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

[Golden Cock]

Of course if we really want to talk about doing bad things to races of people, it seems like I heard about a groups of white people in boats coming to America and Killing off Native Americans and stealing their land and Confining them to reservations.

Or was that just a cowboy movie I saw once. Oh well.

 

[mauze1]

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

Come on guys. A lot of people felt just exactly like pitchfork Ben, and an even greater lot didn’t give a damn. You are looking into the past wearing 2020 glasses. You seem to disregard what was the norms of the past.

 

[ctgarric]

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.

What was Lincoln's formal position on slavery during his campaign and upon his election??.... It wasn't abolitionism.

 

[ctgarric]

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....

Just a note: The Morrill Tarriff was originally introduced in March 1860, and tabled by the Senate after passing the House on North/South lines. You are correct that it wasn't passed for another year. It also came on the heels of the Black Tariff and the Tariff of Abominations in the 1840s.

While Slavery, or rather the economics of it, were the central issue, the protectionist tariffs of the North were a pretty close second.

The reason this debate gets so heated, is there are no heroes in this story, from a political side. We made a monument to Lincoln, but abolishing slavery was a means to an end for him, and not an end itself. In addition to his trampling on civil liberties, he isn't as glorious of a historical figure as our high school history books make him out to be.

 

[ctgarric]

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.

Defeat an army half your size, with inferior weaponry. A lot of people forget that while the designs were the same, but the southern manufacturing capacity for munitions was much smaller. In addition, the quality of manufacturing was lower causing the rifles made in the south to be less accurate.

 

[UpstateGC]

The author who wrote "Hamilton" wrote "Grant". Probably as in "Hamilton", the author worshiped him (like he's probably done for Grant) and any of Hamilton's faults (there were many) are excused, explained, rationalized, and dismissed. Faults of his contemporaries were magnified. I assume the author did the same for "Grant".

Hollywood's, Leonardo DiCaprio, has embraced the book (surprise !) and desired to be the Executive Producer of the mini series. That speaks volumes of how the political slant will be and what emphasis will be placed on certain facts. Much of the movie will probably be overloaded with fiction for entertainment purposes - praised and supported by everyone in Hollywood like they love to do for each other. Piece by piece, re-writing history through the so-called historians of Hollywood and their movies through their motives.

In the movie, one slant will probably be or might be subconsciously, undermining or replacing Gen. Robert E.Lee with Grant as the greatest general of the Civil War. Lee who graduated 2nd in his class at West Point vs Grant who ranked 21 out of 39. Lee was the North's first choice as their General and Lee agonized over the decision.

Spoiler alert...
Grant will be the hero. All Southern whites will be the devilish dogs while the blacks will continue to be their victims.

I will eventually watch it somehow and hope that I am wrong in a lot of my thoughts..

 

[Freddie.B.Cocky]

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.

That horrible war has caused more division in this country than we can even imagine and continues to do so today.

 

[Freddie.B.Cocky]

Very similar to the Vietnam War i suppose.

Only, the Vietnamese were a bit tougher.

No, we were just not as smart as we should have been.

 

[Freddie.B.Cocky]

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.

There is a bypass or whatever in Johnson City, Tenn. named the State of Franklin. East Tennessee had plans (I don't know how serious or how far the plans were carried out) to succeed from the rest of Tenn much like WVA did from Va. The new state was going to be named the State of Franklin.

 

[Freddie.B.Cocky]

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?

Lee was still fighting for the cause and he believed there may have been a slight chance to win - I don't really know. But, I have never heard any historian, that didn't have a northern or liberal slant talk about Grant being a great general.

 

[Freddie.B.Cocky]

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.

I am just stating my position that Grant was not a great general by any historian that I've heard speak on the matter, that didn't have a northern or liberal slant. That's all I'm saying - nothing more or nothing less. BTW, I'm glad the North won the war.

