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

[Conway Gamecock]

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.

So many historical inaccuracies in this post. Where to start?
90% of this is irrelevant to the point. So I'll start at the point.

The Morrill Tariff didn't start the secession from the Union. It was adopted March 2, 1861 after most of the slave states had already seceded from the Union, meaning that the very Congressmen who could have voted the tariff down, had already vacated their authorities. None of the southern conventions in 1860 made any mention of the tariff. This is a Lost Cause myth.

The Corwin Amendment. Is this your version of the Morrill Tariff? You have a rather cute, quaint, and amusing perception of how the Corwin Amendment came about. If only you could actually read.

Abraham Lincoln did not "support" the Corwin Amendment, "push" it through congress nor "got" it passed. The Amendment was proposed by Congress on the same day that the Morrill Tariff above was adopted - March 2, 1861.

A sitting United States President has no role nor authority in the amendment process of the Constitution. Sorry about that. But at least you're better educated, now. The Corwin Amendment was actually endorsed by President James Buchanan, who preceded Lincoln. Buchanan even signed his name to the Congressional joint resolution, but as far as the Constitutional law is concerned, his signature is nothing but decoration.

The Amendment was already passed by Congress when Lincoln took over, and all he did was essentially say, "its constitutional law now, so I have no issue with it". I guess you could say that was "support", but I wouldn't.

But as with the Morrill Tariff, the Corwin Amendment came after Democratic representation from the slave states had withdrawn. After having essentially removed themselves as state members of the Federal Union, they forfeited their constitutional right to vote on any legislature.

So NO, the slave states did NOT "refuse" to vote on the Corwin Amendment, because they were no longer eligible voters when the Corwin Amendment was finalized by March 2nd, 1861....

 

[Conway Gamecock]

So many historical inaccuracies in this thread, where to start.

.

Gonna delete the rest of the tripe, since it's the same old, same old.

So we talk about something that happened some 160 years ago. Do we believe some guy who explains what happened, 5 years ago, 10 years ago, even 50 years ago?

We could, but we all know, whoever that guy is, he wasn't alive when it happened. His parents weren't. His grandparents weren't. Most likely, even his great-grand parents weren't.

That guy had to go read a bunch of shit, in order to tell us what happened. So, we could believe THAT guy. But thankfully, when this event actually happened, people who were alive at the time, and were primary role players and principle actors in it taking place, were writing their thoughts down about it, all over the ****ing place. And guess what, we can read what THEY thought about it, even today.

But you don't want to do that, do you skippy? You don't want to look TRUTH straight in the eye.

When South Carolina seceded from the Union in 1860, the state legislatures that made it happen, owned slaves themselves. They made their wealth off of them. And they were DAMNED PROUD, BY GOD to own slaves.

So, they don't need your pathetic, mealy-mouthed, revisionist history and cowardly spin-jobs trying to make like something you're ashamed of was actually some kind of decent thing. They would tell YOU to get the **** out of their face, and get the **** out of South Carolina, while you're at it. Probably would get a few hundred friends of theirs to help you on your way, too.

So, lets go to THEM, and ask them why THEY did it. Because, you're an awful lot of no help here.

1776: a new nation is born. And with it, slavery exists.

1788: we write up a new Constitution for us. It's called the Federal Constitution. With bigger, better federal government. But it carries over the right to have human slavery in three places, from the Articles of Confederation, the previous constitution.

Missouri Compromise of 1820: essentially drew a line in the sand that said any territory above it is free soil, any below it is slave soil. This starts the process - you draw a line in the sand, and there's bound to be people who step over it.

Nullification Crisis (1832-33): issue that pitted South Carolina against the Federal Government and Andrew Jackson over the Tariffs of 1828 and 1832. John C. Calhoun, who was Jackson's Vice President, resigns his position to take a Senate seat. It almost led to the state taking arms against the Federal Government. In 1833.

