ADVERTISEMENT

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

It wasn’t a treasonous rebellion just as the Revolutionary War wasn’t either. I’ve always had a hard time believing that a poor, ordinary Southern soldier, probably a dirt farmer or metal craftsman, would give their lives en mass to uphold slavery. Now the wealthy, plantation owners, etc, I can understand. Their accumulated wealth depended on it. However for the ordinary Joe, how did slavery benefit him before the war, and what would it have meant for him to win the war?

Certainly the war was fought over that hideous institution called slavery. Those who reasoned that the war was fought for “states rights” actually prostituted the concept which today imo is a noble idea.

If the historians out here can help me understand, I’m all ears.
IMO, the "ordinary Joe" was duped by the southern elite into doing their dirty work.

My family immigrated to the US starting in the 1880s, and thus have no historical dog in that fight.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: The Coup Nazi
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...


True but my history teacher in high school was from California. Super smart guy who went on to teach in college.

I thought he was very fair but he didn’t treat the south’s effort as some glorious lost cause as some do.
 
Last edited:
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.



not me. I enjoy listening to Dr Walter Edgar’s programs on ETV Radio on Fridays at noon. He often talks to and interviews folks about the Civil War. But not about the causes.

the only people that argue the cause wasn’t related to preserving slavery are the ones that really desperately want to try to change the facts.
 
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

I am impressed with our civility as well. Most contributors have stuck to their beliefs and stated the basis for them. Thanks to all for sharing your thoughts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ruffledfeathers
not me. I enjoy listening to Dr Walter Edgar’s programs on ETV Radio on Fridays at noon. He often talks to and interviews folks about the Civil War. But not about the causes.

the only people that argue the cause wasn’t related to preserving slavery are the ones that really desperately want to try to change the facts.
The state legislature was rife with slave owners, they had the money and the subsequent education to be in that position. Naturally they would defend the only avenue to vast profit and the retention of power it gave. In an agrarian society, there was no other viable option to vast profits, at the time. Yankee ingenuity had saved slavery as a profitable venture with inventions like the cotton gin. The growing states on the western front desired slaves from the south (importing was illegal) to bulk up plantation sizes (and thus profits) and to build infrastructure cheaply, which bolstered the institution.

As the Tariffs of Abominations proved, lost profits stifled expansion into the western frontier and growth of southern economies (northern economies were directly benefiting from the primarily southern generated tariffs, the north economies prospered by undercutting the prices being paid by the Europeans and getting away with extortion by imposing higher tariffs that eroded any profits from the European markets).

Not all slaveowners were secessionist, the South Carolina representative at the Democratic Party National Convention in Cincinnati in 1856 was a slaveowner and pro-union. He declined an offer to be a candidate for governor because he knew a pro-union platform was a fool's folly in 1860, with the northern republicans poised for victory and the passage of the Morill Tariffs Act looming. With no ability to lawfully block the stiff increase in tariffs, seccession was the only alternative recourse to the tyrannical extortion.

Being that nearly 80% of southern exports were slave produced, it's no wonder slave owners made up the bulk of secessionist. What most miss is the fact that the tariffs did not directly attack the institution of slavery (obviously it did indirectly), but it did attack everyone in the south exporting goods, not just those involved with slavery, so there was broad appeal against its imposition. It had already been experienced earlier with the Tariffs of Abominations.

Does taxation without representation sound familiar? Associated with another "cause" against a tyrannical government. That cause involved slave owners as well. One can take it further to previous American colonists in Virginia, the Cavaliers. They lost in their "cause" to defend the monarchy from a tyrannical Parliament and left for Virginia. Guess what? The Virginia Cavaliers owned slaves and indentured servants and serfs during English Civil War. If you happen to descend from a Virginia Cavalier, and a descendant fought as an Amercan defender of King George, and a descendant who fought on the Confederate side, you have the misfortune of being involved on the losing side of three different "causes" against a tyrannical goverment.

Was the original seven southern states secession related to slavery? Yes, without a doubt, but indirectly, not the root cause. As usual, money and power, and greed for both, were the root cause for the actions of both sides. The "lost cause" was also, as usual, a resistance to tyranny. Then again, America's entire history is full of "causes", all coincidentally involving slave owners as primary participants, until the abolition of slavery in December 1865.



Edited to add paragraphs, longer than I realized.
 