 

[Garnet chicken]

Of course if we really want to talk about doing bad things to races of people, it seems like I heard about a groups of white people in boats coming to America and Killing off Native Americans and stealing their land and Confining them to reservations.

Or was that just a cowboy movie I saw once. Oh well.

How about Cortez who killed off all the Aztecs? Through history there have been one group conquering other groups starting at the beginning of history. You can single out any country you choose.

 

[Golden Cock]

How about Cortez who killed off all the Aztecs? Through history there have been one group conquering other groups starting at the beginning of history. You can single out any country you choose.

because we were discussing the USA.

 

[SCexpat38]

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

As an nth generation South Carolinian, what bothers me most about the great migration of Northerners in this direction is that it's really changed the landscape of the South -- and not for the better IMO.

Add millions more human beings on top of what might've been considered a normal and sustainable population increase equals more pressure on both manmade infrastructure and natural resources, etc.

It's screwed metro-Atlanta to the nth degree, it's turning coastal SC and Georgia into the worst of Florida and it's going to ultimately leave our descendants with a toxic mess.

As for rehashing the War of Northern Aggression, I'm under no illusions that the war was about anything as much as it was about slavery, no matter how some try to spin it otherwise.

I've two ancestors who fought for the Confederacy and best I can tell neither owned slaves since I do not come from wealth. The poor do not make the rules, and they can be convinced to fight against their best interests and frequently are.

To those who wonder why we continue to rehash old history, us Southerners are not alone in that. I'd say world-wide people are frequently reminded of wrongs done to and committed by past generations, and it seems every generation has to relearn old lessons -- sometimes the hard way.

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

I am just stating my position that Grant was not a great general by any historian that I've heard speak on the matter, that didn't have a northern or liberal slant. That's all I'm saying - nothing more or nothing less. BTW, I'm glad the North won the war.

And how exactly do you know that those historians had a slant. It sounds that if they praised Grant in any way, then you immediately interpreted that as to be biased.
Your lack of objectivity has become very clear

 

[Conway Gamecock]

As an nth generation South Carolinian, what bothers me most about the great migration of Northerners in this direction is that it's really changed the landscape of the South -- and not for the better IMO.

Add millions more human beings on top of what might've been considered a normal and sustainable population increase equals more pressure on both manmade infrastructure and natural resources, etc.

It's screwed metro-Atlanta to the nth degree, it's turning coastal SC and Georgia into the worst of Florida and it's going to ultimately leave our descendants with a toxic mess.

As for rehashing the War of Northern Aggression, I'm under no illusions that the war was about anything as much as it was about slavery, no matter how some try to spin it otherwise.

I've two ancestors who fought for the Confederacy and best I can tell neither owned slaves since I do not come from wealth. The poor do not make the rules, and they can be convinced to fight against their best interests and frequently are.

To those who wonder why we continue to rehash old history, us Southerners are not alone in that. I'd say world-wide people are frequently reminded of wrongs done to and committed by past generations, and it seems every generation has to relearn old lessons -- sometimes the hard way.

Exactly. The vast majority of South Carolinians did not own slaves even though SC and GA held the most slaves of all slave states, and at some times in the past there were more slaves in SC than there were whites. The ones who DID own slaves benefited greatly financially from the institution, and they kept their slave money to themselves. This was no Robin Hood economy we're talking about. The poor white southerner would struggle to gain paying manual labor jobs in the South, because there were already black slaves doing the work for free.

Did this help generate the hatred and rabid racism that this country still deals with today, that other European nations who practiced slavery long before we were a nation, do not come even close to the radar in matching? Possibly - it's a very interesting question to me.

Those other nations mostly and largely instituted practices of slavery as a military strategy as any other, for they did so during the age of national conquests, where they invaded other lands and took the wealth and resources those peoples held. So they enslaved the young men and fighters who would resist them, and the spiritual leaders who would provoke them. Rome so conquered Spain and Portugal, who took up the cultures and practices of the Romans, and we got our practice from the Portuguese.