Annexation of Texas in 1845, Mexican-American War of 1846, Mexican Cessation:

Texas added as a slave state to the Union, the 28th state. The war with Mexico ensues, the U.S. wins, and Mexico gives up not only Texas but a large portion of what is now New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Colorado, and California. Texas wants to claim land all the way to Pacific coast, and pro-slavers want to push slavery all the way to California.

Wilmot Proviso of 1846-1848: a provision that initially would ban slavery for all new lands acquired from Mexico, but strengthened later on to include ALL territories left in the continental U.S., this proviso ultimately did not pass Congress. But the attempts by Congress to pass the ban, along with a bill to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia in 1849, stirred the narrative in Southern slave states that the Northern states were engaged in a steady effort to mitigate if not end the institution of slavery. State legislatures began to seriously contemplate secession from the Union, with South Carolina and Mississippi chief among them.

Compromise of 1850: an omnibus of bills, primarily adding California as a free state, leaving New Mexico as a separate territory from Texas (who wanted to annex New Mexico), and also banned importing slaves into Washington DC. It also brought about the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. The South opposed the restrictions on extending slavery, and the North opposed the Fugitive Slave Act, which they saw as the Government imposing on them immoral positions of not only allowing slavery to encroach into their free states, but enforcing them to participate in it or suffer incarceration. South Carolina's Calhoun was very much opposed to the Compromise, and southern states' disenfranchisement with the Union grew.

 

[Conway Gamecock]

So many historical inaccuracies in this thread, where to start.

April 26, 1852 South Carolina Convention: The South Carolina Convention was held. On Thursday April 29th at 12:00 PM, an appointed committee of twenty-one motioned that the State Legislature, by 2/3rds vote, shall have the power to withdraw the state from the Federal Union:

"Resolved by the people of South Carolina in Convention assembled, That the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the sovereign States of this Union, especially in relation to slavery, amply justify this State, so far as any duty or obligation to her confederates is involved, in dissolving at once all political connection with her co-States; and that she forbears the exercise of this manifest right of self-government from considerations of expediency only."

Due to South Carolina attempting to convene a convention for all slave states, but the other states declining to participate at the time, the State legislation chose not to take the lead at the time:

"Be it therefore resolved, That this Convention will forbear at present to exercise that highest and most sacred of all rights which can belong to a free and brave people-a right secured to them by nature and nature's God, and paramount to all constitutions and political compacts or agreements-the right "to alter or abolish " their government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted, and ceases to protect them in the enjoyment of their " lives, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness."

This was in 1852. South Carolina seriously wanted to secede in 1852.

December 20, 1860: That was when the South Carolina State Legislature voted to secede from the Union of States, unanimously. Four days later, they endeavored to explain their reasons for voting to secede.

December 24, 1860.

Christmas Eve. The SC Legislature wrote the "Declaration of Immediate Causes that Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Union". They put great effort in laying out their reasons for leaving the Union. They sent out this document to Washington DC, and to the other slave states of the South, and it paved the way for the other slave states to secede as well - the 2nd state to secede wouldn't do so until Mississippi did January 9, 1861.

When the Declaration was written and signed, slavery was still legal in the South. Many of those legislatures and state leaders who signed it owned slaves. The issue was as personal and as real to them as it could ever be. No one - not these "professors", "historians", "biographers" could ever come close to explaining these men's actions and emotions, than they themselves could.

And they did endeavor to explain themselves.

When you read that document, written and signed by the men who actually took SC from the Union, they don't say a single word about tariffs or taxes. They don't say a word about any other state's "rights" other than one single particular one. They don't talk about any other grievances. And that was when IT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. Not decades, or generations later.

That is the total, documented and archived TRUTH, from the very men who made it so. Educate yourself about your own history. Stop being blind with your head in the sand.....

 

[Forever Fowl]

Sherman served almost all of his pre war service in the south. He was even posted in South Carolina. He served in west Texas of which he famously said, “If I owned 40 acres in west Texas and 40 acres in Hell, I would most assuredly lease the property in Texas and live in Hell.”

