Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Shelby Foote(RIP)was a foremost writer and authority on the civil war. He told a story-one day,in Tennessee,a Union officer and his Calvary came upon a one room shack. An old man stepped out with a revolutionary war era gun and confronted all of them. They laughed. Officer said,old man you don’t have any slaves. Why do you fight? The old man replied, because you are here. Pretty good answer.That was Sherman.
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.
For him, the main thing was preserving the Union and "free government". He was not particularly beneficent in his motivations.General Grant was an, "old white man"...
who, along with hundreds of thousands of other "old white men"...
were willing to put their lives at risk to ensure that all men are created equal.
I had no ancestors who fought in the civil war. However, if my dad was shot down during World War 2, I guess I would not be here.If you are from the South with ancestors who fought for the Confederacy, had Grant hung soldiers you might not be with us today. If you’re not from the South, Delta is ready when you are.
That would mean the damn yankees would've hung both my great great great grandfathers.
True, however, they were quite aware of the institutions they were protecting and were just fine with that, which makes them sad and pathetic in my eyes.....You make a great point. 90%of white southerners did not own slaves. They were expensive and 80%of whites were anywhere from just getting by to abjectly poor. For them it was about stopping an invader. Protecting the land and therefore their women,children,and parents,kin
I get so very tired of this argument. I dont know why so many try to argue that the civil war was absolutely fought over slavery and the right to practice slavery. I forgot which document it was - I dont know if it was the confederate constitution or what - but it stated very clearly that their reason for leaving was so that they could continue the practice of slavery. So why do people like you continue with this ridiculous horseshite?So many historical inaccuracies in this thread, where to start.
Since Grant is original post, I'll start there, it should be noted that Grant own a slave, possibly given to him before the war, and his wife, a Dent, inherited four slaves. They never freed them until slavery was abolished in December 1865. Yes, slavery was legal until the Constitution was amended in December 1865. The poster above is likely thinking of the ban on importing slaves, passed in 1808. Various individual states banned slavery, but the U. S. Constitution made slavery legal until December 1865.
Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Kentucky actually voted to NOT leave the union. The original seven that did vote to leave, only four mentioned slavery in their secession articles. Rhett Barnwell stated South Carolina's position was failure of some states to enforce the fugative slave act, nothing more. Texas, however, went on a racist bigoted rant, in theirs.
Of the four states that didn't vote to leave, two changed their minds later, specifically over states rights (yes, it was a real thing). Both Virginia and Kentucky are commonwealths, and like Texas, they specifically reserved the right to seceed when they joined the union. After Lincoln requested states send troops to furnish a 75,000 strong invasion force to invade the seven Confederate states, the right to seceed states balked at illegally invading another country, as it was legal for any state to seceed if they wish. The powers of the federal government are specifically spelled out, and it mentions anything not specifically reserved by the federal government is allowable to the the state to enact. Sucession was not prohibited until AFTER the war. So the seven states did legally seceed (which is why Seward advised not to pursue anyone for treason, and this let President Davis go free). With Lincoln not abiding by the constitutional allowance of any state to seceed, Virginia and Kentucky quickly seceeded, followed by stuck in the middle states Tennessee and North Carolina.
Btw, U. S. Congress authorized two official names for the war: The Civil War and the War Between The States.
Now the real reason for the war. Same thing as it always was since Calhoun's Nullification crisis. Unfair tariffs. The southern states were paying in approximately 70% of the federal budget but only receiving 30% in return. Slave produced goods accounted about 60% of the federal budget and 70% of total budget was going into northern infrastructure like railroads, canals, wharfs in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, etc. All built primarily with slave raised tariffs. When the south seceeded, it took 70% of the federal budget with it. Lincoln could not afford that, literally and politically. Hence the immediate blockade of southern ports and a planned invasion force.