But the United States invaded no lands. We conquered no peoples. We just paid for our slaves, who previously held no hostilities towards the USA, and mostly didn't even know we existed. Of all nations of peoples who practices slavery, the United States was a different breed of animal set apart. We didn't care about the wealth of other nations. We wanted slaves out of greed for our own wealth. And it directly spit in the face of what the Founding Fathers wanted for our new Nation, and what they demanded from the British:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

People talk about that part of the Declaration of Independence a lot, for obvious reasons. The next part is also interesting for me:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

State Governments are governments too. So, the Southern States - led by South Carolina - pointed to this concept as the engine behind their seccession from the Union, but truly the same argument could just as strongly be made that IT WAS THE SOUTH THAT VIOLATED THE CONTRACT, by endeavoring to hold human beings as slaves, denying them their basic unalienable rights endowed upon them by their Creator. Something that the British NEVER tried to do to the colonialists.

Is this a main reason for all the hypocrisy and blasphemy of religion, God, and Humanity, and denial of the basic simple truths that what we forced on African slaves for centuries, we would suffer no such intrusions on ourselves for even a day. Hypocrisies we're still desperately straining to fabricate even today, 160 years after the fact? Another interesting question.

But yes, the vast majority of Southerners were poor white folk who held no slaves for themselves. The elite Southern Class made sure of that, in order to control and manipulate them. After all, the poor white southerner were nothing but Mudsills, lower class foundations that were put on Earth to prop up the entitled upper class plantation owners. And it was that upper class that dictated the government - they were the ones who were educated at higher-learning institutions, they were the ones who owned the major companies and industries, they were the ones who graduated to high political office in the states, ensuring that it would be THEM who legislated the laws, and maintained THEIR - not OUR - way of southern life.

And the TRUE "Southern Heritage", was the elitism plantation class that held all the power and authority in the southern states, and who expected to keep it that way for as long as possible.

The South had nothing to do with the Declaration of Independence, nothing to do with the US Constitution, nothing to do with notions of equality of voice, ownership, and authority within this nation of people. It was entirely about the Haves having all, and the Have-Nots having only what the Haves gave them. Today we call it the "Good Ole Boy System".

So the poor white southerners went to war with the North, because the elite leaders of the South told them to. To preserve the heritage of the Southern Way of Life, of which only the elite upper class benefited from. The same class that wouldn't have a damned thing to do with those poor, white Southerners.

And they are still fighting for those plantation owners, even today. A good number of them have posted in this thread.....

 

[Blackland]

Lee was still fighting for the cause and he believed there may have been a slight chance to win - I don't really know. But, I have never heard any historian, that didn't have a northern or liberal slant talk about Grant being a great general.

With his superior industrial base, greater resources, naval blockade and better weapons Grant did not have to be a great general, he just had to be better than the 3 before him. If not Grant they would have found one eventually that could defeat us. It was over before it even started.

 

[Freddie.B.Cocky]

And how exactly do you know that those historians had a slant. It sounds that if they praised Grant in any way, then you immediately interpreted that as to be biased.
Your lack of objectivity has become very clear

Because when I have heard unbiased opinions about the Grant vs Lee every historian said Lee was the better General. I may do more research and I may not because you are convinced Grant was a great General and every historian I've ever heard or read their books, articles, etc said otherwise.

 

[gcobob]

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.

Thank you. That's exactly the truth and the History I studied and remember.

 

[TramSpur]

...SC and GA held the most slaves of all slave states

I thought Virginia held the most slaves.

 

[Freddie.B.Cocky]

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?

I just called my old roommate who majored in history and he quoted a small section of a book written by Thomas Daniel Young (Vanderbilt), Floyd C Watson and Richard Croom Beatty (Emory I believe) and I am paraphrasing: Lee surrendered because he stated he would no longer risk further lives of the Confederate soldiers because he no longer had the manpower, weaponry, etc to fight any longer, simply for the sake of prolonging the war, and would no longer endanger the lives of men although he could have continued to fight at least a little longer.