Sherman was stationed in Charleston before the war. Many believe one reason he didn't burn Charleston was because he had friends there.

 

[Conway Gamecock]

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.

What total slimy filth. A descendent of white slave owners crying out the victimhood - "OHHH I'm UNFAIRLY picked on and NOT NICE THINGS said about me, because my ancestors owned human beings like personal PROPERTY!!!! Heavy SOBS!!! #whiteslaverlivesmatter

The British crown never came CLOSE to doing to its colonial subjects, what we Southerners did to African slaves.

Yes, the vast majority of Southerners who fought the Civil War, did not own slaves. It was a politician from South Carolina - go figure - former SC Governor James Hammond, who initiated the Mudsill Theory - the proposition that there must be, and always has been, a lower class or underclass for the upper classes and the rest of society to rest upon. The term derives from a mudsill, the lowest threshold that supports the foundation for a building.

This theory not only addressed slaves, but destitute white free southerners as well. It was a class-based economic system that worked to keep the lower class down, while maintaining the upper class, and provided rationale for why that was the way of things.

This not only is in direct contradiction with what the framers expected for this country, but it also contradicts true Jeffersonian Republicanism, which was supposed to be the staple philosophy that the South was built upon. Hammond's Mudsill Theory "fought for the rights of the propertied elite against what were perceived as threats from the abolitionists, lower classes and non-whites to gain higher standards of living".

But Thomas Jefferson distrusted elitism, and viewed the industrialist "employer" and his wage-earning "employee" with suspicion, because in his eyes a man who worked for pay from an employer, lost his freedom of true will and became beholding and vulnerable to the influences of said employer.

Just another in some 1,144,715 hypocrisies and self-contradictions that the Southern Man has created for himself over the centuries. We in the South forever blame the North and Sherman's Raiders as burning the Old South to the ground and forever crippling us, but it was this elite, slave-driven plantation economy, and mudsill theory system of keeping the working class southern white man uneducated and working the fields, that's the true original source for why the education system in the South is so poor....

 

[world famous 3rd base hecklers]

And burned Columbia to the ground.

Yeah I’ll watch it.....

oak island
Pawn stars
Forged in fire....

Yeah....I’ll check it out

Also don't forget, th Germans bombed Pearl Harbor during that time...

That was Sherman.

Yes, I thought so,,, I had to look it up on Google.

 

[mauze1]

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.

Agree. Being a southerner and historian, I honor all Americans who fought in that war. It is a part of the history where we should honor bravery. Most of those solders were defending their home or their comrades with whom they fought. Few fought to defend slavery and few fought to free slaves. Grant and Sherman were doing their jobs, and mighty well they did them.

Grant was a much more successful General than President. His administration was racked with scandals and corruption, little of which was his doing.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

I don't think he was either one. No way do I believe he was a good General.

Just curious, why not. Please be specific to his military campaigns.

 

[mauze1]

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.

I wonder how furious the BRITS were when they heard about our portrayal of the Waxhaw Incident.

 

[mauze1]

So many historical inaccuracies in this post. Where to start?
90% of this is irrelevant to the point. So I'll start at the point.

The Morrill Tariff didn't start the secession from the Union. It was adopted March 2, 1861 after most of the slave states had already seceded from the Union, meaning that the very Congressmen who could have voted the tariff down, had already vacated their authorities. None of the southern conventions in 1860 made any mention of the tariff. This is a Lost Cause myth.

The Corwin Amendment. Is this your version of the Morrill Tariff? You have a rather cute, quaint, and amusing perception of how the Corwin Amendment came about. If only you could actually read.

Abraham Lincoln did not "support" the Corwin Amendment, "push" it through congress nor "got" it passed. The Amendment was proposed by Congress on the same day that the Morrill Tariff above was adopted - March 2, 1861.

A sitting United States President has no role nor authority in the amendment process of the Constitution. Sorry about that. But at least you're better educated, now. The Corwin Amendment was actually endorsed by President James Buchanan, who preceded Lincoln. Buchanan even signed his name to the Congressional joint resolution, but as far as the Constitutional law is concerned, his signature is nothing but decoration.

