The South Was Right!

In other words...the conquest of the South by the North and the occupation, subjugation and reconstruction didn't allow us a political say-so for nearly a century. But, we were subjected to the politics and economic bondage of the North which included federally appointed Governors and Legislatures. We call them scallywags and carpet baggers.

It was 12 years of severe military, economic and political occupation, before we were allowed to form our own state governments as long as they were approved by Washington. This allowed a some type of normalization and the Southern States were encouraged to enact Jim Crow laws beginning in 1877 because of the abuses of authority and confiscation of property the white southerners had received at the hands of black governors and legislators forced upon us by nothing but vengeance.

It still does not prove we fought over slavery, nor does it imply that all Southerners believe that the law was a good thing. I certainly don't.

I believe the Democratic party is treating the black race as their own slaves right now. I also think it is hideous. It's a shame they don't even realize it.

This is the most blantantly racist thing you have said.... does this show your true beliefs?

Most of us think that black people are smart enough to think for themselves. This is why the Liberals insisted that they be allowed to Vote.

The reason that black people overwhelmingly support the Democrats is becase the Democrats support their views and interests. Incidently, this is also why I often support the Democrats.

You do believe in Democracy don't you?

Southerngrl

You really got to get aholt of it girl. You are flirting with the edge.

I'd love to know what kind of bullschidt you've got going in your life to put you in the mindset currently obsessing you.

In any case, whatever you are missing in facts and logic, you certainly make up in balls. My guess I would enjoy getting skunked with you -- so long as I didn't have to arm wrestle you.

I certainly want to thank you once again for your participation -- and for threads like this one. Too much of the heavy stuff is depressing -- and a few yaks are always welcome.

You really ought to give some of Eric's suggestions for new threads some thought. You have a knack with revisionism -- and who knows what you can do with some of those ideas.

I'm willing to debate the actual topic proposed by southerngrl: i.e. whether slavery was or was not the root cause of the Civil War. Given the rather cavalier attitude that SG has displayed toward facts, however, I am not prepared to make any effort to fashion an argument based on historical sources until I get some idea of what SG would be willing to accept as valid evidence that the war had been fought over slavery.

As Karl Popper noted, nothing can be called a "science" that is not potentially falsifiable. In the same way, there is no point in debating a position that cannot be (potentially) proven wrong. Just as a physicist would have to rethink things if he saw an object fall upwards or travel faster than the speed of light, a historian has to accept that there might be some conceivable piece of evidence that would change her mind about a particular event. If nothing could change her mind, however, then we're no longer dealing with facts but with dogma. As such, SG, there's no point in discussing the issue you've raised if you are certain that nothing could prove that the Civil War had been fought over the issue of slavery.

Let me, therefore, ask this question: what would convince you, southerngrl, that the war had been fought over slavery?

If you can think of nothing that would change your mind, then I won't waste my time trying to change it. On the other hand, if it is conceivable that something might convince you that the war had been fought over the issue of slavery, what would it be?

Joe,

The issue is not whether the civil war was faught over slavery or not. I think most of us actually agree with southerngrl that it had a lot to do with economics and other issues. But, the civil was was resolved near 150 year ago. This debate is nothing but an old historical trivia.

Southerngrl is still fighting the Civil war.

She looks at all of the reasons that she doesn't like the United States, and has chosen a language of armed rebellion. She sees her fellow Americans as "enemies". She looks at the things Americans disgree about as "battles", instead of addressing them through public discourse, politics and the legal sytem as most American do.

Joe, there is a very strong argument that the civil war was not about slavery - I would be happy to discuss this with you.

But Southerngrl wants to sell you a whole other package of anger and fear.

First you say my posts are thought provoking, and evidently, very hot topics...then you say I should change them. Ok...whatcha wanna talk about?

This thread has become an absurdity of denial and revision -- with SG actually suggesting that slavery had nothing to do with the war.

Here is a link to several of the documents of secession by southern states.

Read them -- and then tell me that slavery was not an issue -- and not a MAJOR issue.

I'm including just a few excerpts -- but I suggest you read the entire documents.


http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html#SouthCarolina




From the South Carolina declaration:

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States...


...the General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect...




From the Georgia declaration:

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility...

...The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.





From the declaration of Mississippi

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.




Here is another interesting link:


http://lists.democracygroups.org/pipermail/rightwatch/2001q1/000068.html

I do not count myself among those who think the Civil War was fought over economic issues or state's rights or anything else -- except insofar as those economic issues or state's rights had some connection with the institution of slavery.


On the contrary, I believe that only a weak, tenuous argument can be made that the Civil War was not about slavery. But I'd be happy to discuss the topic with anyone who is willing to look at both sides of the issue.


True, but I ain't buyin' it.

OK, but I am just saying that it really doesn't matter...

The civil war was fought against the United States, and the South lost. It was a war of succession by people who no longer wanted to be a part of our Nation.

The United States won. The union was spared. Slavery was ended. The nation went on. This all happened 150 years ago.

Ashcroft has his small following, and it is their right to be pathetically out of touch...