Remember, slavery wasn't abolished until after the war. The northern troops were Union troops (restore the union) not anti-slavery troops. Many northern soldiers did join to fight slavery, and many southern soldiers were fighting for slavery. The 1860 census slave schedules show 91.5% of Confederate soldiers did not own a slave. The average Confederate soldier was not marching into cannon and musket fire so some rich plantation owner could own a slave. Slavery became an issue as a rallying cry after the north was getting beat up by the southern troops in the first two years of the war. The slaves were always intended to return to the fields after the war, to restore lost tariffs. Again, the abolishment was after the war was over, not before it started.
A lot of people are not aware of the Corwin Amendment. Thinking slavery was a greater issue than it really was, Lincoln supported the Corwin Amendment, pushed it through congress and got it passed, and got four states to ratify it. But before getting the needed number of states, the Confederate States declined the offer. What was the offer? In return for rejoining the union, the U. S. would essentially guarantee slavery forever to those states. Yet it was refused. Apparently, slavery was not the issue. Corwin Amendment, google it. Everything mentioned here is verifiable in real history books (collegiate level).
Btw, one other thing conveniently left out of high school history, the actual first shots of the war. Not Ft. Sumter, not even the cannon fire by The Citadel Cadets at the Star of the West on February 9, 1861. A day before, February 8. 1861 in Pensacola, Florida, Lt. Adam Jacoby Slemmer moved his company of infantry from Fort Barrancas, to the old abandoned star fort, Fort Pickens (War of 1812 era), property of the Confederate State of Florida (no standing lease) , and then ordered his company of U. S. Infantry to fire upon Florida Confederate Troops approaching the fort to inspect and secure it. Thus the actual first shot fired in hostility was fired by U. S. Troops. Slemmer was rewarded by being promoted to Brigadier General by war's end despite no further noted action. A New Yorker, Slemmer died in 1868, and the New York Times obituary, in bold headlines, stated he ordered the first shots of the war.
That's enough for now, but some won't be satisfied with this easily verified truth.
This may be the ONLY time you and I ever agree on anything.....
- So, to each of you, what do historians think was the cause of the Civil War? And what do you think?
Drew Faust?
- DREW GILPIN FAUST, Harvard University:
Well, historians are pretty united on the cause of the Civil War being slavery.
And the kind of research that historians have undertaken, especially in the years since the centennial, when there has been so much interest in this question of the role of race and slavery in the United States, that research has shown pretty decisively that, when the various states announced their plans for secession, they uniformly said that the main motivating factor was to defend slavery.
So, the kind of percentages that you quote are ones that must necessarily be disturbing to historians, who believe quite differently from the general public.
- JUDY WOODRUFF:
Edna Medford, any idea about why that perception is out there, given the pretty common view among historians, which I assume you share?
- EDNA MEDFORD, Howard University:
Oh, absolutely. It's all about slavery.
But I think Americans, unfortunately, don't know our own history, first of all. And, at some point, of course, after the war, the nation sort of came together and decided that it was going to forget what the real cause was, because it was too painful to remember that slavery was what divided the nation.
And despite all of the books and all of the classroom discussions and all of the television programs, we still have that perception that it was about anything other than slavery. And it's unfortunate.
- JUDY WOODRUFF:
Yes.
Professor Walter Edgar, how do you account for that, the fact that historians are pretty unified in this view, but the public isn't?
WALTER EDGAR, University of South Carolina: Well, it's — it's — I would agree with Professor Medford that perhaps it's — people don't know their own history.
And even more disturbing, in that poll, it was mostly younger responders who did the states' rights answer, as opposed to older ones. All I can do in South Carolina is go back to what the 169 men who voted to secede first from the Union said, and in their declaration of causes, that it was — said it was protect slavery and their other domestic institutions.
And the men of 1860 and 1861 in other Southern states were pretty blunt about what they were doing.
Complete interview https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/l...misunderstood-on-150th-anniversary#transcript
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.
You got it backwards. Good general but bad president.
Sure. I enjoy watching history programs of winning efforts.
the losers, not so much.
HangedI 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.
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.