The Amendment was already passed by Congress when Lincoln took over, and all he did was essentially say, "its constitutional law now, so I have no issue with it". I guess you could say that was "support", but I wouldn't.

But as with the Morrill Tariff, the Corwin Amendment came after Democratic representation from the slave states had withdrawn. After having essentially removed themselves as state members of the Federal Union, they forfeited their constitutional right to vote on any legislature.

So NO, the slave states did NOT "refuse" to vote on the Corwin Amendment, because they were no longer eligible voters when the Corwin Amendment was finalized by March 2nd, 1861....

May I add a little perspective which seems to be lacking in many of these posts. The Merrill Act was proposed in Congress for more than a year. Justin Morrill was the ways and means chairman in 1855. The bill cleared the house in1859. Pro slave state representatives knew that they would be out numbered in Congress and if Lincoln were elected, it would pass with his blessing. It is true that many acts were passed right after the southerners left. Chronologies are very often the only way to discern the truth.

The railroad act, to build the Pacific railroad was also passed. The location was hotly debated until the southerner left. Then it passed and the road went from Omaha to Sacramento.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

If nothing else, at least this thread is getting people to do some historical research.
Clearly for only the benefit of it being used to support their own argument, nevertheless at least some education is being introduced.

 

[Bubbaglide]

The Northern invaders continue to plague us today in the guise of pasty faced people from Ohio and New York who tell us howmuch they enjoy it here and immediately want to change it to the place they hated and left.

 

[Freddie.B.Cocky]

Just curious, why not. Please be specific to his military campaigns.

I will do that probably today with no problems. Right now I am doing other things.

 

[DarkHorse2001]

It wouldn't be the United States then, would it? We survive together not apart. Although lately the socialists have done a good job with youth propaganda.

Why couldnt we survive apart ? Just asking for a friend.

 

[MookieBlaylock9]

The Northern invaders continue to plague us today in the guise of pasty faced people from Ohio and New York who tell us howmuch they enjoy it here and immediately want to change it to the place they hated and left.

Here is the grenade in thread..belive it or not.

 

[funktavious]

Be interesting how, or if, they show Grant's attemped (near) genocide of Native Americans in the 1870's.

I don't think Grant was near as bad as Andrew Jackson when it came to the Native Americans

 

[ruffledfeathers]

May I add a little perspective which seems to be lacking in many of these posts. The Merrill Act was proposed in Congress for more than a year. Justin Morrill was the ways and means chairman in 1855. The bill cleared the house in1859. Pro slave state representatives knew that they would be out numbered in Congress and if Lincoln were elected, it would pass with his blessing. It is true that many acts were passed right after the southerners left. Chronologies are very often the only way to discern the truth.

The railroad act, to build the Pacific railroad was also passed. The location was hotly debated until the southerner left. Then it passed and the road went from Omaha to Sacramento.

Thanks for explaining that. The south knew with Lincoln and the Republicans winning, the Morill Tariff Act was a done deal, hence the rapid fire secessions. Indeed, the tariffs dramatically increased to almost the levels of the Tariffs of Abominations in 1828, that sparked the Nullification crisis.

 

[Golden Cock]

Thanks for explaining that. The south knew with Lincoln and the Republicans winning, the Morill Tariff Act was a done deal, hence the rapid fire secessions. Indeed, the tariffs dramatically increased to almost the levels of the Tariffs of Abominations in 1828, that sparked the Nullification crisis.

Uuuuhhhhh yeah, uhhh I was just fixin to say that.

 

[hillstosea]

Uuuuhhhhh yeah, uhhh I was just fixin to say that.

You better be keeping good notes golden cock. It’s all going to be on the final exam

 

[Golden Cock]

You better be keeping good notes golden cock. It’s all going to be on the final exam

I usually exempt finals.

