ADVERTISEMENT

Are we going to watch "Grant" on the History Channel?

That was Sherman.
Shelby Foote(RIP)was a foremost writer and authority on the civil war. He told a story-one day,in Tennessee,a Union officer and his Calvary came upon a one room shack. An old man stepped out with a revolutionary war era gun and confronted all of them. They laughed. Officer said,old man you don’t have any slaves. Why do you fight? The old man replied, because you are here. Pretty good answer.

I listen to YouTube interviews with Shelby Foote. He was a great story teller.
 
I agree with the idea of watching it. But this war of northern aggression bullshit needs to stop. It was all about slavery and not states rights, unless the states right was about keeping slavery. I think that the north should have hung every southern soldier for treason, but that could never have happened. I do agree that Grant did, as ruffled stated above, killed many native Americans after he was elected.

General Grant was an, "old white man"...

who, along with hundreds of thousands of other "old white men"...

were willing to put their lives at risk to ensure that all men are created equal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hillstosea
General Grant was an, "old white man"...

who, along with hundreds of thousands of other "old white men"...

were willing to put their lives at risk to ensure that all men are created equal.
For him, the main thing was preserving the Union and "free government". He was not particularly beneficent in his motivations.

grant-ross-autograph-375x600.jpg
 
If you are from the South with ancestors who fought for the Confederacy, had Grant hung soldiers you might not be with us today. If you’re not from the South, Delta is ready when you are.
I had no ancestors who fought in the civil war. However, if my dad was shot down during World War 2, I guess I would not be here.
 
  • So, to each of you, what do historians think was the cause of the Civil War? And what do you think?

    Drew Faust?

  • DREW GILPIN FAUST, Harvard University:

    Well, historians are pretty united on the cause of the Civil War being slavery.

    And the kind of research that historians have undertaken, especially in the years since the centennial, when there has been so much interest in this question of the role of race and slavery in the United States, that research has shown pretty decisively that, when the various states announced their plans for secession, they uniformly said that the main motivating factor was to defend slavery.

    So, the kind of percentages that you quote are ones that must necessarily be disturbing to historians, who believe quite differently from the general public.

  • JUDY WOODRUFF:

    Edna Medford, any idea about why that perception is out there, given the pretty common view among historians, which I assume you share?

  • EDNA MEDFORD, Howard University:

    Oh, absolutely. It's all about slavery.

    But I think Americans, unfortunately, don't know our own history, first of all. And, at some point, of course, after the war, the nation sort of came together and decided that it was going to forget what the real cause was, because it was too painful to remember that slavery was what divided the nation.

    And despite all of the books and all of the classroom discussions and all of the television programs, we still have that perception that it was about anything other than slavery. And it's unfortunate.

  • JUDY WOODRUFF:

    Yes.

    Professor Walter Edgar, how do you account for that, the fact that historians are pretty unified in this view, but the public isn't?

    WALTER EDGAR, University of South Carolina: Well, it's — it's — I would agree with Professor Medford that perhaps it's — people don't know their own history.

    And even more disturbing, in that poll, it was mostly younger responders who did the states' rights answer, as opposed to older ones. All I can do in South Carolina is go back to what the 169 men who voted to secede first from the Union said, and in their declaration of causes, that it was — said it was protect slavery and their other domestic institutions.

    And the men of 1860 and 1861 in other Southern states were pretty blunt about what they were doing.


    Complete interview https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/l...misunderstood-on-150th-anniversary#transcript
 
You make a great point. 90%of white southerners did not own slaves. They were expensive and 80%of whites were anywhere from just getting by to abjectly poor. For them it was about stopping an invader. Protecting the land and therefore their women,children,and parents,kin
True, however, they were quite aware of the institutions they were protecting and were just fine with that, which makes them sad and pathetic in my eyes.....
 
So many historical inaccuracies in this thread, where to start.

Since Grant is original post, I'll start there, it should be noted that Grant own a slave, possibly given to him before the war, and his wife, a Dent, inherited four slaves. They never freed them until slavery was abolished in December 1865. Yes, slavery was legal until the Constitution was amended in December 1865. The poster above is likely thinking of the ban on importing slaves, passed in 1808. Various individual states banned slavery, but the U. S. Constitution made slavery legal until December 1865.

Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky actually voted to NOT leave the union. The original seven that did vote to leave, only four mentioned slavery in their secession articles. Rhett Barnwell stated South Carolina's position was failure of some states to enforce the fugative slave act, nothing more. Texas, however, went on a racist bigoted rant, in theirs.