 

[Blackland]

I just called my old roommate who majored in history and he quoted a small section of a book written by Thomas Daniel Young (Vanderbilt), Floyd C Watson and Richard Croom Beatty (Emory I believe) and I am paraphrasing: Lee surrendered because he stated he would no longer risk further lives of the Confederate soldiers because he no longer had the manpower, weaponry, etc to fight any longer, simply for the sake of prolonging the war, and would no longer endanger the lives of men although he could have continued to fight at least a little longer.

Lee could have sent them home to fight as insurgents and we might still be at war.

 

[Bubbaglide]

Conway. I think that we are not further along in our race relations is because there are those who want us to be at odds. There are those of both colors who sew nothing but discord. There is racism in both colors. But thankfully, there are great people on both colors who look at a man’s character and not his color. As with many who have posted here, there is no amount of reason or information that can change their mind. My ancestors fought on both sides as did many others ancestors did. There is no doubt slavery is wrong but so is the idea that those alive today are responsible for our ancestors actions. Our country will never move on until we ALL learn to look at the man

 

[Harvard Gamecock]

Because when I have heard unbiased opinions about the Grant vs Lee every historian said Lee was the better General. I may do more research and I may not because you are convinced Grant was a great General and every historian I've ever heard or read their books, articles, etc said otherwise.

As I stated originally, I have no opinion on Grant one way or another. As you stated on post #131 only historians who have a "northern or liberal slant" were the one's who praised Grant. So that nullifies you last sentence every historian you've ever read or heard said he was not good on the battlefield.
BTW, you know, I know, and everyone else on here knows that EVERY historian has said otherwise is complete nonsense.

 

[Conway Gamecock]

I thought Virginia held the most slaves.

I probably confused my thinking in meaning that SC and GA had the largest per capita % of slaves of all slave states.

From the 1860 census:

SC:
White: 291,300
Slave: 402,406
%: 57.18

GA:
White: 591,550
Slave: 462,198
%: 43.72

VA:
White: 1,047,299
Slave: 490,865
%: 30.75

Remember, West Virginia seceded from Virginia during the Civil War, effectively splitting its population....

 

[Conway Gamecock]

Conway. I think that we are not further along in our race relations is because there are those who want us to be at odds. There are those of both colors who sew nothing but discord. There is racism in both colors. But thankfully, there are great people on both colors who look at a man’s character and not his color. As with many who have posted here, there is no amount of reason or information that can change their mind. My ancestors fought on both sides as did many others ancestors did. There is no doubt slavery is wrong but so is the idea that those alive today are responsible for our ancestors actions. Our country will never move on until we ALL learn to look at the man

I agree - there is strong racism on both sides of the color line. There are those who tend to think that racism is like cholesterol: there is bad racism, and there is good racism. It is not. There is only racism, and as long as one side chooses to support racism, there will be racism in this country, no matter what skin color is the proponent.

In that final census in 1860 when slavery was legal in this country, the African population - free and slave - in this country made up 13% of its total numbers. In the 2010 census, the last official census collected, the African-American citizens in this country made up......yes, that's right......13% of the total population.

We're far larger than in 1860 - some 4 million slaves to some 31 million total population, versus now some 43 million African-Americans to some 330 million total - but the social issues are still the same. We always say our freedoms are worth fighting for, but only as long as we fight the "good" fight. Racism will never be the good fight......

I've never said that those alive today are responsible for our ancestors' actions. But there are many alive today who are compliant to those ancestor's actions, and take great effort to hide the truth and further the continuation of lies, in order to hide the shame of those actions. The notion of those who fail to learn from mistakes in the past being doomed to repeat them in the future.

