S.H.A.P.E.
 
Main Menu
 Home
 About SHAPE/ Joining
 Forum
 Downloads
 Members
 Image Gallery
 S.H.A.P.E Store
 Other Websites
Welcome
Username:

Password:


Remember me

[ ]
[ ]
Online
Members: 0

Click To Show - Guests: 10

Last Seen

Patrick Sun 21:56
gpthelastrebel Sat 17:08
MatthewBlile Fri 15:50
Robray Wed 14:28
D. L. Garland Wed 18:09
Forums
Go to page       >>  
Moderators: gpthelastrebel, Patrick
Author Post
8milereb
Fri Apr 03 2009, 08:12PM

Registered Member #2
Joined: Thu Jul 19 2007, 03:39PM
Posts: 1030
3 April 1865, Richmond, the Capital of the Confederacy falls. Six days later Lee surrenders his Army at Appomattox
Back to top
red house
Fri Aug 07 2009, 11:26AM
Registered Member #89
Joined: Thu Feb 19 2009, 04:07AM
Posts: 40
We can all — Yankee Patriot, and Southern Secessionist — alike, hopefully find some comfort in the fact that as bloody as our Nation's Civil War was, it could and would have been much, much worse had Jefferson Davis not been so impetuous and proud and ordered Beauregard to fire on the lone Federal Fort in the harbors of the first State to secede. After Fort Sumter was shelled with 4,000 rounds of artillery - the newly formed Confederacy was on borrowed time, and as they say: ‘the rest is history.’ Before that decisive moment at 4:30am on the 12th of April, it was simply a staring contest, a simple test of wills and willpower to determine who would blink first and strike at the other—and unite their people, or divide their own. Some say Jefferson Davis let Lincoln get the better of him, but I tend to think it was the same Southern Pride that fueled the secessionist movement - that got the better of Davis. Hubris is the fatal weakness of every honor-bound culture that places ‘pride’ above all other considerations.

But that is just a frivolous observation really, because even if Beauregard had disregarded those orders and delayed the hostilities — North and South still could never have coexisted peacefully as neighboring countries. Both North and South were conceived from the outset by their imperialist necessities. The South seceded because the newly elected Northern ‘powers that be’ rejected the South's demands that their institution extend westward, or north of Missouri Compromise line of the 36° parallel, and indeed the very survival Southern Slave-powers depended on expanding their institution to newly acquired states. If confined to 11 states, a growing population of four million potential Nat Turners would sooner or later have consumed them all — the red soil of the Southlands would have been burgundied with the blood of every white Southerner who was unable to escape North to the land of the free.


So in reality, the events of the 12th of April 1861 were an act of self-preservation of the Southern people and their culture; it marked the beginning of their own salvation, and the fall of Richmond on the 3rd of April 1865 was the final fulfillment of its merciful conclusion.

[ Edited Fri Aug 07 2009, 11:31AM ]
Back to top
gpthelastrebel
Fri Aug 07 2009, 04:52PM

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 02:46PM
Posts: 3698
Red House,

While I agree with some of your observations there are many that I do not agree with nor will history agree with.



History shows us that that Lincoln and his cabinet refused to meet with peace commissioners from the South; history shows us that Major Anderson violated a treaty that was in existence and therefore made the first aggressive act toward the South. History shows us that Lincoln's actions of sending an armed armada to Charleston was the act that set off the war. Even if we use the argument "the South fired the first shot" not one man was killed and had Lincoln wanted he could have still worked toward a peaceful solution.

Actually the South did not secede because of slavery could not be extended west. There are many more reasons than that. Taxes, tariffs, protection, constitutional rights and internal improvements all were a cause of the war, more so than slavery. Even congress and Lincoln himself sated the war was not over slavery. New and improved inventions would have caused the institution of slavery to die a natural death without all the bloodshed.

The surrender of the 12 while saving the lives of many men both North and South has not in any way saved our culture. Our culture and our very heritage is under attack everyday by the ignorant, mis-informed, biased prejudiced people of this country. Most of them only have a street corner idea of the period from 1861-1865 or they have been spooned fed the Yankee version of the events and have not engaged in any research of their own.

GP


Back to top
red house
Fri Aug 07 2009, 06:04PM
Registered Member #89
Joined: Thu Feb 19 2009, 04:07AM
Posts: 40



Well, yes, but Lincoln was not yet the president, correct?


The presidential election was held the first week of November, South Carolina seceded in December, and Lincoln did not take office until March — by which time six other states had already seceded as well. And if one looks at all of the (so-called) "compromise" proposals submitted by the Southern states - they all had one thing in common: none of them mentioned anything about Tariffs, or grievances over ‘protectionism vs. free trade’ or anything of the sort. The only demands they made were concerning the issue of slavery — namely permitting its expansion westward to the Pacific from the 36°30 Missouri Comprise line on-downward, .and the return of escaped "fugitive property" from up North.


And I think it would have been highly irregular and most likely unconstitutional for Lincoln or members from his cabinet to meet with anyone in any official capacity to resolve the dispute while he was still president-elect and Buchanan was president. Lincoln did however make a very generous and lengthy appeal to the South urging them to consider the path of compromise and reconciliation — instead of discord and disunion — during his first inaugural address to the nation immediately after he was sworn in.