Of the four states that didn't vote to leave, two changed their minds later, specifically over states rights (yes, it was a real thing). Both Virginia and Kentucky are commonwealths, and like Texas, they specifically reserved the right to seceed when they joined the union. After Lincoln requested states send troops to furnish a 75,000 strong invasion force to invade the seven Confederate states, the right to seceed states balked at illegally invading another country, as it was legal for any state to seceed if they wish. The powers of the federal government are specifically spelled out, and it mentions anything not specifically reserved by the federal government is allowable to the the state to enact. Sucession was not prohibited until AFTER the war. So the seven states did legally seceed (which is why Seward advised not to pursue anyone for treason, and this let President Davis go free). With Lincoln not abiding by the constitutional allowance of any state to seceed, Virginia and Kentucky quickly seceeded, followed by stuck in the middle states Tennessee and North Carolina.

Btw, U. S. Congress authorized two official names for the war: The Civil War and the War Between The States.

Now the real reason for the war. Same thing as it always was since Calhoun's Nullification crisis. Unfair tariffs. The southern states were paying in approximately 70% of the federal budget but only receiving 30% in return. Slave produced goods accounted about 60% of the federal budget and 70% of total budget was going into northern infrastructure like railroads, canals, wharfs in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, etc. All built primarily with slave raised tariffs. When the south seceeded, it took 70% of the federal budget with it. Lincoln could not afford that, literally and politically. Hence the immediate blockade of southern ports and a planned invasion force.

Remember, slavery wasn't abolished until after the war. The northern troops were Union troops (restore the union) not anti-slavery troops. Many northern soldiers did join to fight slavery, and many southern soldiers were fighting for slavery. The 1860 census slave schedules show 91.5% of Confederate soldiers did not own a slave. The average Confederate soldier was not marching into cannon and musket fire so some rich plantation owner could own a slave. Slavery became an issue as a rallying cry after the north was getting beat up by the southern troops in the first two years of the war. The slaves were always intended to return to the fields after the war, to restore lost tariffs. Again, the abolishment was after the war was over, not before it started.

A lot of people are not aware of the Corwin Amendment. Thinking slavery was a greater issue than it really was, Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment, pushed it through congress and got it passed, and got four states to ratify it. But before getting the needed number of states, the Confederate States declined the offer. What was the offer? In return for rejoining the union, the U. S. would essentially guarantee slavery forever to those states. Yet it was refused. Apparently, slavery was not the issue. Corwin Amendment, google it. Everything mentioned here is verifiable in real history books (collegiate level).

Btw, one other thing conveniently left out of high school history, the actual first shots of the war. Not Ft. Sumter, not even the cannon fire by The Citadel Cadets at the Star of the West on February 9, 1861. A day before, February 8. 1861 in Pensacola, Florida, Lt. Adam Jacoby Slemmer moved his company of infantry from Fort Barrancas, to the old abandoned star fort, Fort Pickens (War of 1812 era), property of the Confederate State of Florida (no standing lease) , and then ordered his company of U. S. Infantry to fire upon Florida Confederate Troops approaching the fort to inspect and secure it. Thus the actual first shot fired in hostility was fired by U. S. Troops. Slemmer was rewarded by being promoted to Brigadier General by war's end despite no further noted action. A New Yorker, Slemmer died in 1868, and the New York Times obituary, in bold headlines, stated he ordered the first shots of the war.

That's enough for now, but some won't be satisfied with this easily verified truth.
I get so very tired of this argument. I dont know why so many try to argue that the civil war was absolutely fought over slavery and the right to practice slavery. I forgot which document it was - I dont know if it was the confederate constitution or what - but it stated very clearly that their reason for leaving was so that they could continue the practice of slavery. So why do people like you continue with this ridiculous horseshite?
 
  • So, to each of you, what do historians think was the cause of the Civil War? And what do you think?

    Drew Faust?

  • DREW GILPIN FAUST, Harvard University:

    Well, historians are pretty united on the cause of the Civil War being slavery.

    And the kind of research that historians have undertaken, especially in the years since the centennial, when there has been so much interest in this question of the role of race and slavery in the United States, that research has shown pretty decisively that, when the various states announced their plans for secession, they uniformly said that the main motivating factor was to defend slavery.

    So, the kind of percentages that you quote are ones that must necessarily be disturbing to historians, who believe quite differently from the general public.

  • JUDY WOODRUFF:

    Edna Medford, any idea about why that perception is out there, given the pretty common view among historians, which I assume you share?

  • EDNA MEDFORD, Howard University:

    Oh, absolutely. It's all about slavery.

    But I think Americans, unfortunately, don't know our own history, first of all. And, at some point, of course, after the war, the nation sort of came together and decided that it was going to forget what the real cause was, because it was too painful to remember that slavery was what divided the nation.

    And despite all of the books and all of the classroom discussions and all of the television programs, we still have that perception that it was about anything other than slavery. And it's unfortunate.

  • JUDY WOODRUFF:

    Yes.

    Professor Walter Edgar, how do you account for that, the fact that historians are pretty unified in this view, but the public isn't?

    WALTER EDGAR, University of South Carolina: Well, it's — it's — I would agree with Professor Medford that perhaps it's — people don't know their own history.