I choose to fight the good fight, and TRULY represent what my NATION - not what my state - wishes to stand for......

We have to remember what the thought process was, during the War of Independence, and even during the Civil War days. In those days, travel across land was only by horseback, or by foot. To travel from state to state in those days took weeks, perhaps even months. People did not see others from other states all that often, if at all.

In those days, if you said, "I'm from Virginia....I'm from Pennsylvania....I'm from Georgia....I'm from Mississippi....", you might as well have been saying, "I'm from Great Britain...I'm from France...I'm from Germany...I'm from Spain". The citizens in each state treated others from other states as if they were foreigners from other nations.

And during the Revolution, there was great suspicion and distrust amongst the peoples from each state. Britain played it out that way - they showed favor on states/colonies who produced goods and resources for the Crown, and scorn against those who did not. And they played each state/colony against each other.

So when the War against the British began, there were some legislators from some states who did not fully wish to do so. They had families and business connections with the Queen's Land. Many colonialists left America to return to Great Britain before, during, and after the war. There was suspicions amongst the state/colony leaders that there were spies within the ranks, taking information back to the British military. This turned out to be true.

The final days when chances of negotiations for independence seemed depleted, and talk of rebellious actions of force were being turned to, the first acts of violence and bloodshed took place within the convention halls between the delegates and representatives against each other. That was why the great quote, "together we stand, divided we fall" came about.

And after the war was won, there were many who distrusted powerful government, as one would imagine. And some states had great distrust for states who had great industries which was another word for Big Business, which in those days was another word for Big Government. The North represented these economical concepts - the Federalists were more Big Business than Big Government - early on, they knew that the first needed the latter in order to grow, but the rift between Republicans Teddy Roosevelt and Howard Taft, and the Republican Party overall in those years, showed that once Big Business was established, even the former Federalists no longer had need for Big Government.

The South supposedly followed the Thomas Jeffersonian Democratic Republicanism, the so-called Yeoman Farmer economy. Citizens who each held equal share of ownership and captain-ship of their nation, which would be driven by an economy of agricultural yields and produce. So the South looked upon the North as having allegiances with Great Britain, and of wanting to continue the practice of oppression of Free Will, while of course the South went ahead and committed atrocities against Free Will that even the British would shudder to behold. And that has carried over even to today....

 

[Forever Fowl]

What was Lincoln's formal position on slavery during his campaign and upon his election??.... It wasn't abolitionism.

Beginning with his "Peoria Speech" in 1854 in which he declared his opposition to slavery which he repeated many times during his campaign for the presidency. He was morally opposed to slavery and politically opposed to its expansion. South Carolina waited until his election in Nov. 1860 knowing full well his position on slavery before framing the O of S in Dec. 1860.

 

[mauze1]

There is a bypass or whatever in Johnson City, Tenn. named the State of Franklin. East Tennessee had plans (I don't know how serious or how far the plans were carried out) to succeed from the rest of Tenn much like WVA did from Va. The new state was going to be named the State of Franklin.

Just over the hill from JC is Madison County, NC. They called it Bloody Madison for a reason. Read about the Shelton Laurel Massacre. Real “civil war” took place there. Don’t believe the modern writers. They will tell you the locals there were Unionist. WRONG! They really did not care about either cause. Things were fine until Confederate conscription laws were passed.

 

[mauze1]

I agree - there is strong racism on both sides of the color line. There are those who tend to think that racism is like cholesterol: there is bad racism, and there is good racism. It is not. There is only racism, and as long as one side chooses to support racism, there will be racism in this country, no matter what skin color is the proponent.

In that final census in 1860 when slavery was legal in this country, the African population - free and slave - in this country made up 13% of its total numbers. In the 2010 census, the last official census collected, the African-American citizens in this country made up......yes, that's right......13% of the total population.