Come on Roller, stop cherry picking professors. You know as well as I do, that the causation of the war is still hotly debated by experts on both sides of the argument. It really is a 50/50 split. Each one of your quotes can be countered by another professor with a differing opinion. Since we are on a USC board, I'll counter Dr. Walter Edgar of USC, with Dr. Clyde Wilson, Professor Emeritus of History at USC. His opinion is the war wasn't over slavery.
- So, to each of you, what do historians think was the cause of the Civil War? And what do you think?
Drew Faust?
- DREW GILPIN FAUST, Harvard University:
Well, historians are pretty united on the cause of the Civil War being slavery.
And the kind of research that historians have undertaken, especially in the years since the centennial, when there has been so much interest in this question of the role of race and slavery in the United States, that research has shown pretty decisively that, when the various states announced their plans for secession, they uniformly said that the main motivating factor was to defend slavery.
So, the kind of percentages that you quote are ones that must necessarily be disturbing to historians, who believe quite differently from the general public.
- JUDY WOODRUFF:
Edna Medford, any idea about why that perception is out there, given the pretty common view among historians, which I assume you share?
- EDNA MEDFORD, Howard University:
Oh, absolutely. It's all about slavery.
But I think Americans, unfortunately, don't know our own history, first of all. And, at some point, of course, after the war, the nation sort of came together and decided that it was going to forget what the real cause was, because it was too painful to remember that slavery was what divided the nation.
And despite all of the books and all of the classroom discussions and all of the television programs, we still have that perception that it was about anything other than slavery. And it's unfortunate.
- JUDY WOODRUFF:
Yes.
Professor Walter Edgar, how do you account for that, the fact that historians are pretty unified in this view, but the public isn't?
WALTER EDGAR, University of South Carolina: Well, it's — it's — I would agree with Professor Medford that perhaps it's — people don't know their own history.
And even more disturbing, in that poll, it was mostly younger responders who did the states' rights answer, as opposed to older ones. All I can do in South Carolina is go back to what the 169 men who voted to secede first from the Union said, and in their declaration of causes, that it was — said it was protect slavery and their other domestic institutions.
And the men of 1860 and 1861 in other Southern states were pretty blunt about what they were doing.
Complete interview https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/l...misunderstood-on-150th-anniversary#transcript
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.
True, however, they were quite aware of the institutions they were protecting and were just fine with that, which makes them sad and pathetic in my eyes.....
I get so very tired of this argument. I dont know why so many try to argue that the civil war was absolutely fought over slavery and the right to practice slavery. I forgot which document it was - I dont know if it was the confederate constitution or what - but it stated very clearly that their reason for leaving was so that they could continue the practice of slavery. So why do people like you continue with this ridiculous horseshite?
Wasn’t he thoughI listen to YouTube interviews with Shelby Foote. He was a great story teller.
The flap over the flag was/is related to that - at least tangentially - and for many, more than tangentially.I grew up in the south, and I still don't understand the obsession with the war or hashing out who was good or bad 150 years ago.
As I noted above, 91.5% of Confederate soldiers didn't own a slave, and most were too poor to dream of a big plantation. People today don't like their ancestors being accused of slave atrocities when it's highly likely they had no direct involvement with the slave trade. More than 25% of South Carolina's Confederate soldiers died in the war, actually almost one in three. That leaves a very long lasting impression on the entire state, even over 150 years later. No different than the other long lasting impression of the same era, slavery. Repeat your question, but substitute "obsession over slavery" for "obsession over the war". Do you think descendants of slaves should be "over" slavery after all this time? Merely pointing out there is no time limit to fight injustice. The numbers support most Confederate ancestors were not directly involved in the slave trade, but others outside of the south, especially Hollywood, castigate white southerners as neantherdal rednecks who whipped a slave every single day, when that was actually the exception to the typical population of non-slave owners.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.
Thank you for the informative reply. I need to watch the Ken Burns documentary, but perhaps, that is not the most accurate portrayal of events.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.