    And even more disturbing, in that poll, it was mostly younger responders who did the states' rights answer, as opposed to older ones. All I can do in South Carolina is go back to what the 169 men who voted to secede first from the Union said, and in their declaration of causes, that it was — said it was protect slavery and their other domestic institutions.

    And the men of 1860 and 1861 in other Southern states were pretty blunt about what they were doing.


    Complete interview https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/l...misunderstood-on-150th-anniversary#transcript
This may be the ONLY time you and I ever agree on anything.....
 
So many historical inaccuracies in this thread, where to start.

Since Grant is original post, I'll start there, it should be noted that Grant own a slave, possibly given to him before the war, and his wife, a Dent, inherited four slaves. They never freed them until slavery was abolished in December 1865. Yes, slavery was legal until the Constitution was amended in December 1865. The poster above is likely thinking of the ban on importing slaves, passed in 1808. Various individual states banned slavery, but the U. S. Constitution made slavery legal until December 1865.

Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky actually voted to NOT leave the union. The original seven that did vote to leave, only four mentioned slavery in their secession articles. Rhett Barnwell stated South Carolina's position was failure of some states to enforce the fugative slave act, nothing more. Texas, however, went on a racist bigoted rant, in theirs.

Of the four states that didn't vote to leave, two changed their minds later, specifically over states rights (yes, it was a real thing). Both Virginia and Kentucky are commonwealths, and like Texas, they specifically reserved the right to seceed when they joined the union. After Lincoln requested states send troops to furnish a 75,000 strong invasion force to invade the seven Confederate states, the right to seceed states balked at illegally invading another country, as it was legal for any state to seceed if they wish. The powers of the federal government are specifically spelled out, and it mentions anything not specifically reserved by the federal government is allowable to the the state to enact. Sucession was not prohibited until AFTER the war. So the seven states did legally seceed (which is why Seward advised not to pursue anyone for treason, and this let President Davis go free). With Lincoln not abiding by the constitutional allowance of any state to seceed, Virginia and Kentucky quickly seceeded, followed by stuck in the middle states Tennessee and North Carolina.

Btw, U. S. Congress authorized two official names for the war: The Civil War and the War Between The States.

Now the real reason for the war. Same thing as it always was since Calhoun's Nullification crisis. Unfair tariffs. The southern states were paying in approximately 70% of the federal budget but only receiving 30% in return. Slave produced goods accounted about 60% of the federal budget and 70% of total budget was going into northern infrastructure like railroads, canals, wharfs in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, etc. All built primarily with slave raised tariffs. When the south seceeded, it took 70% of the federal budget with it. Lincoln could not afford that, literally and politically. Hence the immediate blockade of southern ports and a planned invasion force.

Remember, slavery wasn't abolished until after the war. The northern troops were Union troops (restore the union) not anti-slavery troops. Many northern soldiers did join to fight slavery, and many southern soldiers were fighting for slavery. The 1860 census slave schedules show 91.5% of Confederate soldiers did not own a slave. The average Confederate soldier was not marching into cannon and musket fire so some rich plantation owner could own a slave. Slavery became an issue as a rallying cry after the north was getting beat up by the southern troops in the first two years of the war. The slaves were always intended to return to the fields after the war, to restore lost tariffs. Again, the abolishment was after the war was over, not before it started.

A lot of people are not aware of the Corwin Amendment. Thinking slavery was a greater issue than it really was, Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment, pushed it through congress and got it passed, and got four states to ratify it. But before getting the needed number of states, the Confederate States declined the offer. What was the offer? In return for rejoining the union, the U. S. would essentially guarantee slavery forever to those states. Yet it was refused. Apparently, slavery was not the issue. Corwin Amendment, google it. Everything mentioned here is verifiable in real history books (collegiate level).

Btw, one other thing conveniently left out of high school history, the actual first shots of the war. Not Ft. Sumter, not even the cannon fire by The Citadel Cadets at the Star of the West on February 9, 1861. A day before, February 8. 1861 in Pensacola, Florida, Lt. Adam Jacoby Slemmer moved his company of infantry from Fort Barrancas, to the old abandoned star fort, Fort Pickens (War of 1812 era), property of the Confederate State of Florida (no standing lease) , and then ordered his company of U. S. Infantry to fire upon Florida Confederate Troops approaching the fort to inspect and secure it. Thus the actual first shot fired in hostility was fired by U. S. Troops. Slemmer was rewarded by being promoted to Brigadier General by war's end despite no further noted action. A New Yorker, Slemmer died in 1868, and the New York Times obituary, in bold headlines, stated he ordered the first shots of the war.

That's enough for now, but some won't be satisfied with this easily verified truth.