Last edited:
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.....
I am enjoying this thread very much. My only two cents in this is even if the US never conquered another country, the slaves that were brought to the US were a conquered tribe/nation.
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.
What a great question. I have really enjoyed reading this post and everyone's responses.
As for my answer. As a young man middle class boy/man growing up in Charleston I probably wound have been sheltered from much of it. Only reading about the war in newspapers. I am sure that my father would have sheltered me as long as he could until the Confederate Conscript law took place.
At that time would have had to join cause I am sure that I would have been thrown in jail or hung. And my family's business burnt.
I personally think that the young men that wanted to fight would join up freely. Not sure many conscripts wanted to go to war.
 
Last edited:
I think there is also one other element to the above. The nation was very young at the time of the Civil War and many people identified with a region or a state more than they did with the nation and I think, at least partly, some men in the war felt they were protecting their region or state. But, I would certainly agree or at least believe that most of the solders of the Confederacy were fighting to preserve slavery.
Robert E. Lee resigned his US Army commission when Virginia seceded, i.e., he wouldn't fight against his state. A bit hard to conceive of that today. I guess we have replaced that with love of things Gamecock.
 
........
Was the original seven southern states secession related to slavery? Yes, without a doubt, but indirectly, not the root cause. As usual, money and power, and greed for both, were the root cause for the actions of both sides.........

Makes sense. And slavery was a "code word" for this status quo. It would make no sense to write an Article of Secession and explicitly state that we're forming our own country to keep the money and power.
 
I am enjoying this thread very much. My only two cents in this is even if the US never conquered another country, the slaves that were brought to the US were a conquered tribe/nation.

What a great question. I have really enjoyed reading this post and everyone's responses.
As for my answer. As a young man middle class boy/man growing up in Charleston I probably wound have been sheltered from much of it. Only reading about the war in newspapers. I am sure that my father would have sheltered me as long as he could until the Confederate Conscript law took place.
At that time would have had to join cause I am sure that I would have been thrown in jail or hung. And my family's business burnt.
I think allot of people don't understand that the average southern boy that was being conscripted into the confederate army had no choice.


I did not know that was true about your last sentence. Interesting.
 
I am enjoying this thread very much. My only two cents in this is even if the US never conquered another country, the slaves that were brought to the US were a conquered tribe/nation.

Which means what? Not conquered by or for any cause that served the United States, except for the trade of slaves. It served nothing else other than the practice of slavery, so unlike other European "empires" we didn't have those other logics to defend our actions by. Even after Portugal themselves banned the practice of slavery, Portuguese slavers moved their business to the U.S....
 
Makes sense. And slavery was a "code word" for this status quo. It would make no sense to write an Article of Secession and explicitly state that we're forming our own country to keep the money and power.

"Makes sense. I do not want to be part of a portion of the United States that will always be identified with the enslavement of other human beings - I do not want to be constantly reminded by history that I descend from owners of human slaves - I do not want to be associated with the most vile example of contradiction to the very constitution and the very ideologies that our founding fathers intended for our country's existence, so since this sounds plausible as an "alternative truth" that makes my ancestors seem a little less like evil monsters, I'll readily embrace this narrative with quick and supple open arms. It makes sense.

Even if it has zero basis on fact. As long as I can believe it, it'll be fact for me. MAGA!!! TRUMP 2020!!! SIEG HEIL!!!"
 
Just curious, why not. Please be specific to his military campaigns.

I just watched the trailer for the first time, and one person in the trailer even said Grant has been called many things over time, including a bloody butcher. That is what I remember my high school history teacher and college history professor saying when they referred to Grant.
 
Last edited:
The official title of the war in the annals of American History is “The War of the Rebellion”.
Clothe yourself in Southern mystique, nostalgia, and heritage not hate all you want but it was a treasonous rebellion to keep humans enslaved for economic gain. And yes as a matter of fact I had relatives that fought for the confederacy and also for The United States of America in this conflict.
I agree with this. My Southern states wanted new territories opening up in the West to be slave states. It was all about making money and had to stop. The saddest part to me is less dependence on farming wasn't far off. Industrialization may have ended slavery on its own.
 
I just watched the trailer for the first time, and one person in the trailer even said Grant has been called many things over time, including a bloody butcher. That is what I remember my high school history teacher and college history professor when they referred to Grant.
tenor.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Bad seed
not me. I enjoy listening to Dr Walter Edgar’s programs on ETV Radio on Fridays at noon. He often talks to and interviews folks about the Civil War. But not about the causes.

the only people that argue the cause wasn’t related to preserving slavery are the ones that really desperately want to try to change the facts.