We're far larger than in 1860 - some 4 million slaves to some 31 million total population, versus now some 43 million African-Americans to some 330 million total - but the social issues are still the same. We always say our freedoms are worth fighting for, but only as long as we fight the "good" fight. Racism will never be the good fight......

I've never said that those alive today are responsible for our ancestors' actions. But there are many alive today who are compliant to those ancestor's actions, and take great effort to hide the truth and further the continuation of lies, in order to hide the shame of those actions. The notion of those who fail to learn from mistakes in the past being doomed to repeat them in the future.

I choose to fight the good fight, and TRULY represent what my NATION - not what my state - wishes to stand for......

We have to remember what the thought process was, during the War of Independence, and even during the Civil War days. In those days, travel across land was only by horseback, or by foot. To travel from state to state in those days took weeks, perhaps even months. People did not see others from other states all that often, if at all.

In those days, if you said, "I'm from Virginia....I'm from Pennsylvania....I'm from Georgia....I'm from Mississippi....", you might as well have been saying, "I'm from Great Britain...I'm from France...I'm from Germany...I'm from Spain". The citizens in each state treated others from other states as if they were foreigners from other nations.

And during the Revolution, there was great suspicion and distrust amongst the peoples from each state. Britain played it out that way - they showed favor on states/colonies who produced goods and resources for the Crown, and scorn against those who did not. And they played each state/colony against each other.

So when the War against the British began, there were some legislators from some states who did not fully wish to do so. They had families and business connections with the Queen's Land. Many colonialists left America to return to Great Britain before, during, and after the war. There was suspicions amongst the state/colony leaders that there were spies within the ranks, taking information back to the British military. This turned out to be true.

The final days when chances of negotiations for independence seemed depleted, and talk of rebellious actions of force were being turned to, the first acts of violence and bloodshed took place within the convention halls between the delegates and representatives against each other. That was why the great quote, "together we stand, divided we fall" came about.

And after the war was won, there were many who distrusted powerful government, as one would imagine. And some states had great distrust for states who had great industries which was another word for Big Business, which in those days was another word for Big Government. The North represented these economical concepts - the Federalists were more Big Business than Big Government - early on, they knew that the first needed the latter in order to grow, but the rift between Republicans Teddy Roosevelt and Howard Taft, and the Republican Party overall in those years, showed that once Big Business was established, even the former Federalists no longer had need for Big Government.

The South supposedly followed the Thomas Jeffersonian Democratic Republicanism, the so-called Yeoman Farmer economy. Citizens who each held equal share of ownership and captain-ship of their nation, which would be driven by an economy of agricultural yields and produce. So the South looked upon the North as having allegiances with Great Britain, and of wanting to continue the practice of oppression of Free Will, while of course the South went ahead and committed atrocities against Free Will that even the British would shudder to behold. And that has carried over even to today....

What are the atrocities The South is committing today? Maybe a better way to ask is; what are the atrocities being committed in the South today, that are not happening else where? Just asking.

Also, what did you mean by the Teddy Roosevelt comment. I feel sure you know he was a Republican. I just didn’t get your meaning there.

We use the word “ oppression” today differently than in colonial days. I doubt there were three people who knew what it meant or came to the colonies and had not lived under a monarchy. Oppression was the way of the world. They did not call it that, however. If you said “ oppression” to them, they would look at you like you were from a society 400 years removed from their’s. LOL

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I enjoyed reading your comments.

 

[ctgarric]

How about Cortez who killed off all the Aztecs? Through history there have been one group conquering other groups starting at the beginning of history. You can single out any country you choose.

Or what the Aztecs did to their neighboring tribes.

 

[mauze1]

I just called my old roommate who majored in history and he quoted a small section of a book written by Thomas Daniel Young (Vanderbilt), Floyd C Watson and Richard Croom Beatty (Emory I believe) and I am paraphrasing: Lee surrendered because he stated he would no longer risk further lives of the Confederate soldiers because he no longer had the manpower, weaponry, etc to fight any longer, simply for the sake of prolonging the war, and would no longer endanger the lives of men although he could have continued to fight at least a little longer.