This is 100% true and documented. I am so glad that you had the fortitude to post it. Personally I tire and grow very weary of trying to educate the uneducated on history. Most people hear what they want to hear and move on but if they would just simply do the research then history often paints a much different story for those who really intend on understanding.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gaimcock
Slavery was definitely the overarching issue. State's Rights is a legitimate consideration, generally speaking. But the War Between the States was about slavery. The wrongness of slavery - especially the practice of it in a republic founded on everything that slavery isn't, is easily the most unjustifiable practice in the history of this country. That wrongness and the folly of slavery are verified by the fact that almost all of our social upheaval can be traced back to it, and its stain will endure until the end of time as we know it. We will be continually coping with its effects until Kingdom come.
 
I agree with the idea of watching it. But this war of northern aggression bullshit needs to stop. It was all about slavery and not states rights, unless the states right was about keeping slavery. I think that the north should have hung every southern soldier for treason, but that could never have happened. I do agree that Grant did, as ruffled stated above, killed many native Americans after he was elected.
Hanged
 
You really only have to read the Declaration of immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union once to understand that slavery, and the Northern states attack of that institution, was the primary reason stated for leaving the union.

they lay it out pretty succinctly.

And just because a person didn’t own any slaves doesn’t mean they weren’t ready to fight to keep black people enslaved and below them - many of their ancestors still fight that fight today.

but really, poor people have always fought rich people’s battles throughout history - it’s the way it works. And back before the civil war, the rich people in the South didn’t want anyone messing with their cheap labor.
 
So many historical inaccuracies in this thread, where to start.

Since Grant is original post, I'll start there, it should be noted that Grant own a slave, possibly given to him before the war, and his wife, a Dent, inherited four slaves. They never freed them until slavery was abolished in December 1865. Yes, slavery was legal until the Constitution was amended in December 1865. The poster above is likely thinking of the ban on importing slaves, passed in 1808. Various individual states banned slavery, but the U. S. Constitution made slavery legal until December 1865.

Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky actually voted to NOT leave the union. The original seven that did vote to leave, only four mentioned slavery in their secession articles. Rhett Barnwell stated South Carolina's position was failure of some states to enforce the fugative slave act, nothing more. Texas, however, went on a racist bigoted rant, in theirs.

Of the four states that didn't vote to leave, two changed their minds later, specifically over states rights (yes, it was a real thing). Both Virginia and Kentucky are commonwealths, and like Texas, they specifically reserved the right to seceed when they joined the union. After Lincoln requested states send troops to furnish a 75,000 strong invasion force to invade the seven Confederate states, the right to seceed states balked at illegally invading another country, as it was legal for any state to seceed if they wish. The powers of the federal government are specifically spelled out, and it mentions anything not specifically reserved by the federal government is allowable to the the state to enact. Sucession was not prohibited until AFTER the war. So the seven states did legally seceed (which is why Seward advised not to pursue anyone for treason, and this let President Davis go free). With Lincoln not abiding by the constitutional allowance of any state to seceed, Virginia and Kentucky quickly seceeded, followed by stuck in the middle states Tennessee and North Carolina.

Btw, U. S. Congress authorized two official names for the war: The Civil War and the War Between The States.

Now the real reason for the war. Same thing as it always was since Calhoun's Nullification crisis. Unfair tariffs. The southern states were paying in approximately 70% of the federal budget but only receiving 30% in return. Slave produced goods accounted about 60% of the federal budget and 70% of total budget was going into northern infrastructure like railroads, canals, wharfs in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, etc. All built primarily with slave raised tariffs. When the south seceeded, it took 70% of the federal budget with it. Lincoln could not afford that, literally and politically. Hence the immediate blockade of southern ports and a planned invasion force.

Remember, slavery wasn't abolished until after the war. The northern troops were Union troops (restore the union) not anti-slavery troops. Many northern soldiers did join to fight slavery, and many southern soldiers were fighting for slavery. The 1860 census slave schedules show 91.5% of Confederate soldiers did not own a slave. The average Confederate soldier was not marching into cannon and musket fire so some rich plantation owner could own a slave. Slavery became an issue as a rallying cry after the north was getting beat up by the southern troops in the first two years of the war. The slaves were always intended to return to the fields after the war, to restore lost tariffs. Again, the abolishment was after the war was over, not before it started.

A lot of people are not aware of the Corwin Amendment. Thinking slavery was a greater issue than it really was, Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment, pushed it through congress and got it passed, and got four states to ratify it. But before getting the needed number of states, the Confederate States declined the offer. What was the offer? In return for rejoining the union, the U. S. would essentially guarantee slavery forever to those states. Yet it was refused. Apparently, slavery was not the issue. Corwin Amendment, google it. Everything mentioned here is verifiable in real history books (collegiate level).

Btw, one other thing conveniently left out of high school history, the actual first shots of the war. Not Ft. Sumter, not even the cannon fire by The Citadel Cadets at the Star of the West on February 9, 1861. A day before, February 8. 1861 in Pensacola, Florida, Lt. Adam Jacoby Slemmer moved his company of infantry from Fort Barrancas, to the old abandoned star fort, Fort Pickens (War of 1812 era), property of the Confederate State of Florida (no standing lease) , and then ordered his company of U. S. Infantry to fire upon Florida Confederate Troops approaching the fort to inspect and secure it. Thus the actual first shot fired in hostility was fired by U. S. Troops. Slemmer was rewarded by being promoted to Brigadier General by war's end despite no further noted action. A New Yorker, Slemmer died in 1868, and the New York Times obituary, in bold headlines, stated he ordered the first shots of the war.