 

[EgotisticalGamecock]

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 an African American male, I think one of the last things I would have been during that time is comfortable. I wasn't trying to single out anyone in particular. Just stating that social order and status quo were the common themes when I was in school. We were taught the same common theme as it regarded the Woman's Suffrage Movement. The one thing that made me scratch my head in my high school history classes was how we spent so much time on Germany and their use of hate and concentration camps ( via textbook, outside readings like Anne Frank, and films) but we brushed over the use of slavery in the US with textbook alone (a few pages at that).

 

[Golden Cock]

As an African American male, I think one of the last things I would have been during that time is comfortable. I wasn't trying to single out anyone in particular. Just stating that social order and status quo were the common themes when I was in school. We were taught the same common theme as it regarded the Woman's Suffrage Movement. The one thing that made me scratch my head in my high school history classes was how we spent so much time on Germany and their use of hate and concentration camps ( via textbook, outside readings like Anne Frank, and films) but we brushed over the use of slavery in the US with textbook alone (a few pages at that).

No one said we’re not screwed up.

 

[Blackland]

https://www.zerohedge.com/geopoliti...d-nature-magazine-sabotaged-science-150-years

Some of you might enjoy this article as it relates to the British economic system versus the American economic system and their support for the South during the war.

 

[mauze1]

As an African American male, I think one of the last things I would have been during that time is comfortable. I wasn't trying to single out anyone in particular. Just stating that social order and status quo were the common themes when I was in school. We were taught the same common theme as it regarded the Woman's Suffrage Movement. The one thing that made me scratch my head in my high school history classes was how we spent so much time on Germany and their use of hate and concentration camps ( via textbook, outside readings like Anne Frank, and films) but we brushed over the use of slavery in the US with textbook alone (a few pages at that).

It might be explained by this: The south was a winner in WW2 , not so much in the war for southern independence.

 

[Bubbaglide]

Here is the grenade in thread..belive it or not.

Now you know its true. They come down, wearing black socks with wingtips and shorts. They tell us how we should be doing things, then try to make here like it was they’re. They don’t like sweet tea, eat fish with the head on. And talk funny. Assimilate.....lol. If you are from the north, sorry, just trying to inject a laugh into a subject that has become a bit contentious

 

[Conway Gamecock]

May I add a little perspective which seems to be lacking in many of these posts. The Merrill Act was proposed in Congress for more than a year. Justin Morrill was the ways and means chairman in 1855. The bill cleared the house in1859. Pro slave state representatives knew that they would be out numbered in Congress and if Lincoln were elected, it would pass with his blessing. It is true that many acts were passed right after the southerners left. Chronologies are very often the only way to discern the truth.

The railroad act, to build the Pacific railroad was also passed. The location was hotly debated until the southerner left. Then it passed and the road went from Omaha to Sacramento.

Here is the perspective:

South Carolina wanted to secede from the Union over slavery in 1852. We were talked out of it by the other slavery states, but had we gone through with it, Mississippi would definitely have followed our lead. Just like they did in 1861. And the other states would have had no different a final recourse, than what they had in 1861 as well.

1852.

Looks like my royal flush beats your high of two tens, and then some.

But again, for ANY person who tries to argue over ANYTHING other than secession over the threat of abolishion of slavery, are people who scream out to the mountaintops, "I AM STUPID AND BLIND, AND INSIST ON LIVING MY LIFE STUPID AND BLIND, AND IF I EVER HAVE CHILDREN, I INSIST ON RAISING THEM TO BE STUPID AND BLIND LIKE ME!" Because that document I linked and others here have referenced, is a document from the very leaders who pulled our state from the Union, and they pretty much tell you to your face with their words that you're stupid and blind.

The references of "Northern Aggression" have always meant the federal government's efforts via Congress to squeeze, limit, reduce, and ultimately eliminate the slave states' ability to maintain and spread the institution of slavery in this country. It's never been tariffs, it's never been taxes, it's never been mean and un-nice words. It's all been about slavery, and how that institution could NEVER exist wholely in this country, and how it could NEVER even exist partially within a free nation without ultimately tearing that nation to pieces. That's what Lincoln ultimately came to realizing....