Original texts of the documents:


Lincoln's First Inaugural Address: http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/1inaug.htm

The Crittenden Compromise: http://www.civilwarcauses.org/cc.htm
The Washington Peace Conference: http://www.civilwarcauses.org/peace.htm
Other Proposals to the Senate and House: http://www.civilwarcauses.org/comp.htm
Virginia Gov. John Letcher's Conditions for Settlement: http://www.civilwarcauses.org/letcher.htm






[ Edited Fri Aug 07 2009, 06:11PM ]
Back to top
red house
Sat Aug 08 2009, 02:17AM
Registered Member #89
Joined: Thu Feb 19 2009, 04:07AM
Posts: 40
By the way, (and just for the record)—I happen to love Southern cookin' — the fried foods & cuisine, there's literally no Southern dish I've heard of that doesn't make drool run down my chin. And I like Southern whiskeys and bourbons (not so much the taste - but more the dark golden color and the pleasant affect), and I have cravings for the Southern sugared tea (no lemon), and those amazing enchanting trees with moss hanging down from them, and I'm partial to warm weather. I'm transfixed by dueling banjos and I plan someday soon (this coming winter maybe) to travel to down to New Orleans, and maybe one day live there (maybe buy up some bargain land beneath a levy and build a house up on stilts). Seriously, everyone I know has been to Baton Rouge except me, I loves me that ragtime music and the Southern spices and the lively traditions of the place. And I like William Faulkner. I'm just not jazzed about much of the History south of the Mason-Dixon (but then again I'm from New England, so what do you expect.)


*edit: There's also one last thing I could mention. About nine years ago I worked in a kitchen with a young man who had traveled up North with his fiance to work for the summer (to make and save money for school). He called himself "Freebird" and insisted that we all call him that too (tho, he didn't much care for Lynard Skynard. Go figure). He was fluent in French, was skilled and hardworking and very well read, everyone seemed to take such a liking to him it was almost cultish - really kind of 'eerie' (but in a charming sort of way). Anyways, he was one of those unique sort of folks, he worked two jobs - and learned to speak Spanish and Haitian creole in just a few months time. He was kind of like a very bright Forrest Gump.

[ Edited Sat Aug 08 2009, 03:42AM ]
Back to top
gpthelastrebel
Sat Aug 08 2009, 06:09PM

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 02:46PM
Posts: 3698
Lincoln had been elected and barring his death was going to be president.

If you look at the causes of secession for South Carolina you will find each and everyone of these issues discussed.


Well tell me one reason why they (slaveowners) shouldn’t be allowed to have slaves in the new territories and be protected by the law? Do you think it is right for Mississippi to say people moving to our stat from North of the mason Dixon must leave their possessions at the line and buy everything in Mississippi? What if the voters of Mississippi passed such a law would it still be legal? Remember we are all under the same constitution.

Buchannan made the agreement concerning the Charleston forts; Lincoln did not propose a new agreement or honor this agreement.



Well history proves that Lincoln didn’t even follow his first resolution, and the South had cause to be alarmed.

“Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."
He actually made plans to invaded South Carolina or Florida. All of this information has been posted to this site and can be found buy using our search feature.

GP
Back to top
gpthelastrebel
Sat Aug 08 2009, 06:25PM

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 02:46PM
Posts: 3698
Glad you do like some of our culture. We do have a lot to offer down here. I have some kinfolk who married into the family from Conn., Maine, Ohio and other parts west. Our very own Lady Val is from New York. So yes we are sorta a mixed up bunch.

Would like to take time to clarify one point-- when I speak of those who are ignorant, have a street corner understanding of history, and have been spoon fed the Yankee version, I am not referring to you or those who may not agree with me or my views, but tend to post facts. I am referring to those people who make the ignorant statements and know little about history. I am sure you know the sort. I fully expect you to be biased toward your kin, I cannot expect anything less.

GP
Back to top
red house
Sun Aug 09 2009, 05:06AM
Registered Member #89
Joined: Thu Feb 19 2009, 04:07AM
Posts: 40
Hi GP,



I will admit that what you've said about me is at least partly true, as I am not wholly without ‘bias’ for my ‘kin’. But just for the record, I was raised in Northern Virginia, and as an American — my kin are my fellow Americans, of course. I have lived in New England for this past ten years or so. I first moved up North to get a college degree and receive my “higher education” - which unfortunately was mostly a waste of time and experience and for me (except for the slight increase in my earning potential). But of course New England is rich not only in expensive institutions of “higher learning” and elitist Ivy league Universities — but in History and culture as well — which has certainly enriched and inspired me more than any salary or college degree ever could.

It is here, in Cambridge Massachusetts, surrounded by four hundred years of never ending debates and Patriots and dissenters and social activism - that I first became interested in America and what it was ‘all about’. Only in these past ten years of my life have I come to really appreciate the fact that America is absolutely unique and exceptional in the world — and not just because we were first modern republic, or because our Constitution is the first of its kind and the oldest in use. What has impressed me most is our story and our freedoms. We remain the only western democracy with First Amendment protections and unbridled free-speech, and we are one of the very few pluralistic democracies in the world that 'works' — without requiring some form of state censorship or resorting to self-imposed ethnic and religious segregation. Some say “we're far from perfect” — but we have matured a great deal and in many respects we are far ahead of the rest of the so-called Free world. Where else can you find such a diverse and free nation that is not regularly consumed by interfaith riots or racial pogroms? France, Northern Ireland, even Denmark — all of their attempts at pluralistic societies have not progressed nearly to point we have.


And so quite honestly I am a little concerned and confounded when the question is asked by any other American: “why they (slaveowners) shouldn’t be allowed to have slaves in the new territories and be protected by the law?”

I feel that we shouldn't still be debating why property rights do not extend to human beings — when it is something that even Thomas Jefferson understood and acknowledged (in word, if not deed). Slavery and “human property” is, and always has been, completely against the principles of our republicanism and the ‘natural rights’ doctrine that it's based upon — a fact that the Framers knew well from John Locke and Rousseau. And of course, it is against 'humanity' itself — slavery degrades the slave master just as it denies the humanity of the ones it enslaves. Just think of all the Frederick Douglass's and Benjamin Bannekers that this inhumane and uncivilized institution deprived us of. My God, what a waste.