That's enough for now, but some won't be satisfied with this easily verified truth.

Thanks for posted some actual facts - much of it buried and ignored during the last 50+ years for selfish and political reasons.

In the 1800s, many respected people and educated southern politicians stated facts as well. The North was grudged with jealousy of the South who were out-running them in the race of prosperity by simply living in a natural spot of prosperity (agriculture). It wasn't only because or about the wrong concerning slavery but mainly for selfish and monetary reasons. Was the South using slavery for this - yes. In many places the North was using "white slaves" in the coal mines, mills, etc and there probably more people starving in New York City than in the whole South. Impoverished workers were already beginning to riot in places in the North. The North wasn't necessarily against the status of the slave. New England always used the government for their on purposes - asking for money of the national treasury and never getting enough. Tariffs/taxes allowed the citizens of the South to have to pay some type of bounty for everything that happened in the North. A Northern Senator once boasted that - "without the tariffs, New England would be a howling wilderness." By law in the North - the black man was not a citizen. In Massachusetts it was a crime for a free black man to remain in the state for more than two days. In Connecticut the Legislature passed an act forbidding the education of Negroes. The Northern big wheels basically invented slavery... they made the slave ships and they sailed them, they profited off the selling of the slaves when brought to the America.

Left alone, without the aggression into the South by the North - the South would've eventually solved and righted the slavery injustice itself. Prior to the war there were already Southern Aristocrats who were spreading organizations pledged to liberate the blacks before the North interrupted. The underlining motive of the North was diverting funds in the treasury to build up the sections of the North. In the South the ordinary Southern people - it was about the frightened aspects of the loss of honor, liberty, self-respect, self-government, independence of the state under the Federal Constitution and most of all, sacred rights (even though some were flawed).

So, it wasn't basically black and white. As in everything, it's more complicated than it seems. I am not intelligent or highly educated but I am not foolish. People should read past simple headlines or the second paragraphs of articles (old and new) and stop believing everything you see or watch on TV or the movie theater. Historical records and documents may be quickly and purposely being hidden, stored away in places or even destroyed. I simply discern that this is happening now. If you truly listen and read what is thrown into your face today... the deep root to it all is - power, monetary reasons. It's to change your conscious and thoughts, hopefully swinging your vote or perspective.
 
Last edited:
  • So, to each of you, what do historians think was the cause of the Civil War? And what do you think?

    Drew Faust?

  • DREW GILPIN FAUST, Harvard University:

    Well, historians are pretty united on the cause of the Civil War being slavery.

    And the kind of research that historians have undertaken, especially in the years since the centennial, when there has been so much interest in this question of the role of race and slavery in the United States, that research has shown pretty decisively that, when the various states announced their plans for secession, they uniformly said that the main motivating factor was to defend slavery.

    So, the kind of percentages that you quote are ones that must necessarily be disturbing to historians, who believe quite differently from the general public.

  • JUDY WOODRUFF:

    Edna Medford, any idea about why that perception is out there, given the pretty common view among historians, which I assume you share?

  • EDNA MEDFORD, Howard University:

    Oh, absolutely. It's all about slavery.

    But I think Americans, unfortunately, don't know our own history, first of all. And, at some point, of course, after the war, the nation sort of came together and decided that it was going to forget what the real cause was, because it was too painful to remember that slavery was what divided the nation.

    And despite all of the books and all of the classroom discussions and all of the television programs, we still have that perception that it was about anything other than slavery. And it's unfortunate.

  • JUDY WOODRUFF:

    Yes.

    Professor Walter Edgar, how do you account for that, the fact that historians are pretty unified in this view, but the public isn't?

    WALTER EDGAR, University of South Carolina: Well, it's — it's — I would agree with Professor Medford that perhaps it's — people don't know their own history.

    And even more disturbing, in that poll, it was mostly younger responders who did the states' rights answer, as opposed to older ones. All I can do in South Carolina is go back to what the 169 men who voted to secede first from the Union said, and in their declaration of causes, that it was — said it was protect slavery and their other domestic institutions.

    And the men of 1860 and 1861 in other Southern states were pretty blunt about what they were doing.


    Complete interview https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/l...misunderstood-on-150th-anniversary#transcript
Come on Roller, stop cherry picking professors. You know as well as I do, that the causation of the war is still hotly debated by experts on both sides of the argument. It really is a 50/50 split. Each one of your quotes can be countered by another professor with a differing opinion. Since we are on a USC board, I'll counter Dr. Walter Edgar of USC, with Dr. Clyde Wilson, Professor Emeritus of History at USC. His opinion is the war wasn't over slavery.