The Jim Crow era was an offshoot of union occupation. In case you are not aware, former Confederates were not allowed to vote until the end of reconstruction in 1876. The only voters were former male slaves and white males that were too old to fight in the war and those just reaching age to vote. For over a decade the white populous had the same experience of former slaves, no ability to affect what happened to them. Unlike the former slaves, the rich whites had possessions that could be taken, and the carpetbaggers stole what they could with the backing of occupation troops. Not saying the rich didn't have it coming to them, their gains attained with blood, sweat, and tears of their slaves. However, after the carpetbaggers and occupation troops left, the only ones left to take out frustrations against were the former slaves. The Jim Crow laws were based on existing Black Code laws in the north, which kept blacks from residing in many northern cities, keeping them lily white. There's a reason the Underground Railroad ended in Canada. After the industrial revolution those codes eased, as workers were needed. That spread to the south with northern money building cotton mills.Thank you for the informative reply. I need to watch the Ken Burns documentary, but perhaps, that is not the most accurate portrayal of events.
I guess I've never really cared if someone's ancestors owned slaves. I'm not sure if people from the "north" obsesses about slavery, but there may be misconceptions about how commonplace it was in the south. I have to say that the south did little to right that image after the Civil War. And of course, northern places have nasty histories of racism as well.
I love history. War,human conflict is the biggest part of history. The revolutionary and civil wars took place in my back yard,literallyI 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.
It certainly is interesting. It just seems like an endless endeavor to debate some things.I love history. War,human conflict is the biggest part of history. The revolutionary and civil wars took place in my back yard,literally
I’m not going to try to get into the minds of individuals who were living the life over 150 years ago. Since I wasn’t there, I can’t imagine having to make the decisions they did.
Yes. Debate and study about Egyptian wars continues. Fascinating when you get into details and realize (in all wars)just how different things would have turned out except for a wrong or right move here and thereIt certainly is interesting. It just seems like an endless endeavor to debate some things.
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.
Uhh WOWThe South is not about fully understanding our history. It's about spitting in the eye of the founding fathers and the constitution, spitting in the eye of foolish notions like equal rights, democracy and freedom of will, lying about God and Jesus, about the reasons we held for enslaving human beings, about what the true heritage of the South will always be, and about the true direction we strived for, as slave states, to take the practice of slavery, which ultimately led to the Civil War.
The South has always from its conception been about a people who wallows in a mucken mire of hypocrisy, lies, deceit, and human abuses. The South treated the freedoms and liberties we fought for in the War of Independence, FAR FAR worse than anything the British ever did against us before we became a "free" nation.
And because of that simple sin - greed for power - this nation will forever be stained and diseased with racism and division. And there are STILL idiot inbred mongrels in the southern states who 1) harbor personal resentment that the Northern states had to kick our asses - because we were NEVER in the right - that they start threads like this one today, and 2) simultaneously can't understand why the black community in this nation still harbors resentment against the white population in this nation.
The hypocrisy and lies continue unabated. If the common man truly wants to see actual evidence that God exists today, all they need for confirmation is to see how the Southern Man lives out his life in the United States. Because only Satan can make a human mortal act this way, and if there is a Satan, then surely there must be a God.....
What I learned it always came down to was slavery and, also, social order. Very true that all whites did not own slaves but many of those that didn't agreed with the social order of the nation. Somewhat parallel to the Civil Rights 100 years later. All whites were not opposed to integration and African Americans being treated as equals but many were comfortable with the social order presented by the nation.You make a great point. 90%of white southerners did not own slaves. They were expensive and 80%of whites were anywhere from just getting by to abjectly poor. For them it was about stopping an invader. Protecting the land and therefore their women,children,and parents,kin
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 ignoranceWhat I learned it always came down to was slavery and, also, social order. Very true that all whites did not own slaves but many of those that didn't agreed with the social order of the nation. Somewhat parallel to the Civil Rights 100 years later. All whites were not opposed to integration and African Americans being treated as equals but many were comfortable with the social order presented by the nation.
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.