[ Edited Sun Aug 09 2009, 05:24AM ]
Back to top
gpthelastrebel
Sun Aug 09 2009, 06:51PM

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 02:46PM
Posts: 3698
Red House,


You are expressing your opinion, I respect that, but it wasn't the law what was written into law. As with any debate both sides must be presented fairly and equally. Therefore if one is to look down upon the slave owners, he must also look down upon the slave traders. To present only "racism" as a southern illness is wrong when in the same breath you must talk about the racism in the North with the black codes and various other laws. To present the Confederate Battle Flag as a racist symbol and give the Stars and Stripes a free pass is complete bias based mostly on location or race. To try and destroy the culture of the South because one does not know the true facts surrounding the causes and of the war For Southern Independence is the height of ignorance, bias and prejudiced. Today one must admit that racial bias plays an important part in the attacks on everything Southern, this can be proven by looking at any attack against our flags, school and street names, statues traditions and holiday celebrations. Isn't it strange that aspect of the attacks is never discussed?


I am not arguing what it was against or who is responsible one way or the other, the fact of the matter the United States went through a period of slavery and it is the fault of both the North and South. Even though several leaders tried to do away with the institution, it still did not end until the passage of the 13thAmandment. The institution was neater the fault of your ancestors or mine. It was neither totally good nor totally bad. I say this because either one of us can cite sources to prop up our arguments or to make a claim to either side is just absurd. For those reasons I try to post facts and refrain from posting opinions.

I don't know that the institution of slavery really deprived us of anything. I have read slaves being taught to read and write, men who were tradesmen, business owners and slave owners they. In fact I believe it was "Stonewall" Jackson who was teaching some slaves. Fredrick Douglas was a slave that didn't seem to hamper him. I believe Booker T. Washington was a son of a slave, that didn't hold him back. I admit I haven't studied a lot on this subject, but these are things that I can just pull from memory, I am sure there are many more people I have never heard of. It is just my opinion that those who hide behind the slave excuse is just looking for a way to justify their own shortcomings. I say this based on first hand knowledge and the fact I am only the 2nd person in my immediate family to graduate high school since 1865. None of us let that fact hold us back.


GP
Back to top
red house
Mon Aug 10 2009, 03:46AM
Registered Member #89
Joined: Thu Feb 19 2009, 04:07AM
Posts: 40
GP,


There are no people on earth whose cultural heritage or whose nation and history is free from beliefs and acts of indefensible immorality. This applies to the South as well as to the North — and to America as a whole.


Our Constitution was less than a decade old when Ely Whitney's invention made “King Cotton” our nation's chief export — Slavery built this country — North and South, there's no denying that. But while the South's “peculiar institution” and King Cotton turned the North into a capitalist, industrious and highly literate society, the very same institution kept the South underdeveloped; it lingered in feudal state — controlled by Aristocratic plantation owners — who cared little for the public welfare of the poor yeoman dirt farmers and the illiterate planters who considered themselves "lucky" if they were able to afford a slave or two.


No one would dispute that there were many Southerners who did not own Slaves — but who nonetheless fought bravely and gave their lives for the Confederacy. There's no doubt that there were those rebel soldiers who believed they were defending their “state's rights” rather than advancing the cause of slavery. But they could only have done so by never wondering why there were 13 stars on their battle flag — when their were only 11 states that chose to join the ‘Confederate States of America’. And those who thought they were on the side of ‘state's rights’ must not have remembered that the South nearly seceded ten years earlier because the State of California was admitted as a free state — after the newly formed “bear republic” had written slavery out of their State Constitution. Only the addition of Texas as a slave-state and the government's promise to more strenuously enforce the fugitive laws in the North kept the Secession from occurring in 1850, rather than ten years later.








“To present only "racism" as a southern illness is wrong when in the same breath you must talk about the racism in the North with the black codes and various other laws.”



We can certainly talk about ‘racism’ as it existed in both the North and the South in the antebellum era, the elected representatives from the North did, after all, show a disastrous willingness to compromise on the issue on numerous occasions beginning at the Constitutional convention in 1787 that cemented the states—North and South—into one nation. Though, the Framers in Philadelphia seemed loathe to mention the word itself in the finished document — the immoral concessions of the North to the delegates of the Southern States are still more than explicit enough in the provisions like the fugitive clause of Article IV section 2: “No person held to Service or Labour in one State, under Laws thereof, escaping to another, shall... be discharged from Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on the Claim of the the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.” Not to mention the notorious ‘3/5ths compromise’ in Article I section 2 as well as the disgraceful capitulation of the Northern delegates to South Carolina's “Dictator John” Rutledge — by their submitting to his demand that the slave-trade be tolerated for at least 20 years subsequent to the Constitution's ratification. Back then, slaves just didn't last long enough in the cholera infested rice growin' swamps of South Carolina, and the Northern delegates who believed slavery was backwards and evil, and the tobacco barons from Virginia who thought they already had more than enough — all nonetheless decided that they couldn't do without South Carolina as part of the Republic. Irony of the tragic variety doesn't get any more rich or profound than that.


And so for as long as our Republic endures, it will do so under a Constitution that mentions the North's capitulations on Slavery — that stood against the very principles of republicanism. All of the most notable Framers whose views were staunchly against slavery — Hamilton, Franklin, Rufus King and Gouverneur Morris et al — all ended up supporting and signing their names to the draft Constitution, in fact Gouverneur Morris was the one who scribed the fancy calligraphy in the finished draft document. But I doubt very much they'd have compromised their own principles for the unification of the country — if they knew that three years later the invention of the cotton gin would result in slavery being spread to nine more states and tear the republic in two.