Yes, Lee could have sent them into the woods and promoted Mosby to teach the Francis Marion type of warfare. That was discussed. Lee knew the South was hurting and the nation needed to heal. So, he chose door number two.

 

[ctgarric]

Beginning with his "Peoria Speech" in 1854 in which he declared his opposition to slavery which he repeated many times during his campaign for the presidency. He was morally opposed to slavery and politically opposed to its expansion. South Carolina waited until his election in Nov. 1860 knowing full well his position on slavery before framing the O of S in Dec. 1860.

I agree that he was personally against slavery. But he wasn't an abolitionist. His own writings showed that. He would have been fine to stop expansion and leave the status quo in the south, if it served his own political ambitions.

 

[Gamecock Lifer]

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.

It is funny how the “Northern perspective” is also known as “the truth” throughout the entire world save for just a few southern states. It is unreal how differently we were taught about the Civil war at schools here in the south Vs schools up North or in other countries. This war is still being fought for some...

 

[mauze1]

Exactly. The vast majority of South Carolinians did not own slaves even though SC and GA held the most slaves of all slave states, and at some times in the past there were more slaves in SC than there were whites. The ones who DID own slaves benefited greatly financially from the institution, and they kept their slave money to themselves. This was no Robin Hood economy we're talking about. The poor white southerner would struggle to gain paying manual labor jobs in the South, because there were already black slaves doing the work for free.

Did this help generate the hatred and rabid racism that this country still deals with today, that other European nations who practiced slavery long before we were a nation, do not come even close to the radar in matching? Possibly - it's a very interesting question to me.

Those other nations mostly and largely instituted practices of slavery as a military strategy as any other, for they did so during the age of national conquests, where they invaded other lands and took the wealth and resources those peoples held. So they enslaved the young men and fighters who would resist them, and the spiritual leaders who would provoke them. Rome so conquered Spain and Portugal, who took up the cultures and practices of the Romans, and we got our practice from the Portuguese.

But the United States invaded no lands. We conquered no peoples. We just paid for our slaves, who previously held no hostilities towards the USA, and mostly didn't even know we existed. Of all nations of peoples who practices slavery, the United States was a different breed of animal set apart. We didn't care about the wealth of other nations. We wanted slaves out of greed for our own wealth. And it directly spit in the face of what the Founding Fathers wanted for our new Nation, and what they demanded from the British:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

People talk about that part of the Declaration of Independence a lot, for obvious reasons. The next part is also interesting for me:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

State Governments are governments too. So, the Southern States - led by South Carolina - pointed to this concept as the engine behind their seccession from the Union, but truly the same argument could just as strongly be made that IT WAS THE SOUTH THAT VIOLATED THE CONTRACT, by endeavoring to hold human beings as slaves, denying them their basic unalienable rights endowed upon them by their Creator. Something that the British NEVER tried to do to the colonialists.

Is this a main reason for all the hypocrisy and blasphemy of religion, God, and Humanity, and denial of the basic simple truths that what we forced on African slaves for centuries, we would suffer no such intrusions on ourselves for even a day. Hypocrisies we're still desperately straining to fabricate even today, 160 years after the fact? Another interesting question.

But yes, the vast majority of Southerners were poor white folk who held no slaves for themselves. The elite Southern Class made sure of that, in order to control and manipulate them. After all, the poor white southerner were nothing but Mudsills, lower class foundations that were put on Earth to prop up the entitled upper class plantation owners. And it was that upper class that dictated the government - they were the ones who were educated at higher-learning institutions, they were the ones who owned the major companies and industries, they were the ones who graduated to high political office in the states, ensuring that it would be THEM who legislated the laws, and maintained THEIR - not OUR - way of southern life.