Keep in mind that the slave states were NOT threatened by constitutional changes to the right to own slaves. The non-slavery states simply didn't have the votes to amend. An actual war over slavery was averted by the Missouri Compromise. That compromise is precisely why the secession wasn't actually about slavery, as it protected slavery from constitutional amendment. The actual cause of the war was the U. S. wanting it's 70% loss of federal revenue back.

Btw, the Missouri Compromise was yet another case of "states rights" being trampled upon (albeit for morally just reasons). The U. S. attemped to admit states to the union without benefit of the full protection of the U. S. Constitution, not having the same "states rights" as the current states in the union had. The compromise addressed the slavery issue by admitting Maine (non-slavery) and Missouri (pro-slavery) at the same time, preserving the status quo to the southern states appeasement. A real war over slavery was averted.

Since the Missouri Compromise protected the institution of slavery, slavery wasn't the cause for secession. The "legal" justification for secession was the inadherence of some states to abide to the fugitive slave act. The tariffs were the real issue, but as unfair as they were, they were lawfully put in place. Just the same as slavery, as immoral as it was, it was lawfully put in place. Neither side had the votes to address their respective issue.

In football parlance, the south owned the football (70% of federal budget) and they quit the game and took it home with them. The north then bullied them back into the game.
 
I agree with the idea of watching it. But this war of northern aggression bullshit needs to stop. It was all about slavery and not states rights, unless the states right was about keeping slavery. I think that the north should have hung every southern soldier for treason, but that could never have happened. I do agree that Grant did, as ruffled stated above, killed many native Americans after he was elected.


Hung every Southern soldier for treason?

retard alert class
 
True, however, they were quite aware of the institutions they were protecting and were just fine with that, which makes them sad and pathetic in my eyes.....
I get so very tired of this argument. I dont know why so many try to argue that the civil war was absolutely fought over slavery and the right to practice slavery. I forgot which document it was - I dont know if it was the confederate constitution or what - but it stated very clearly that their reason for leaving was so that they could continue the practice of slavery. So why do people like you continue with this ridiculous horseshite?
I listen to YouTube interviews with Shelby Foote. He was a great story teller.
Wasn’t he though
 
I love history and will eventually watch it. Honestly I am glad he won the war. Having been a military officer I love the concept of total warfare that he practiced so well. I do not agree with slavery.

My ancestors were poor white farmers, they were actually financially disadvantaged by slavery. Eventually they were enslaved working in textile mills owned by carpetbagging Yankees. But this did get them into mill towns with better housing, indoor plumbing, electricity and better schools. This allowed my parents the opportunity to attend college and make a better life for the generations that followed. Every one of my aunts and uncles earned college degrees and were successful, all of my cousins did the same, all of our kids are doing the same. What would our lives have been like if the Old South had continued?
 
I grew up in the south, and I still don't understand the obsession with the war or hashing out who was good or bad 150 years ago.
As I noted above, 91.5% of Confederate soldiers didn't own a slave, and most were too poor to dream of a big plantation. People today don't like their ancestors being accused of slave atrocities when it's highly likely they had no direct involvement with the slave trade. More than 25% of South Carolina's Confederate soldiers died in the war, actually almost one in three. That leaves a very long lasting impression on the entire state, even over 150 years later. No different than the other long lasting impression of the same era, slavery. Repeat your question, but substitute "obsession over slavery" for "obsession over the war". Do you think descendants of slaves should be "over" slavery after all this time? Merely pointing out there is no time limit to fight injustice. The numbers support most Confederate ancestors were not directly involved in the slave trade, but others outside of the south, especially Hollywood, castigate white southerners as neantherdal rednecks who whipped a slave every single day, when that was actually the exception to the typical population of non-slave owners.

Southerners are cast as heroes in the Revolutionary War, but called traitors for doing exact same thing in 1861. The irony is Revolutionary War patriots actually were traitors and the Confederate states legally seceeded, per the bounds of the U. S. Constitution.

Sorry for the lengthy reply, Mookie, but the subject is among the most complex to discuss. There are so many finer nuances that change the big picture from most people's perception of that war.

Unfortunately, most assume Hollywood movies are factual when most are not even close to giving the complete picture.

Hollywood is part of the answer for you. They falsify events for dramatic affect, which stirs up people that know better, and starts arguments. An example is the Revolutionary War movie The Patriot (Mel Gibson). Generally a story of South Carolina's role in that war. Overall a decent movie, but all historians winced at the church burning scene, which was portrayed as filled with people. It never happened and the Brits were rightfully furious over it. Hollywood will create drama that never really happened to sell a buck.
 