“To present the Confederate Battle Flag as a racist symbol and give the Stars and Stripes a free pass is complete bias based mostly on location or race. To try and destroy the culture of the South because one does not know the true facts surrounding the causes and of the war For Southern Independence is the height of ignorance, bias and prejudiced.”



Well, clearly symbols can mean different things to different people. But if Historical facts are taken into consideration — then clearly the ‘lost cause’ of the Confederacy that it symbolizes — was none other than those of slavery and imperialism—(hence 13 stars instead of 11). Though that doesn't stop people from claiming or convincing themselves that it the rebel-flag is not explicitly anti-American and even displaying it side-by-side with the Stars & Stripes. I've seen people do it with my own eyes — on countless bumper stickers and front porches down South in Virginia (especially down in Harrisonburg and Manassas).





“I don't know that the institution of slavery really deprived us of anything. I have read slaves being taught to read and write, men who were tradesmen, business owners and slave owners they... Fredrick Douglas was a slave that didn't seem to hamper him”



I have also read about a few slaves who were taught to read and write (despite State laws explicitly forbidding it). One such slave was Nat Turner, what little education he received really had a 'profound' affect — opened his eyes real wide to something or other. Maybe having him read the Bible — about the Jews liberating themselves from Pharoah's ruthless rule and deprivations was a bad idea. And letting him read from the ‘Book of Revelations’ — not so bright. Anyways, after that happened, anyone caught teaching slaves to read or write brought harsh recriminations from the authorities.


Frederick Douglass on the other hand was mostly self-taught. From a young age he began saving pieces of biscuit from his supper and trading them to the white school children on their way to or from school in return for them taking the time to show him whatever they happened to learn that day. And of course he escaped as a young adult from his home state of Maryland to Boston, Massachusetts where he labored long and hard for respectable wages, furthered his education, purchased a printing press, and started his own weekly newspaper: “The North Star.”






[ Edited Mon Aug 10 2009, 04:07AM ]
Back to top
Lady Val
Mon Aug 10 2009, 02:55PM
Registered Member #75
Joined: Sat Nov 01 2008, 03:22PM
Posts: 475
I really only have one thing to say about slavery: Black Africans sold the captives of their eternal and perpetual tribal wars to Muslims and white Europeans. The choice here was not between slavery and freedom, but between slavery and death which African rulers made perfectly clear to the English who banned the trade. If there had been no slavery, the only blacks in the US today would have been those who immigrated the same way everybody else did! Maybe we should ask for the reparations.

Parenthetically, despite all the propaganda, I recently read that the British banned the slave trade not for moral but for political reasons.

As for the Yankees: there would have been no war or abolition movement if slavery had remained legal; it was just too profitable for the North. Also, there would have been no war if the South had said to the North, "We'll end slavery and send all our slaves to you!" Believe me, the North would have found something else to do from 1861 through 1865. They didn't want the Negro before, during of after the war as their own "black laws" dating back to colonial times clearly show. The hypocrisy of the Union regarding the Negro - free or slave - is breathtaking. They wanted him down South so they could use his ignorant "vote" in order to pillage and steal what was left in the South after the shooting war.

Enough of "Father Abraham" who had the same opinion about blacks as did Sherman, Grant and the rest of them. Oh, and let's not forget, the first legal owner of a black slave in the colonies was a man named Richard Johnson (I believe) who was black himself!

The whole issue of slavery is a means of hiding what really happened and why. Even if the South fought for the institution of slavery (as John Mosby believed), then it was tied up in not only it's economics but its way of life. Eventually, slavery would have ended simply because it was becoming economically unsound. Planters were beginning to learn from Northern industrialists that it was cheaper to have wage slaves than real slaves. A slave might live to be 100 years old and still be cared for while a Northern wage slave would be fired and abandoned as soon as he or she could no longer work. As well, even Lincoln believed that the Negro would not be ready for true emancipation and suffrage until the beginning of the 20th Century! So this very complex issue cannot be reduced to slogans and hysterical clap-trap like "Roots" and the rest of this fiction.

No one will every learn anything as long as the entire foundation of "what we know" about the War of Secession is based upon lies and propaganda.
Back to top
gpthelastrebel
Tue Aug 11 2009, 04:37AM

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 02:46PM
Posts: 3698
I am not sure what historical facts you are leaning on, but clearly no historical fact shows the war was all about slavery or that slavery had anything to do with the war. If you know of such a written document, please present it to me, I am most curious. What about all those black Confederates, Jewish Confederates, Asian Confederates and Indian (nA0 Confederates? You can’t just wipe them from the pages of history. Imperialism??? Talking about the pot calling the kettle black. Who gave anyone the right to take the Indians land????

was mostly self-taught

Keyword mostly. Well Jackson sure got away with it didn't he. Also most slaves attended church with their masters they learned trades and skills. Slaves were not strictly ignorant field hands as most people would think. Come on give them some credit.

Would just like to present this as a thought. If the north really was about equality and freeing the slaves, why didn't they just let the first 6 Southern States go their own way and then open the doors to escaped slaves. I mean put up a sign at the border "Escaped Slaves Welcome" The reason is simple they didn't want blacks in their neighborhood. Same reason the underground ran all the way to Canada. How long do you think these few states would have survived if that would have happened? Just consider the chance these few states would have had in surviving in an isolated environment. Sure could have saved 550,000 lives.

GP
Back to top
gpthelastrebel
Tue Aug 11 2009, 04:37AM

Registered Member #1
Joined: Tue Jul 17 2007, 02:46PM
Posts: 3698
I am not sure what historical facts you are leaning on, but clearly no historical fact shows the war was all about slavery or that slavery had anything to do with the war. If you know of such a written document, please present it to me, I am most curious. What about all those black Confederates, Jewish Confederates, Asian Confederates and Indian (nA0 Confederates? You can’t just wipe them from the pages of history. Imperialism??? Talking about the pot calling the kettle black. Who gave anyone the right to take the Indians land????

was mostly self-taught

Keyword mostly. Well Jackson sure got away with it didn't he. Also most slaves attended church with their masters they learned trades and skills. Slaves were not strictly ignorant field hands as most people would think. Come on give them some credit.