 

[Conway Gamecock]

Thanks for explaining that. The south knew with Lincoln and the Republicans winning, the Morill Tariff Act was a done deal, hence the rapid fire secessions. Indeed, the tariffs dramatically increased to almost the levels of the Tariffs of Abominations in 1828, that sparked the Nullification crisis.

Again, the Morrill Tariff had bipartisan support from Democrats as well as Republicans. Buchanan - not Lincoln - was the President who endorsed the Tariff - he even personally signed his name to the Congressional Bill - and he was a Northern Democrat.

The desperate clutching attempts by some here to push false history over their own personal embarrassment and shame over the history of slavery in this state, is just pathetic to me. It bespeaks of a human being something less than human, more along the lines of the despicable animal that enslaved other humans back in the actual days we're referring to. It's an ugly truth, but one that will never truly go away as long as there are still animal filth that walks and resides in our state, that spend their very lives lying and denying the very truth that hits them in the face every day.

Slavery was an institution that built this state. All of the wealth and heritage that state citizens took pride in back in those days, were built on the backs of slaves. The very identity and future of prosperity for this state - along with other southern slave states - depended on the institution.

And yet, somehow, in an unexplained fashion, when this state argues for seceding from the Union throughout the 1850s, and when it finally did in late 1860 - to secede from the Union was seen by many in those days as an act of treason, an act that could potentially prove ruinous to any state that did it - when South Carolina alone became the first state in the Union to pull away, and had to explain not only to the REST of the nation their reasons, but also explain to their fellow slave states who were in the exact same boat as they were, and would undoubtedly be dragged into the whole affair by South Carolina whether they wanted to be or not - and when South Carolina HAD to explain to THEM why we were seceding from the Federal Union.....

not one damn word was written about any tariff. Not one specific reference was ever made. Not in 1852. Not in 1860. The official documents signed and sealed are there for all to read and educate themselves by them.

South Carolina leaders and legislatures were SO ENRAGED over tariffs and amendments, according to this idiot above, that the so-called "Fire-Eaters" kept their damned mouths shut about it, when it came their time to tell the world.

Go figure. The idiots were born idiots, and they will die as idiots. The others who actually give a damn about being educated, will know the truth. It will always be there, waiting for them. I leave you to your mud wallow.....

 

[Freddie.B.Cocky]

Just curious, why not. Please be specific to his military campaigns.

Grant was a "Butcher", he was given that moniker by many historians.

And I quote "General Ulysses S. Grant was a leader with no regard whatsoever for human life who managed to defeat Robert E. Lee only by means of brute force, incurring extremely high Union casualties. Grant’s relentless attacks eventually wore down the tactically superior but outnumbered Confederate commander".

Also, let me remind you that the Union had about 2.2 million troops vs about 1 million troops for the Confederacy. I mean my gosh, if you can't defeat an Army half as small as your troops then- what can I say.

 

[ToddFlanders]

Grant was a "Butcher", he was given that moniker by many historians.

And I quote "General Ulysses S. Grant was a leader with no regard whatsoever for human life who managed to defeat Robert E. Lee only by means of brute force, incurring extremely high Union casualties. Grant’s relentless attacks eventually wore down the tactically superior but outnumbered Confederate commander".

Also, let me remind you that the Union had about 2.2 million troops vs about 1 million troops for the Confederacy. I mean my gosh, if you can't defeat an Army half as small as your troops then- what can I say.

Very similar to the Vietnam War i suppose.

Only, the Vietnamese were a bit tougher.

 

[Blackland]

Grant was a "Butcher", he was given that moniker by many historians.

And I quote "General Ulysses S. Grant was a leader with no regard whatsoever for human life who managed to defeat Robert E. Lee only by means of brute force, incurring extremely high Union casualties. Grant’s relentless attacks eventually wore down the tactically superior but outnumbered Confederate commander".