I intended to respond to your comment a day or two ago, but I became busy and forgot. I have read Walter Edgar’s book; SC a History. He is an awesome writer and lecturer. I regret I never had any of his classes at SC. He was not on the faculty when I attended. I am sure he would have ranked up there with Dr Henry Lumpkin. Dr Lumpkin was by far the best professor I had at SC. (Almost equal was Havala Babcock). I took his History of Warfare course and wanted to take it again. LOL What made him so good? He took complexity and made it simple and could say more in a simple paragraph than anyone I ever heard. The only one who might come close was Larry Munson.

Like Dr Edgar, Dr Lumpkin did a history show on PBS. Fortunately, many people were able to hear him without going into his classes. Thanks for bringing up Dr Edgar. He is a credit to our university.
 
"Makes sense. I do not want to be part of a portion of the United States that will always be identified with the enslavement of other human beings - I do not want to be constantly reminded by history that I descend from owners of human slaves - I do not want to be associated with the most vile example of contradiction to the very constitution and the very ideologies that our founding fathers intended for our country's existence, so since this sounds plausible as an "alternative truth" that makes my ancestors seem a little less like evil monsters, I'll readily embrace this narrative with quick and supple open arms. It makes sense.

Even if it has zero basis on fact. As long as I can believe it, it'll be fact for me. MAGA!!! TRUMP 2020!!! SIEG HEIL!!!"
I think that slavery was the "elephant in the room" during the drafting of the US Constitution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gaimcock
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.
Makes one wonder if WNC & ET might have seceded from the Confederacy similar to what the western counties in Virginia did had they not been completely surrounded by the CSA.
 
Makes one wonder if WNC & ET might have seceded from the Confederacy similar to what the western counties in Virginia did had they not been completely surrounded by the CSA.

Good question. I don't know, but I think there is a chance they would have seceded.
 
Last edited:
Makes one wonder if WNC & ET might have seceded from the Confederacy similar to what the western counties in Virginia did had they not been completely surrounded by the CSA.

They tried. It did not get out of Congress. WNC, WSC and E Tenn were settled by a different type of people than the low country people. They did not come from Charleston, Wilmington or Savannah. The vast majority were Scots and Irish, and they came from Pennsylvania, Tide Water Virginia and New Jersey.

They were somewhat large people, in stature and usually arrived pissed off. Many arrived by the indentured servant or laborer route. (Sounds like slavery to me) Their old world places or origin ( Scotland and Ireland) had known very little peace thru the years, and they were naturally ready to fight. They were also naturally suspicious of authority and pretty much, wanted to be left alone. The Appalachian mountains were similar to their places of origin, especially Scotland.

Might I recommend a book to you. “ Bushwackers” in it you will find the stories about the times of the Civil War. It’s a fun read and might make you want to visit.
 
They tried. It did not get out of Congress. WNC, WSC and E Tenn were settled by a different type of people than the low country people. They did not come from Charleston, Wilmington or Savannah. The vast majority were Scots and Irish, and they came from Pennsylvania, Tide Water Virginia and New Jersey.

They were somewhat large people, in stature and usually arrived pissed off. Many arrived by the indentured servant or laborer route. (Sounds like slavery to me) Their old world places or origin ( Scotland and Ireland) had known very little peace thru the years, and they were naturally ready to fight. They were also naturally suspicious of authority and pretty much, wanted to be left alone. The Appalachian mountains were similar to their places of origin, especially Scotland.

Might I recommend a book to you. “ Bushwackers” in it you will find the stories about the times of the Civil War. It’s a fun read and might make you want to visit.
I’m from the low country. My people have been there for 250 years. They migrated down from Virginia and other places along with many others. Same bloodline as WNC and ET. Scots-Irish and German
 
I’m from the low country. My people have been there for 250 years. They migrated down from Virginia and other places along with many others. Same bloodline as WNC and ET. Scots-Irish and German

My fathers family is from Knoxville. They came there from Montgomery County, VA, and before that from Lancaster County, PA and before that Wig-ton, Scotland. My grandmother was also from Knoxville and her ancestors were what we call Scots Irish. They were from Ireland and identified themselves as Irish. The term Scots Irish is a modern term we use to identify Irish people of Scottish decent. They lived in Ireland for several generations, so they had little reason to to claim to be Scottish.

The majority of those Irish came south by the Great Wagon Road on the Easten side of the mountains coming through Mecklingburg County. Many did settle in VA.
 
My fathers family is from Knoxville. They came there from Montgomery County, VA, and before that from Lancaster County, PA and before that Wig-ton, Scotland. My grandmother was also from Knoxville and her ancestors were what we call Scots Irish. They were from Ireland and identified themselves as Irish. The term Scots Irish is a modern term we use to identify Irish people of Scottish decent. They lived in Ireland for several generations, so they had little reason to to claim to be Scottish.