Would just like to present this as a thought. If the north really was about equality and freeing the slaves, why didn't they just let the first 6 Southern States go their own way and then open the doors to escaped slaves. I mean put up a sign at the border "Escaped Slaves Welcome" The reason is simple they didn't want blacks in their neighborhood. Same reason the underground ran all the way to Canada. How long do you think these few states would have survived if that would have happened? Just consider the chance these few states would have had in surviving in an isolated environment. Sure could have saved 550,000 lives.

GP
Back to top
red house
Tue Aug 11 2009, 08:23AM
Registered Member #89
Joined: Thu Feb 19 2009, 04:07AM
Posts: 40




“I am not sure what historical facts you are leaning on, but clearly no historical fact shows the war was all about slavery or that slavery had anything to do with the war. If you know of such a written document, please present it to me, I am most curious. What about all those black Confederates, Jewish Confederates, Asian Confederates and Indian (nA0 Confederates?”






This discussion seems to me to have come full circle to cover the same points already covered? I don't mind presenting the documents again and presenting additional ones, though this seems to me unnecessary — as there are few, if any, Historians and scholars who would argue that the South seceded for any other reason other than the election of a "free-soil" president who was elected on a platform opposed to the institution's expansion. I think this is one conclusion that even myself and LadyVal can agree on.


Here are the "compromise" proposals again that were included in my second post in response to your mentioning of them. These include the ones submitted by the South (the proposals by people such as Jefferson Davis and the Va. governor John Letcher) as well as those submitted on behalf of the secessionist States (like the one by Kentucky Senator John Crittenden):


Original texts of the documents:

The Crittenden Compromise: http://www.civilwarcauses.org/cc.htm
The Washington Peace Conference: http://www.civilwarcauses.org/peace.htm
Other Proposals to the Senate and House: http://www.civilwarcauses.org/comp.htm
Virginia Gov. John Letcher's Conditions for Settlement: http://www.civilwarcauses.org/letcher.htm





There are also the formal “declarations of causes” issued by four of the eleven secessionist states: South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi and Texas. Of the four, Georgia is the only one to make mention of any issue other than slavery in its list of grievances; it mentions subsidies offered to Northern shipping industries from the federal treasury — but even then it is only one paragraph of twelve others — the remaining twelve paragraphs rehash the South's grievances over Northern abolitionist “meddling” its failure to enforce the fugitive laws and its evident animosity toward slavery (as do the other three states that issued declarations).


South Carolina: http://www.civilwarcauses.org/reasons.htm#SouthCarolina

Mississippi: http://www.civilwarcauses.org/reasons.htm#Mississippi

Georgia: http://www.civilwarcauses.org/reasons.htm#Georgia

Texas: http://www.civilwarcauses.org/reasons.htm#Texas


And to be fair, a ‘formal declaration’ from Florida has also surfaced (that for some reason was never published or delivered to the Federal gov't). Like Georgia, it also mentions the North's near “monopoly” on enterprises such as the fishing industry - which were aided by government funded “coastal navigation” facilities (i.e. lighthouses, etc) — though the remaining ten paragraphs concern themselves exclusively with the issue of slavery.


Florida: http://www.civilwarcauses.org/florida-dec.htm




Though only four states issued formal “declarations of causes” — every one of treasonous States, at the time of secession, issued briefer ‘Ordinances of Secession’ which were mainly about asserting their “right” to secede — though most of them also touch upon their reasons for doing so.


Ordinances of Secession: http://www.civilwarcauses.org/ordnces.htm


*Missouri and Kentucky are included - however their ‘ordinances’ were issued by the defunked State governor of Missouri (who was already removed from office by the State legislature) and some unelected Kentucky assembly calling itself the "Convention of the People of Kentucky."





The fictitious “lost cause” argument that the South's secession was brought about for reasons 'other' than (or in addition to) slavery have always had to rely on selective quotes from the addresses given by the committees at the State Secession Conventions themselves — in which a long laundry list of grievances (both real and perceived) were inevitably recounted and complained about, and among them were the ‘Tariffs’ you mentioned on goods imported from Europe and elsewhere (which, of course, was the government's sole source of revenue and its prerogative under the Constitution). Though, in every one of these Conventions, the issue of slavery was always paramount front and center. One needs to read through a lot of anti-abolitionist nonsense to find any mention of ‘Tariffs’ or any other claim of supposed Yankee ‘injustices’.


State resolutions and Convention speeches: http://www.civilwarcauses.org/state.htm



The final thing most oft quoted from by Southern revisionists is South Carolina's second declaration of causes — the one presented to the other Slave-holding states (that had yet to secede) — written by Robert Barnwell Rhett — in which, in addition to much talk of Slavery, he attempts to invoke the “taxation without representation” cause of America's original revolutionaries.


Here it is in its entirety: http://www.civilwarcauses.org/rhett.htm







And yes, as you may have guessed by now, I have also read the book “The South Was Right” by the Kennedy bros (it's available to me at the Boston Public Library). Of course, they mention none of these things, they like to point out things like Jefferson Davis' (brief) address to the first Confederate Congress, in which he mentioned little about Slavery, and they mention parts from the first half of his VP Alexander Stephan's follow-up address — while leaving out the best part; the last half that gave the speech it's infamous title: the "cornerstone" speech - http://www.civilwarcauses.org/corner.htm










“You can’t just wipe them from the pages of history. Imperialism??? Talking about the pot calling the kettle black. Who gave anyone the right to take the Indians land????”