Also, let me remind you that the Union had about 2.2 million troops vs about 1 million troops for the Confederacy. I mean my gosh, if you can't defeat an Army half as small as your troops then- what can I say.

As a former USMC infantry officer I can find no fault with Grant’s total warfare strategy. You locate, close with and destroy the enemy by fire and maneuver and fire and close combat. He simply did his job, not an easy job. How many lives did Gen Lee waste even after he knew we were defeated, after Gettysburg?

 

[mauze1]

Here is the perspective:

South Carolina wanted to secede from the Union over slavery in 1852. We were talked out of it by the other slavery states, but had we gone through with it, Mississippi would definitely have followed our lead. Just like they did in 1861. And the other states would have had no different a final recourse, than what they had in 1861 as well.

1852.

Looks like my royal flush beats your high of two tens, and then some.

But again, for ANY person who tries to argue over ANYTHING other than secession over the threat of abolishion of slavery, are people who scream out to the mountaintops, "I AM STUPID AND BLIND, AND INSIST ON LIVING MY LIFE STUPID AND BLIND, AND IF I EVER HAVE CHILDREN, I INSIST ON RAISING THEM TO BE STUPID AND BLIND LIKE ME!" Because that document I linked and others here have referenced, is a document from the very leaders who pulled our state from the Union, and they pretty much tell you to your face with their words that you're stupid and blind.

The references of "Northern Aggression" have always meant the federal government's efforts via Congress to squeeze, limit, reduce, and ultimately eliminate the slave states' ability to maintain and spread the institution of slavery in this country. It's never been tariffs, it's never been taxes, it's never been mean and un-nice words. It's all been about slavery, and how that institution could NEVER exist wholely in this country, and how it could NEVER even exist partially within a free nation without ultimately tearing that nation to pieces. That's what Lincoln ultimately came to realizing....

I don’t know who’s post to which you are responding, but I don’t disagree with most of what you are saying. I was commenting on the Morrill Tariff.

There was hatred between the north and south in the 1790’s. There were many reasons for it. The big picture says it was a clash of an industrialized society vs an agrarian society. The reason Lincoln gave for “Northern Agression” was not to do anything about slavery. It was because of “ secession. Or at lest, that IS what he said. “ What I do, I do to preserve the union.”

Shelby Foote summed it up best when he said slavery was the underlying issue and it could not be solved except by war. I agree. In the beginning of the war Lincoln claimed he took up arms to restore the union. He was also fine with the southern states keeping slavery, or at least he said so. There seems to have been many reasons soldiers gave for being in their uniforms. A huge majority of them did not include slavery among them. My ggrandfather Was 34 years old. He enlisted just before the CSA changed the draft age to 35. So I could say he had reasons other than defending his home.

Slavery was going away soon anyway. Machinery had already been invented that would make slavery obsolete . It is a shame we had to lose so many of our young men doing it. Make no mistake. I believe as you, slavery was the underlying cause which could not be resolved. In 1861 the leaders of this nation decided to stop trying to resolve it peacefully.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

Grant was a "Butcher", he was given that moniker by many historians.

And I quote "General Ulysses S. Grant was a leader with no regard whatsoever for human life who managed to defeat Robert E. Lee only by means of brute force, incurring extremely high Union casualties. Grant’s relentless attacks eventually wore down the tactically superior but outnumbered Confederate commander".

Also, let me remind you that the Union had about 2.2 million troops vs about 1 million troops for the Confederacy. I mean my gosh, if you can't defeat an Army half as small as your troops then- what can I say.

First let me say I have no opinion of Grant one way or another. But since you said you thought he was a bad general, I asked for what you disliked in regards to his military campaigns. But you have not provided any strategic missteps.
You provided a disingenuous moniker, and an unnamed quote.
There were 2 generals before Grant who were unable to defeat the Confederacy before him, so your argument is debatable.
There is no debate Grant had high casualties, however Lee had more casualties in both percentage and actual numbers.
It's your prerogative to dislike Grant, but most historians have a completely different view from yours declaring he was a bad general.