But there is no reason to fight the Civil War again. (Unless Southerngrl wants to leave the Union...)

southerngrl- By your writings, and by what you have chosen as your avatar, I have gotten a sense of what you are about. Bottom line, would you prefer your life to be lived in the style of the antebellum south? Would you have preferred that the south seceded from the union? If you had your "druthers", would the Confederacy suit you better than the United States?

I strongly disagree. The myth that the South fought over issues unrelated to slavery allows partisans of the "Lost Cause" to ignore the inherent racism of their position and permits them to claim some sort of moral equality with other resistance movements. It allows them to turn a blind eye to more than a century of oppression while thinking that all the "darkies" were happy and contented in the antebellum South, just like they were depicted in "Gone With the Wind" and "Birth of a Nation." It gives them reason to view Confederate symbols as "inoffensive" rather than as relics of a barbarous and inhumane system. And it justifies their continued discrimination of minorities because it really doesn't matter if we get our history right or not.

Obviously, history matters, and this particular issue matters more than most. Southerngrl's screeds are evidence of why it matters so much.

I'm convinced that southerngirl is the same person who wrote variously under the names NCGirl and Jannie and more on abuzz.

Thanks for the links, Frank.

By the way, another thing that isn't in those documents is any mention of the tariff. If the tariff was one of the main reasons why the southern states seceded (as SG suggests), it certainly makes one wonder why the drafters of the secession proclamations were so reluctant to mention it.

The State Fair just pulled out of Raleigh aftr a ten day run.....hang out there and you see hundreds of southerngirls..........then the fair leaves and they head back to the trailer court.....not to be seen or heard of again until the next year......unless you frequent the county race tracks.....

There is one undeniable fact which stands out in the historical record. The election of Lincoln sparked secessions throughout the south. There were two reasons for the election of Lincoln, and they are linked. The first is that the vote was split between four candidates. As the largest, longest and best organized party were the Democrats, Lincoln would not have won, no matter how well organized the Republicans were at getting out the vote (which was very well indeed), had not John Breckenridge split the Democratic vote by running as a "Dixiecrat" against his fellow party member Douglas. The second reason is precisely because Republican party bosses got the vote out, and that resulted directly from the enthusiasm of abolitionists, who viewed Licoln as the abolition candidate, however he may have stated his position. During the Lincoln-Douglas debates, in Lincoln's failed bid at becoming a Senator from Illinois, Lincoln nailed Douglas to the wall on the issue of slavery. This had the effect of identifying Lincoln as the abolition candidate, when he may in fact have been less than enthusiastic about the idea; and it had the effect of alienating southern voters from Douglas, who had felt compelled in a campaign in Illinois, to condemn the "peculiar institution." When the election rolled around, abolitionist turned out enthusiastically to support Lincoln. Rightly or wrongly, the South percieved the election of Lincoln as the advent of abolition, an issue for which they were prepared to got to war.

Anyone who tries to contend anything else is playing fast and loose with the truth.

Imagine this crap being posted in 2003, 150 years late, when the "black entertainer of the year" is a white guy.

Setanta's is right about the South's reaction to Lincoln's election.

Of course, there was the whole civil rights movement of the 60s.

This is a posting I made in another thread where SG is trying to maintain that the war between the states was not about slavery.

It applies here also.

This thread has become an absurdity of denial and revision -- with SG actually suggesting that slavery had nothing to do with the war.

Here is a link to several of the documents of secession by southern states. These documents tell us why the south was taking the actions it was taking.

Read them -- and then tell me that slavery was not an issue -- and not a MAJOR issue.

I'm including just a few excerpts -- but I suggest you read the entire documents.


http://members.aol.com/jfepperson/reasons.html#SouthCarolina




From the South Carolina declaration:

The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 26th day of April, A.D., 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States, by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in then withdrawing from the Federal Union; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States...


...the General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect...




From the Georgia declaration:

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility...

...The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.





From the declaration of Mississippi

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.




Here is another interesting link:


http://lists.democracygroups.org/pipermail/rightwatch/2001q1/000068.html

Ohh Joe,

Southerngrl neither that dangerous nor that important.

She is just one of the 20% of extremists to the right (and there are an equal amount of extremists on the other side). She holds beliefs that most Americans find irrational, and she holds onto them in spite of evidence to the contrary.

She is just part of the broad political spectrum that is American democracy. There is room for her and, as I said told her, our system of democracy is strong enough to take her diatribes.

Of course The majority of Americans fall somewhere in the middle (actually most Americans seem too apathetic to care). We had a near 50-50 election in 2000, and probably will again.

But you should realize that this whole thread is not very important. Southerngrl will not change her mind no matter how much logic she is confronted with. Likewise it is doubtful she will find any converts here.

This thread should be considered as little more than foolish fun.

A bit of sparring and a bit of ridicule but nothing more. Don't buy into southerngrl war rhetoric

We'll see, Eric.

I am very interested to see what SG has to say about the information I just posted. I am looking forward to her response.

Her insistence that the war was not about slavery is shot to pieces by the very declarations of secession by the seceding states. In each of the declarations of secessions, the issue of the right to own slaves is primary.

One simply cannot get a better argument against her arguments than the ones made by the people doing the seceding.

So as I said: We'll see.