The majority of those Irish came south by the Great Wagon Road on the Easten side of the mountains coming through Mecklingburg County. Many did settle in VA.
Love this stuff. The English reserved the best land and locations for themselves. Scotch,Irish,German,French Huguenots,anyone not English were allowed places in remote locations or without good farmland etc. To this day,in my area you can notice English last names in certain locations and the non-English names in other locations. Has become homogenized but still remnants
 
Love this stuff. The English reserved the best land and locations for themselves. Scotch,Irish,German,French Huguenots,anyone not English were allowed places in remote locations or without good farmland etc. To this day,in my area you can notice English last names in certain locations and the non-English names in other locations. Has become homogenized but still remnants

4-G grandfather was born in PA, was member of Washington’s army of VA. He re-enlisted in the Continental Army and was with Washington at battle of Yorktown. He was one of the solders who received Bounty Land Grant, 200 acres. These were awarded by the states in lieu of Army pay. His 200 was in Montgomery County, VA.

His Grandfather participated in the Battle of Bothwell Bridge, in Scotland, a fight between the crown and Presbyterians. He was jailed after the war and then banished to the colonies in 1684.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
 
4-G grandfather was born in PA, was member of Washington’s army of VA. He re-enlisted in the Continental Army and was with Washington at battle of Yorktown. He was one of the solders who received Bounty Land Grant, 200 acres. These were awarded by the states in lieu of Army pay. His 200 was in Montgomery County, VA.

His Grandfather participated in the Battle of Bothwell Bridge, in Scotland, a fight between the crown and Presbyterians. He was jailed after the war and then banished to the colonies in 1684.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
We have a connection at Bothwell Bridge. My fourth cousin, 12 times removed, was a Lt. Col. for the Covenanters. He survived to fight ten years later at the Battle of Dunkeld. Unfortunately, the first shots were aimed at him. Took two to the head and one to the liver. Lived just long enough to turn around and collapse.
 
We have a connection at Bothwell Bridge. My fourth cousin, 12 times removed, was a Lt. Col. for the Covenanters. He survived to fight ten years later at the Battle of Dunkeld. Unfortunately, the first shots were aimed at him. Took two to the head and one to the liver. Lived just long enough to turn around and collapse.

I don’t quite know how to explain my desire to find these things. When my sister and I started our quest we had a family tree going back only to our gggrandfather. Over the last two years we have gone all the way back to Scotland. The Scotland part was easier than the American Colonial part. There is guess work up to the Revolution. When my ancestors became landowners, it became easier to find documents providing the history.

Someone evidently did some research on your family. Was that you? Have you ever been to that southwestern part of Scotland. I have not. I was set to go and this epidemic hit.
 
I don’t quite know how to explain my desire to find these things. When my sister and I started our quest we had a family tree going back only to our gggrandfather. Over the last two years we have gone all the way back to Scotland. The Scotland part was easier than the American Colonial part. There is guess work up to the Revolution. When my ancestors became landowners, it became easier to find documents providing the history.

Someone evidently did some research on your family. Was that you? Have you ever been to that southwestern part of Scotland. I have not. I was set to go and this epidemic hit.
I've did research to an ancestor (6th great grandmother) in Georgetown, SC, who came from Devonshire England, her father was a Commodore in the Royal Navy, born and raised in Lanarkshire, Scotland. That line is continous back to the late 1200's. The Lt. Col. I mentioned is the great great grandson of a brother to an ancestor of mine in that line. A researcher in 1905 worked out that lineage to the his family. I worked out where I tie into that line. Interesting line. One of my ancestors, and his brother, was charged with treason for allegedly participating in the assassination of King Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley, Husband of Mary, Queen of Scots. They were relatives, maternally, to Earl of Bothwell (same as the bridge, ironic) who married the Queen within three months of the assasination, and became the primary suspect. He was found not guilty and then fled the country. Presumably the not guilty cleared my ancestor.

Edit: I drove between Newcastle upon Tyne to Carlilse in 2015, just south of the border with Scotland, I've discovered the bulk of my Scottish lines since then, and itching to get over there myself.
 
I agree with the idea of watching it. But this war of northern aggression bullshit needs to stop. It was all about slavery and not states rights, unless the states right was about keeping slavery. I think that the north should have hung every southern soldier for treason, but that could never have happened. I do agree that Grant did, as ruffled stated above, killed many native Americans after he was elected.
LOL!! Dude, you need some history lessons.
 
The Ordinance of Succession was framed in Columbia but taken to Charleston for signing. The official story was it was not signed in Columbia due to a smallpox out break. The unofficial story was Columbia being far more moderate lacked the firebrands of Charleston and wouldn't have provided the huge celebration that occurred in the Holy City. Unlike other cities in SC Integration in Columbia was a model for peaceful transition.
 