 

[funktavious]

Why are people in the south so hung up on the Civil War and why does it seem to be looked upon with affinity? It was absolutely one of the worst periods in the history of our country yet so many of my neighbors love to fly the rebel flag. They hold civil war re-enactments every year. When something bad happens in my life I try not to spend too much time reflecting upon it. You don't forget it but you don't dwell on it either.
I think far too many South Carolinians were subject to Mary Simms Oliphant's warped version of SC History.

 

[mauze1]

Why are people in the south so hung up on the Civil War and why does it seem to be looked upon with affinity? It was absolutely one of the worst periods in the history of our country yet so many of my neighbors love to fly the rebel flag. They hold civil war re-enactments every year. When something bad happens in my life I try not to spend too much time reflecting upon it. You don't forget it but you don't dwell on it either.
I think far too many South Carolinians were subject to Mary Simms Oliphant's warped version of SC History.

I guess we southerners are in good company. There has been more written about the Civil War than any other subject. Think a little before you refer to “the South.” Western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee people are as different from SC people as Californians.

 

[Blackland]

Why are people in the south so hung up on the Civil War and why does it seem to be looked upon with affinity? It was absolutely one of the worst periods in the history of our country yet so many of my neighbors love to fly the rebel flag. They hold civil war re-enactments every year. When something bad happens in my life I try not to spend too much time reflecting upon it. You don't forget it but you don't dwell on it either.
I think far too many South Carolinians were subject to Mary Simms Oliphant's warped version of SC History.

Do kids still have to take SC History in grade school? I think the version they taught when I was a kid in the 1960's and 70's may have tended to glorify the war and our conduct in the war in the glorious name of State's Rights. It was not about slavery you understand but defending our traditions and agrarian way of life.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

Do kids still have to take SC History in grade school? I think the version they taught when I was a kid in the 1960's and 70's may have tended to glorify the war and our conduct in the war in the glorious name of State's Rights. It was not about slavery you understand but defending our traditions and agrarian way of life.

My father's sentiments exactly. Both he and my grandfather held the Southern cause as the most noble.
They told me I had a cousin who was a Lt. Colonel who served under Gen. Lee, although I have no way to verify that, but it was a great source of pride for them. Doesn't really hold any special meaning for me.
I can understand studying the Civil War as a piece of our history, but I don't understand why so many get so hung up on it.

 

[USCBatgirl21]

And burned Columbia to the ground.

That was Sherman.

 

[ctgarric]

Starting with Pennsylvania in 1790, slavery was illegal in every northern state by the 1850s. In a few states it was gradually abolished. There were slaves in northern states into the 1840s (according to the census) and in some of the territories beyond that, but it was against the law in every northern state by 1858. Interestingly, Delaware was a slave state. The southern states which seceded composed a block of states which had not made it illegal. The Mason-Dixon line delineated free and slave states.

The Fugitive Slave Act was a compromise which said slaves who were present in northern states remained slaves. That accounted for a number of slaves in the North. But the reverse was not true. A free person did not become a slave by entering the south.

Just as one example, Missouri didn't abolish slavery until just at the end of the war in 1865.... There were more states on the "North" than just the New England states.

 

[funktavious]

Do kids still have to take SC History in grade school? I think the version they taught when I was a kid in the 1960's and 70's may have tended to glorify the war and our conduct in the war in the glorious name of State's Rights. It was not about slavery you understand but defending our traditions and agrarian way of life.

I'm not sure if they teach SC History or not. I do know that Oliphant made slavery seem as if the slaves were happy to be there and she made Ben Tillman out to be some kind of hero. I understand she was from a different time period but there was absolutely nothing good about Tillman as a person.

 

[Bad seed]

I'm not sure if they teach SC History or not. I do know that Oliphant made slavery seem as if the slaves were happy to be there and she made Ben Tillman out to be some kind of hero. I understand she was from a different time period but there was absolutely nothing good about Tillman as a person.

He was one of the worst people to ever come from South Carolina.