Again, this has been addressed by me already. In my first post I stated that: “Both North and South were conceived from the outset by their imperialist necessities.” The Northerners conquered the west — as they had always done — by usurping the Indians and imperial conquest. And the Southern Slave-power, and later the Confederate States, also made clear their intention of conquering Cuba and its 800,000 slaves (as well as annexing the states of Missouri and Kentucky). Many of the Southern nationalists (like JW Booth) also belonged to secret societies like the "Knights of the Golden Circle" which promoted the cause of advancing their Slave Kingdom by conquering of the rest of Mexico and the West Indies.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_of_the_Golden_Circle





And by the way, I almost forgot to mention the infamous “Morrill Tariff” that is the subject of a book by the Maryland Professor of economics Thomas Dilorenzo - the notorious Southern apologist and Hamilton hater (whom I prefer to refer to as “Alexander the Great”).

Somehow this man's book managed to gloss over the fact that the Morrill Tarriff was passed overwhelmingly by Northern representatives (in both Houses of Congress) — because most of the Southern States had already seceded and there were hardly any Southern senators or congressmen to vote for, or against it! Therefore and henceforth it could only be enforced in the Union States of the North, and it was nearly ‘tripled’ throughout the coming months and years to pay for the war effort.








Your Honor, I rest my case.












[ Edited Tue Aug 11 2009, 08:28AM ]
Back to top
red house
Tue Aug 11 2009, 08:52AM
Registered Member #89
Joined: Thu Feb 19 2009, 04:07AM
Posts: 40
Oh..... I forgot to address the myth of Black brigades of Confederate soldiers that was mentioned.


Yes, there may have been - literally a ‘handful’ - of slaves who accompanied their masters on one or two scurmishes or raids against Yankee forces. However, you are probably referring to Maj-Gen Patrick Cleburne's proposal that “the most courageous of our slaves” be trained as soldiers in return for their freedom. As you probably are already aware, he was rightly thought by most of his fellow officers to have lost his mind, and his suggestion wasn't mentioned again until a year later - two weeks before the war's end. And even then, in that, their most desperate hour, the Confederate congress only passed the motion by one vote, not that it matters much - since it was far too late in the war for these slave-soldiers to be trained and see combat. So we will always be left to wonder whether they would have taken up arms against their Confederate “compatriots” - or their Yankee liberators.




Okay, now I can adjourn.

(for real this time).





Back to top
red house
Tue Aug 11 2009, 09:36AM
Registered Member #89
Joined: Thu Feb 19 2009, 04:07AM
Posts: 40



Oh Lordy, I overlooked the post by LadyVal (and just when I thought I could wrap this up for the night).





Registered Member #75
Joined: Sat Nov 01 2008, 11:22AM
Posts: 249


“I really only have one thing to say about slavery: Black Africans sold the captives of their eternal and perpetual tribal wars to Muslims and white Europeans. The choice here was not between slavery and freedom, but between slavery and death which African rulers made perfectly clear to the English who banned the trade. If there had been no slavery, the only blacks in the US today would have been those who immigrated the same way everybody else did! Maybe we should ask for the reparations.”



I believe the driving force behind African slave-trade were the goods offered by the British and Portuguese slave traders, no? This is something that Thomas Jefferson even alluded to in his first draft of the Declaration of Independence.


http://www.princeton.edu/~tjpapers/declaration/declaration.html




“Parenthetically, despite all the propaganda, I recently read that the British banned the slave trade not for moral but for political reasons.”



Well yes, I guess so. There were never very many African slaves in England, and while their ‘Industrial revolution’ was brought about by cotton, it was mainly cotton supplied by the Southern states of America that powered it, hence they could abolish slavery in the British West Indies without too much concern for their cotton supply.



“As for the Yankees: there would have been no war or abolition movement if slavery had remained legal; it was just too profitable for the North. Also, there would have been no war if the South had said to the North, "We'll end slavery and send all our slaves to you!" Believe me, the North would have found something else to do from 1861 through 1865. They didn't want the Negro before, during of after the war as their own "black laws" dating back to colonial times clearly show. The hypocrisy of the Union regarding the Negro - free or slave - is breathtaking. They wanted him down South so they could use his ignorant "vote" in order to pillage and steal what was left in the South after the shooting war.”



Well, it is curious then that the North chose to abolish it in the states where it was most profitable?






“The whole issue of slavery is a means of hiding what really happened and why. Even if the South fought for the institution of slavery (as John Mosby believed), then it was tied up in not only it's economics but its way of life. Eventually, slavery would have ended simply because it was becoming economically unsound. Planters were beginning to learn from Northern industrialists that it was cheaper to have wage slaves than real slaves. A slave might live to be 100 years old and still be cared for while a Northern wage slave would be fired and abandoned as soon as he or she could no longer work...”





The idea that Slavery was “economically unsound” compared to wage labor has been comprehensively refuted thirty years ago by a thorough analysis of the profits and the cost of ‘ownership vs. renting’ the slaves themselves during the time leading up to the Civil War. Yes, slavery was ‘economically unsound’ for the poor yeoman farmers and Southern artisans and labors who couldn't afford slaves for themselves, but it was immensely profitable for the people who owned the plantations. The plantation regime was ruthlessly efficient and productive when comparing the number of ‘man hours’ labored and cost of feeding the slaves to the costs and profit margins of ‘free’ farming practices up North.