LOL!! Dude, you need some history lessons.

Agree. I recommend Dr. Walter Edgar.

When asked the cause of WW2, 95% of smart people say it was the attack on Pearl Harbor. If we use that reasoning for the cause, the Civil War was not caused by slavery. America put a trade embargo on Japan, many say it was driven by racist motives. But, just as slavery, trade wars between the US, Japan and other nations were usual; and had been with us for a while. What happened was an event which made us start shooting each other. That event was Pearl Harbor. Likewise Slavery had been with the South since before the US existed. It had been debated for 100 years. Therefore, would it not be true that secession was the event which caused us to shoot each other? There is plenty of evidence from Lincoln’s own words that is the case.
 
They tried. It did not get out of Congress. WNC, WSC and E Tenn were settled by a different type of people than the low country people. They did not come from Charleston, Wilmington or Savannah. The vast majority were Scots and Irish, and they came from Pennsylvania, Tide Water Virginia and New Jersey.

They were somewhat large people, in stature and usually arrived pissed off. Many arrived by the indentured servant or laborer route. (Sounds like slavery to me) Their old world places or origin ( Scotland and Ireland) had known very little peace thru the years, and they were naturally ready to fight. They were also naturally suspicious of authority and pretty much, wanted to be left alone. The Appalachian mountains were similar to their places of origin, especially Scotland.

Might I recommend a book to you. “ Bushwackers” in it you will find the stories about the times of the Civil War. It’s a fun read and might make you want to visit.

Not sure if the below applies to the mountain people.

Blacks were "imported" from Africa after the indentured servitude contracts of the whites (I'll work as a servant/slave for x years to pay off the transportation costs of my journey to North America) expired.

I will have to investigate "Bushwackers" when the libraries reopen.
 
The Ordinance of Succession was framed in Columbia but taken to Charleston for signing. The official story was it was not signed in Columbia due to a smallpox out break. The unofficial story was Columbia being far more moderate lacked the firebrands of Charleston and wouldn't have provided the huge celebration that occurred in the Holy City. Unlike other cities in SC Integration in Columbia was a model for peaceful transition.

I recall no serious racial strife in Beaufort.

When the SC Highway Patrol integrated in the late 1960s, the first black officer was posted in Beaufort.
 
Love this stuff. The English reserved the best land and locations for themselves. Scotch,Irish,German,French Huguenots,anyone not English were allowed places in remote locations or without good farmland etc. To this day,in my area you can notice English last names in certain locations and the non-English names in other locations. Has become homogenized but still remnants

Loyalist blacks who sided with the Crown during the US War of Independence received poor land allocations in Nova Scotia in the aftermath.
 
Agree. I recommend Dr. Walter Edgar.

When asked the cause of WW2, 95% of smart people say it was the attack on Pearl Harbor. If we use that reasoning for the cause, the Civil War was not caused by slavery. America put a trade embargo on Japan, many say it was driven by racist motives. But, just as slavery, trade wars between the US, Japan and other nations were usual; and had been with us for a while. What happened was an event which made us start shooting each other. That event was Pearl Harbor. Likewise Slavery had been with the South since before the US existed. It had been debated for 100 years. Therefore, would it not be true that secession was the event which caused us to shoot each other? There is plenty of evidence from Lincoln’s own words that is the case.
In all of my reading about WW2 never heard our embargo on Japan was racially motivated.
 
Makes one wonder if WNC & ET might have seceded from the Confederacy similar to what the western counties in Virginia did had they not been completely surrounded by the CSA.

They tried. It did not get out of Congress..

Still consistent with my theory that ET/WNC being an "island" prevented secession, just at a different point in the process than one might otherwise have thought..

Perhaps a knowledgeable Civil War historian can comment on whether or not the US nonetheless provided some aid/assistance to Unionists in those parts.
 
In all of my reading about WW2 never heard our embargo on Japan was racially motivated.

Both countries thought they were racially superior. American companies continued to trade with Germany, at least until the war started. Some US companies continued the practice, through other nations, after war was declared.
 
Both countries thought they were racially superior. American companies continued to trade with Germany, at least until the war started. Some US companies continued the practice, through other nations, after war was declared.
Don’t recall any words or statements by any American leader that would have been considered “racial superiority “. Japan tried to sell “Asia for Asians”to other Asian countries. Was about them wanting American business and military gone so Japan could dominate Asia. What US companies did business with Germany during the war? through “
 
ADVERTISEMENT