.

BB-35
05-24-2013, 02:35 AM
the purpose of the "autonomy" was so they could own slaves

No sheep sherlock?....the southern states had an agrarian base that relied on slaves to harvest,as the north was jealously keeping the manufacturing in the northern 'free' states

jillian
05-24-2013, 05:23 AM
No sheep sherlock?....the southern states had an agrarian base that relied on slaves to harvest,as the north was jealously keeping the manufacturing in the northern 'free' states

listen, i am no one's sheep. but revisionist history and lies about what started that war are boring at this juncture.

but let's pretend you're not being dishonest and revisionist. you think the war occurred because the north wouldn't redistribute it's wealth?

that may be the biggest bunch of nonsense i've ever heard. but thanks for letting us know you're a socialist.

Chris
05-24-2013, 05:50 AM
How, jillian, do you know you're not arguing revisionist history, the revision of the victor in a war taught by it as propaganda in public schools? Yes, we know it's your opinion it's not, it's your belief it's not, but how do you know when your only justification for what you believe is mere dismissal and denial of what anyone else says.

Ivan88
05-24-2013, 11:27 AM
Often, when it comes to his-story, the generally accepted version does not include the whole story. So when people investigate people and events and connections, they can discover something more valid than what everyone else says.

http://media.screened.com/uploads/0/2775/234133-charlie_chan_at_the_race_track_large.jpg History is tracking down the clues to find what really happened.


How, jillian, ...how do you know when your only justification for what you believe is mere dismissal and denial of what anyone else says.

BB-35
05-24-2013, 03:53 PM
listen, i am no one's sheep. but revisionist history and lies about what started that war are boring at this juncture.

but let's pretend you're not being dishonest and revisionist. you think the war occurred because the north wouldn't redistribute it's wealth?

that may be the biggest bunch of nonsense i've ever heard. but thanks for letting us know you're a socialist.

Revisionist history my ass,fact was the north had the industrial base the southern states wanted,it made sense to them to keep manufacturing in the north

Besides the fact the southern states resented being treated like the red headed stepchildren of the northern states,and didn't want to be told how to run their lives.


And I never said you were anyone's 'sheep'