This was debated back then, and through the mid-seventies, but Robert William Fogel's statistical analysis of the plantation records accumulated and archived by the 19th century Southern sympathizing historian Ulrich B Phillips has settled the issue and left little room for doubt. Read Fogel's 1974 publication “Time on the Cross”


http://www.amazon.com/Time-Cross-Economics-American-Slavery/dp/0393312186/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249983094&sr=8-1


[ Edited Tue Aug 11 2009, 09:39AM ]
Back to top
Lady Val
Tue Aug 11 2009, 10:56AM
Registered Member #75
Joined: Sat Nov 01 2008, 03:22PM
Posts: 475
You conveniently forget the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution which Lincoln offered to the South, an Amendment that would have enshrined slavery in the Constitution. He did it to keep the South in the Union because he needed their tax money from the confiscatory tariffs charged to that section of the nation which was then distributed to Lincoln's friends in the North, commercial interests, shipping etc. The government was involved with the railroads, canal companies and a lot of other Northern interests (which, by the way, is called fascism). The South provided between 75% and 80% of the federal government's revenues. If slavery had been the only or even the most important issue, WHY did the South not accept the Corwin Amendment and stay in the Union? Even Nathan B. Forrest who trafficked in slaves wanted to stay in the "old Union" because he said that slavery was protected under the Constitution even WITHOUT the Corwin Amendment. So your argument is without merit. The South was much more likely to keep slavery by remaining the in the Union than by leaving it.

The North ceased the slave trade because of the ban imposed by the British. With that ban, the trade had ceased to be profitable and become as risky as piracy. The Yankees were shrewd, but not all that enterprising. They had no desire to challenge Britain on the high seas. Yet, the last slave ship sailed from Rhode Island in 1862 and was captured off Cuba on its return voyage. Only about 20% of the slaves purchased by Yankee slave traders went to the South; the rest went to the West Indies and Central and South America. Indeed, I believe that most Southern states had constitutions forbidding the importing of slaves from Africa before the War.

The battle over the territories had more to do with the (correct) perception in the South that it was being driven into a permanent minority status in a nation that was increasingly hostile to its people and its culture. The South had its own culture; it was NOT the "Yankee" culture of the Northeast or even the similar "Northern" culture of the mid- and far west. Furthermore, if you look at the literature and other Northern cultural indicators, more and more hostility was exhibited against the South and her people and not all of it was related to slavery. As well, abolitionists were attempting to foment "servile insurrection" in the South which was particularly daunting in that region after the hideous uprisings in the West Indies and the murderous "revolt" of Nat Turner in which mostly white women and children were murdered. The "cotton states" of the deep South looked with dismay and alarm at a government which accepted and even encouraged such murderous intents by people cloaking themselves in the garb of religion. John Brown did not come to "free" slaves, but to encourage them into revolution. On his way to Harpers Ferry, he killed a free black family and a free black Virginian (so much for concern for the Negro!).

By the time 1860 rolled around, the South knew and understood (and the subsequent war clearly proved the accuracy of their position) that there was a deep and abiding enmity between the South and the rest of the Nation (with a few exceptions such as the territories of Oklahoma and Arizona). Fearing the consequences of becoming a permanent minority in the United States Federal Government - which was slowly trashing the Constitution and especially the 9th and 10th amendments, the decision was made to use the constitutional guarantee of secession and make a nation wherein that culture would be protected. Did that culture contain slavery? Yes, it did. But most in the South understood that that would not be a perpetual condition. Still, as free men in sovereign states they wanted the right to decide the issue including its end themselves without the interference of people who had no understanding of it or of the Negro! Northern states did not deal with the Negro except in very small numbers under very unusual circumstances, so they had neither the knowledge nor the natural sympathy to work with the South to end the institution in such a way as to be best for all concerned. Even Lincoln believed that former slaves would not be ready for full citizenship until the beginning of the 20th century!

The Yankees were a pernicious lot. Even Europeans saw that. They minded everybody's business. They "repented" of every sin but their own. They were rapacious with money as their only guiding principle. Indeed, many believe - and with good cause - that the war was fought by Northern financial interests merely to obtain the treasures of the South for themselves for virtually nothing except the blood of people about whom they cared nothing. All wars are economic in origin and this war merely conveniently moved the resources of the South into the pockets of the North.

As well, there was an inimical difference in religion. The North with its Unitarianism and other social "isms" looked upon the fundamentalist Protestant South as primitive and ignorant, people who required "enlightenment" - at least as they saw it. Southern churches were closed in occupied territory when their pastors refused to pray for Lincoln and the victory of the North. Southern churches were used by the Yankee armies as stables. The South also made use of churches when in need, but as hospitals for the sick and wounded of both sides. The attitude of the North towards the South from and even before the beginning of the war is clear evidence of the hatred and contempt in which Southerners, their culture and their persons were held. Read the contemporary accounts and see how these men felt. They wanted to attack the South and bring her people under their heel "for their own good". Doesn't that sound familiar! Today we hear government and media functionaries talking about "healthcare" and saying that the average American who rejects socialized medicine "doesn't know what's good for him" whereas they - the elites in government and the establishment - do. It would seem that Yankee hubris is alive and well.

Thomas Jackson was right. The South should have fought under the black flag when the first Yankee boot touched Virginia. These were not "brothers" fighting to maintain the "glorious Union". They were self-righteous, hypocritical aggressors from the top to the bottom, so much so that they made war upon their own people in the North, destroying the Constitution and the Republic and what we see today - a federal tyranny present since 1861 but now no longer hidden from the People merely goes to show that the South was, sad to say, right.