And the TRUE "Southern Heritage", was the elitism plantation class that held all the power and authority in the southern states, and who expected to keep it that way for as long as possible.

The South had nothing to do with the Declaration of Independence, nothing to do with the US Constitution, nothing to do with notions of equality of voice, ownership, and authority within this nation of people. It was entirely about the Haves having all, and the Have-Nots having only what the Haves gave them. Today we call it the "Good Ole Boy System".

So the poor white southerners went to war with the North, because the elite leaders of the South told them to. To preserve the heritage of the Southern Way of Life, of which only the elite upper class benefited from. The same class that wouldn't have a damned thing to do with those poor, white Southerners.

And they are still fighting for those plantation owners, even today. A good number of them have posted in this thread.....

Wow! Thanks for all the thoughts and opinions. I enjoyed reading them.

One issues I have been seeing, over and over needs to be discussed. The South was not made up of Slaves, upper class and poor white. By far, the largest segment of the southern population was the middle class. Pretty much, all societies have larger middles classes. When you look at old pictures of Charleston notice all the businesses. Those were owned by middle class people, and there were as well, yeoman farmers, tradesmen, business managers, lawyers, teamsters, preachers, doctors, mechanics and so on.

From my readings on the subject I have realized that fear was a main cause of this group to siding with the wealthy slave owners. Propaganda was spread by the pro slavery elite that blacks would suddenly be attacking whites by marauding in gangs and taking everything they had. The slaves in reality were a generation removed from Stone Age men who were put into a society where assimilation was impossible unless they were free. It is understandable many of the middle class might feel that way, given the circumstances. Their support allowed the elites to push us into war.

Most southern soldiers did not own slaves and some northern soldiers did. There are as many reasons Confederate soldiers went to war as dew drops. Many went because they were drafted. Many went because they were caught up in the glory of war. Many were defending their homes, their families and their friends. Very few fought to preserve or free slavery. Some who understood the economic impact of losing the slave labor supported the secessionist. My point here is this: please close your eyes and imagine you were born into a well off, middle class family in Charleston in 1840. You grew up there and were all set to inherit their way of life. What would you have been? What would you have thought? That question was asked of me and my reply was” I can only hope to have had the wisdom and insight of an unusual man of my time.” But looking into my past and into a mirror I have to admit I probably would have followed the crowd.

 

[ruffledfeathers]

I thought Virginia held the most slaves.

The newly formed Confederate States of America, seven states, had fewer slaves than the United States of America, when Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, and Tennessee were still part of the union, per 1860 Federal Census.

 

[JasonScottinSC]

Definitely watching! As a Civil War buff, I love to see how accurately things are portrayed on screen. Grant didn't have to be a great general, but he did realize the simple fact that the Union had every advantage in terms of numbers, supplies and funding. Grant knew that in a war of attrition, the South could never win. Previous Union generals, especially McClellan, were idiots (McClellan never wanted to attack and always thought he was outnumbered so he would sit back and request more troops instead of attacking.)

Looking forward to this!

 

[ctgarric]

It is funny how the “Northern perspective” is also known as “the truth” throughout the entire world save for just a few southern states. It is unreal how differently we were taught about the Civil war at schools here in the south Vs schools up North or in other countries. This war is still being fought for some...

History is written by the victors.

 

[Blackland]

History is written by the victors.

Well not the State of SC History textbook...

 

[ctgarric]

Well not the State of SC History textbook...

Different side of the same narrative.

 

[Bubbaglide]

As we move into four long pages, i am thankful for information shared from different view points. Some points and some information i wasnt aware of. Even in disagreement, for the large part it has been fairly respectful with a few exceptions. In a time of stresses for our nation, that we can share thoughts and ideas gives hope for the future. I look forward to the days when we can come together as Gamecocks and unite in our support. Many of you i would be proud to share meal or adult beverage with and exchange ideas and thoughts. Thank you my friends for new points of view