As I noted above, 91.5% of Confederate soldiers didn't own a slave, and most were too poor to dream of a big plantation. People today don't like their ancestors being accused of slave atrocities when it's highly likely they had no direct involvement with the slave trade. More than 25% of South Carolina's Confederate soldiers died in the war, actually almost one in three. That leaves a very long lasting impression on the entire state, even over 150 years later. No different than the other long lasting impression of the same era, slavery. Repeat your question, but substitute "obsession over slavery" for "obsession over the war". Do you think descendants of slaves should be "over" slavery after all this time? Merely pointing out there is no time limit to fight injustice. The numbers support most Confederate ancestors were not directly involved in the slave trade, but others outside of the south, especially Hollywood, castigate white southerners as neantherdal rednecks who whipped a slave every single day, when that was actually the exception to the typical population of non-slave owners.

Southerners are cast as heroes in the Revolutionary War, but called traitors for doing exact same thing in 1861. The irony is Revolutionary War patriots actually were traitors and the Confederate states legally seceeded, per the bounds of the U. S. Constitution.

Sorry for the lengthy reply, Mookie, but the subject is among the most complex to discuss. There are so many finer nuances that change the big picture from most people's perception of that war.

Unfortunately, most assume Hollywood movies are factual when most are not even close to giving the complete picture.

Hollywood is part of the answer for you. They falsify events for dramatic affect, which stirs up people that know better, and starts arguments. An example is the Revolutionary War movie The Patriot (Mel Gibson). Generally a story of South Carolina's role in that war. Overall a decent movie, but all historians winced at the church burning scene, which was portrayed as filled with people. It never happened and the Brits were rightfully furious over it. Hollywood will create drama that never really happened to sell a buck.
Thank you for the informative reply. I need to watch the Ken Burns documentary, but perhaps, that is not the most accurate portrayal of events.

I guess I've never really cared if someone's ancestors owned slaves. I'm not sure if people from the "north" obsesses about slavery, but there may be misconceptions about how commonplace it was in the south. I have to say that the south did little to right that image after the Civil War. And of course, northern places have nasty histories of racism as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zann77
Thank you for the informative reply. I need to watch the Ken Burns documentary, but perhaps, that is not the most accurate portrayal of events.

I guess I've never really cared if someone's ancestors owned slaves. I'm not sure if people from the "north" obsesses about slavery, but there may be misconceptions about how commonplace it was in the south. I have to say that the south did little to right that image after the Civil War. And of course, northern places have nasty histories of racism as well.
The Jim Crow era was an offshoot of union occupation. In case you are not aware, former Confederates were not allowed to vote until the end of reconstruction in 1876. The only voters were former male slaves and white males that were too old to fight in the war and those just reaching age to vote. For over a decade the white populous had the same experience of former slaves, no ability to affect what happened to them. Unlike the former slaves, the rich whites had possessions that could be taken, and the carpetbaggers stole what they could with the backing of occupation troops. Not saying the rich didn't have it coming to them, their gains attained with blood, sweat, and tears of their slaves. However, after the carpetbaggers and occupation troops left, the only ones left to take out frustrations against were the former slaves. The Jim Crow laws were based on existing Black Code laws in the north, which kept blacks from residing in many northern cities, keeping them lily white. There's a reason the Underground Railroad ended in Canada. After the industrial revolution those codes eased, as workers were needed. That spread to the south with northern money building cotton mills.
 
South Carolina was the first state to secede from the union with the infamous document framed in the basement of Columbia's First Baptist Church in Dec.1860. That was one month after Lincoln's election and in direct response to his position on slavery. All signers of the Ordinance of Secession had one thing in common, they all owned slaves. A marble copy of the Ordinance of Secession showing all signer's names is prominently displayed on the wall in the main lobby of our State House.
 
I grew up in the south, and I still don't understand the obsession with the war or hashing out who was good or bad 150 years ago.
I love history. War,human conflict is the biggest part of history. The revolutionary and civil wars took place in my back yard,literally
 
I’m not going to try to get into the minds of individuals who were living the life over 150 years ago. Since I wasn’t there, I can’t imagine having to make the decisions they did.

I think there is also one other element to the above. The nation was very young at the time of the Civil War and many people identified with a region or a state more than they did with the nation and I think, at least partly, some men in the war felt they were protecting their region or state. But, I would certainly agree or at least believe that most of the solders of the Confederacy were fighting to preserve slavery.
 
It certainly is interesting. It just seems like an endless endeavor to debate some things.
Yes. Debate and study about Egyptian wars continues. Fascinating when you get into details and realize (in all wars)just how different things would have turned out except for a wrong or right move here and there
 
Sure. Grant is part of history. No matter what southerner’s May think of him, he was President and a factor in the War of Northern Aggression. I enjoy history. If we dont acknowledge the northern perspective, how can we fully understand our history.

The South is not about fully understanding our history. It's about spitting in the eye of the founding fathers and the constitution, spitting in the eye of foolish notions like equal rights, democracy and freedom of will, lying about God and Jesus, about the reasons we held for enslaving human beings, about what the true heritage of the South will always be, and about the true direction we strived for, as slave states, to take the practice of slavery, which ultimately led to the Civil War.