[ Edited Tue Aug 11 2009, 11:03AM ]
Back to top
red house
Tue Aug 11 2009, 12:45PM
Registered Member #89
Joined: Thu Feb 19 2009, 04:07AM
Posts: 40
“You conveniently forget the Corwin Amendment to the Constitution which Lincoln offered to the South, an Amendment that would have enshrined slavery in the Constitution. He did it to keep the South in the Union because he needed their tax money from the confiscatory tariffs charged to that section of the nation which was then distributed to Lincoln's friends in the North, commercial interests, shipping etc. The government was involved with the railroads, canal companies and a lot of other Northern interests (which, by the way, is called fascism). The South provided between 75% and 80% of the federal government's revenues. If slavery had been the only or even the most important issue, WHY did the South not accept the Corwin Amendment and stay in the Union? Even Nathan B. Forrest who trafficked in slaves wanted to stay in the "old Union" because he said that slavery was protected under the Constitution even WITHOUT the Corwin Amendment. So your argument is without merit. The South was much more likely to keep slavery by remaining the in the Union than by leaving it.



Yes, the first part of what you say is true, in Lincoln's first inaugural address to the nation he went to great lengths to convey that he believed he had no Constitutional authority to abolish slavery, and even alluded to Corwin's proposal that, as you say, would have “enshrined slavery into the Constitution.” Fortunately though, Constitutional amendments require a 2/3rds majority in both houses of congress - and since seven of the Southern states had already seceded - the chances of that happening were zero.

As to the second part of what you said, that my "argument is without merit. The South was much more likely to keep slavery by remaining the in the Union than by leaving it..." by now I know that you know more than enough about History to know why what you said is wrong (and misleading). The concerns of the South was not that the newly elected Lincoln might emancipate the slaves by presidential decree; the Southrons it made very clear that their problem with Lincoln was that he was a "free-soiler" republican who would never agree to the 'expansion' of the institution into other states and territories. That, and North's reluctance to return fugitive slaves - was the reason they seceded. I think we both at least know that this much is true, yes?





“Indeed, I believe that most Southern states had constitutions forbidding the importing of slaves from Africa before the War.”


Yes, they had more than enough Slaves — too many in fact: which is why they needed to expand slavery west and/or to Mexico, Cuba and the Caribbean (which, of course, is why they seceded).






“Did that culture contain slavery? Yes, it did. But most in the South understood that that would not be a perpetual condition.”



It seems odd to me that they would have included the provision in their Constitution that no amendment would ever be made to abolish or endanger the institution of slavery? What do you make of Alexander Stephens "cornerstone speech" to the first Confederate congress? What is there to back up this assertion?


http://www.civilwarcauses.org/corner.htm








“The Yankees were a pernicious lot. Even Europeans saw that. They minded everybody's business. They "repented" of every sin but their own. They were rapacious with money as their only guiding principle. Indeed, many believe - and with good cause - that the war was fought by Northern financial interests merely to obtain the treasures of the South for themselves for virtually nothing except the blood of people about whom they cared nothing. All wars are economic in origin and this war merely conveniently moved the resources of the South into the pockets of the North.

As well, there was an inimical difference in religion. The North with its Unitarianism and other social "isms" looked upon the fundamentalist Protestant South as primitive and ignorant, people who required "enlightenment" - at least as they saw it. Southern churches were closed in occupied territory when their pastors refused to pray for Lincoln and the victory of the North. Southern churches were used by the Yankee armies as stables. The South also made use of churches when in need, but as hospitals for the sick and wounded of both sides. The attitude of the North towards the South from and even before the beginning of the war is clear evidence of the hatred and contempt in which Southerners, their culture and their persons were held. Read the contemporary accounts and see how these men felt. They wanted to attack the South and bring her people under their heel "for their own good". Doesn't that sound familiar! Today we hear government and media functionaries talking about "healthcare" and saying that the average American who rejects socialized medicine "doesn't know what's good for him" whereas they - the elites in government and the establishment - do. It would seem that Yankee hubris is alive and well.”





Yes, I agree with just about all of what you say here. It's true, the South had to be humbled before they could be brought around to embracing Yankee freedoms (like free public education for everybody and free-labor capitalism).


That's the American way. And anyone in the way — who persists in being an incorrigible hindrance — gets bombed, and then democratized and civilized (in that order). And I'm okay with that. It's usually the only best way.







[ Edited Tue Aug 11 2009, 12:53PM ]
Back to top
8milereb
Tue Aug 11 2009, 02:43PM

Registered Member #2
Joined: Thu Jul 19 2007, 03:39PM
Posts: 1030
Really good discussion thread..4 months later LOL but still really good. I like to see this type of discussion and I am sure our members and guests also enjoy them. Keep it up!
Back to top
Lady Val
Tue Aug 11 2009, 03:09PM
Registered Member #75
Joined: Sat Nov 01 2008, 03:22PM
Posts: 475
Lincoln's and the Radical's "free soil" position was designed to keep the South in the South. Massachusetts sent people to build or occupy Lawrence, Kansas (see James Lane) and other places in that state in order to assure that it would be a "free" state; that is, it didn't permit the people who lived in Kansas to make that decision.

When Missouri went the other way, the people of that state were attacked, murdered and persecuted by "free soilers" (redlegs and jayhawkers) from Kansas. Everyone has heard of Quantrill, but few understand the horrors inflicted upon the people of Missouri that resulted in the likes of Quantrill, Bloody Bill Anderson and the rest. The North was isolating the South by refusing to allow Southerners to migrate into the West without abandoning their rights under the Constitution! The North then opened the lands in the Mid-West and West to millions of immigrants for "free" in order to enlarge their majority over the people of the South. Knowing that their opponents in the Federal Government were hostile to the South, it's people and its culture made Southerners even more nervous about their future as a free people. Hence they determined to get out before they could be enslaved culturally and economically. Needless to say, for the sake of money and power, that was not permitted.
Back to top
Go to page       >>   

Jump:     Back to top

Syndicate this thread: rss 0.92 Syndicate this thread: rss 2.0 Syndicate this thread: RDF
Powered by e107 Forum System