The South has always from its conception been about a people who wallows in a mucken mire of hypocrisy, lies, deceit, and human abuses. The South treated the freedoms and liberties we fought for in the War of Independence, FAR FAR worse than anything the British ever did against us before we became a "free" nation.

And because of that simple sin - greed for power - this nation will forever be stained and diseased with racism and division. And there are STILL idiot inbred mongrels in the southern states who 1) harbor personal resentment that the Northern states had to kick our asses - because we were NEVER in the right - that they start threads like this one today, and 2) simultaneously can't understand why the black community in this nation still harbors resentment against the white population in this nation.

The hypocrisy and lies continue unabated. If the common man truly wants to see actual evidence that God exists today, all they need for confirmation is to see how the Southern Man lives out his life in the United States. Because only Satan can make a human mortal act this way, and if there is a Satan, then surely there must be a God.....
 
The South is not about fully understanding our history. It's about spitting in the eye of the founding fathers and the constitution, spitting in the eye of foolish notions like equal rights, democracy and freedom of will, lying about God and Jesus, about the reasons we held for enslaving human beings, about what the true heritage of the South will always be, and about the true direction we strived for, as slave states, to take the practice of slavery, which ultimately led to the Civil War.

The South has always from its conception been about a people who wallows in a mucken mire of hypocrisy, lies, deceit, and human abuses. The South treated the freedoms and liberties we fought for in the War of Independence, FAR FAR worse than anything the British ever did against us before we became a "free" nation.

And because of that simple sin - greed for power - this nation will forever be stained and diseased with racism and division. And there are STILL idiot inbred mongrels in the southern states who 1) harbor personal resentment that the Northern states had to kick our asses - because we were NEVER in the right - that they start threads like this one today, and 2) simultaneously can't understand why the black community in this nation still harbors resentment against the white population in this nation.

The hypocrisy and lies continue unabated. If the common man truly wants to see actual evidence that God exists today, all they need for confirmation is to see how the Southern Man lives out his life in the United States. Because only Satan can make a human mortal act this way, and if there is a Satan, then surely there must be a God.....
Uhh WOW
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zann77 and FORKCOCK
You make a great point. 90%of white southerners did not own slaves. They were expensive and 80%of whites were anywhere from just getting by to abjectly poor. For them it was about stopping an invader. Protecting the land and therefore their women,children,and parents,kin
What I learned it always came down to was slavery and, also, social order. Very true that all whites did not own slaves but many of those that didn't agreed with the social order of the nation. Somewhat parallel to the Civil Rights 100 years later. All whites were not opposed to integration and African Americans being treated as equals but many were comfortable with the social order presented by the nation.
 
What I learned it always came down to was slavery and, also, social order. Very true that all whites did not own slaves but many of those that didn't agreed with the social order of the nation. Somewhat parallel to the Civil Rights 100 years later. All whites were not opposed to integration and African Americans being treated as equals but many were comfortable with the social order presented by the nation.
And,had you lived back then,and this goes for people around the world since slavery was everywhere,you may have been one of the comfortable ones. Can’t make fair judgments from past happenings through 21st century eyes. Can determine what was good,bad,not acceptable now. To single out “white southerners “is ignorance
 
As I noted above, 91.5% of Confederate soldiers didn't own a slave, and most were too poor to dream of a big plantation. People today don't like their ancestors being accused of slave atrocities when it's highly likely they had no direct involvement with the slave trade. More than 25% of South Carolina's Confederate soldiers died in the war, actually almost one in three. That leaves a very long lasting impression on the entire state, even over 150 years later. No different than the other long lasting impression of the same era, slavery. Repeat your question, but substitute "obsession over slavery" for "obsession over the war". Do you think descendants of slaves should be "over" slavery after all this time? Merely pointing out there is no time limit to fight injustice. The numbers support most Confederate ancestors were not directly involved in the slave trade, but others outside of the south, especially Hollywood, castigate white southerners as neantherdal rednecks who whipped a slave every single day, when that was actually the exception to the typical population of non-slave owners.

Southerners are cast as heroes in the Revolutionary War, but called traitors for doing exact same thing in 1861. The irony is Revolutionary War patriots actually were traitors and the Confederate states legally seceeded, per the bounds of the U. S. Constitution.

Sorry for the lengthy reply, Mookie, but the subject is among the most complex to discuss. There are so many finer nuances that change the big picture from most people's perception of that war.

Unfortunately, most assume Hollywood movies are factual when most are not even close to giving the complete picture.

Hollywood is part of the answer for you. They falsify events for dramatic affect, which stirs up people that know better, and starts arguments. An example is the Revolutionary War movie The Patriot (Mel Gibson). Generally a story of South Carolina's role in that war. Overall a decent movie, but all historians winced at the church burning scene, which was portrayed as filled with people. It never happened and the Brits were rightfully furious over it. Hollywood will create drama that never really happened to sell a buck.
 
ADVERTISEMENT