Skip to comments.Don't spin the Civil War
Posted on 12/27/2010 10:31:54 AM PST by trumandogz
The Civil War is about to loom very large in the popular memory. We would do well to be candid about its causes and not allow the distortions of contemporary politics or long-standing myths to cloud our understanding of why the nation fell apart.
The coming year will mark the 150th anniversary of the onset of the conflict, which is usually dated to April 12, 1861, when Confederate batteries opened fire at 4:30 a.m. on federal troops occupying Fort Sumter. Union forces surrendered the next day, after 34 hours of shelling.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Oh man, not thios shit again.
Nothing to worry about here. s/ Our kids today don’t know anything about the Civil War, where it happened or why. That’s one reason the south should fly the Rebel Battle Flag..........if nothing else, the kids may ask what it’s for.
IBTTGTTSBR. (In Before This Thread Goes To The Smokey Back Room)
More yankee revisionist history. :)
Regarding the role of religion in the conflict they should learn the words to both Dixie and the Battle Hymn of the Republic then compare them.
The "progressives" are mandating everything else, why not a state approved official version of history, too?
Fits right in with this crowd.
As soon as you call it the “Civil War”, you are already spinning.
I am a CT Yankee who simply calls it the War of 1861. That is the most neutral term I can come up with.
I can see the Black Racists and Bigots coming out and whining and lying about all Civil War.
This would be a good time for all those on FR to study up on Civil War history. Get to know the facts before the fiction starts getting spewed out
I wonder if they will have a reading of the CSA Constitution?
“No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed [by Congress]”
This is a really opportunity to establish in everyone’s mind that the Republican Party was anti-slavery and that Abe Lincoln was a Republican. You would be shocked at how many people do not know that.
even us yankee folks from NJ can read this article and get a wiff of stink...
Just my 2 cents. My GGGrandfather fought in the Iowa Regulars and was very active in Veterans' Affairs after the war, and I've only set foot in the south twice, so I guess I'm a Yankee.
Abraham Lincoln was a Saint.
Were this crowd in charge then, they’d have simply retreated from South Carolina and said ‘oh well’. When exactly did the slaves stop being slaves in Delaware again ?
“You mean the war of northern aggression will be spun again”
Yes, let’s just stop spinning it. Secession didn’t suddenly become verboten and “union” sacrosanct just because the southern states attempted it. The Constitutionality of secession had long been assumed, even by secessionist movements in prissy New England.
Yes, let’s just stop spinning it. The African slave trade was almost entirely a creature of New England shipping interests, with a majority of so-called “slave ports” being decidedly north of the Mason-Dixon.
Yes, let’s just stop spinning it, the 3/5ths Compromise, so ignorantly attributed to “racist” southerners and demagogued to infinity, was a compromise insisted upon by northern interests, who did not want slaves counted as fully human in order to prevent Congressional reapportionment from shifting political power to the south.
Yes, let’s just stop spinning it. I could go on for quite a while.
I agree that it was not a civil war: The South was not trying to take over the government. I view it as a war for independence, but you will never read that in a history book.
“I can see the Black Racists and Bigots coming out and whining and lying about all Civil War.”
Lying about the Civil War?
Are you saying that South Carolina’s Declaration of Succession did not state that the reason for succession was not slavery?
Are you saying that the Confederates did not attack Fort Sumter?
Are you saying that Alexander Stephens did not say that “”Its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical and moral truth.?”
Are you saying that the Confederate Constitution did not guarantee the right to own “negro slaves?”
Dixie ping y’all
I have always understood civil war to be defined as a war where two factions fight for control of a government. The “civil war” fought in the United States was not that, but rather a desire by one side to be completely separated from the other and autonomous, which would be aptly titled the “War of Southern Independence.”
“Yes, lets just stop spinning it, the 3/5ths Compromise, so ignorantly attributed to racist southerners and demagogued to infinity, was a compromise insisted upon by northern interests, who did not want slaves counted as fully human in order to prevent Congressional reapportionment from shifting political power to the south.”
Why is it that the Southern States who wanted slaves to be counted as a whole person did not want to extend voting rights to those persons?
“and I’ve only set foot in the south twice, so I guess I’m a Yankee”
Yankee & Rebel is where your heart is.
Since this war pitted “brother against brother” and the North didn’t fight it’s self, nor did the South, SOMEONE had to cross idealogical lines somewheres.
Oh please..both sides made money from slavery...
“Anderson once quipped dryly that the increase of her darkies had made him rich
Feel free to start.
I sure will miss Non-Sequitur on this thread, NOT.
Both gave their opinion that the South was perfectly within its rights to split off from the South. That is not necessarily the same as fact.
He’s an idiot. The Civil War was about economics not race. The south seceded, the north invaded—but not to free slaves. The north invaded to retain the economic realtionship of the agrarian south to the increasingly industrialized north. The south wanted to sell their resources to other countries and the north wanted to prevent that and dictate prices . The north would then use the resources, manufacture goods and ship them back south. The north wanted to maintain a mercantilist relatinship with the south—the same conditions that led to the American Revolution in the first place. Reducing American History to Dionne’s myopic fantasy about racism is absurd.
Lincoln goes out of his way to assure the slave holding states of the federal government's intention not to interfere with their peculiar institution.
He doesn't even outright reject the right of the states to secede, but insist that it be done in a constitutional framework as was done when the union was organized, not unilaterally.
Had Lincoln's prescription been followed, the entire sorry war may have been avoided. This is exactly the outcome that the John Brown type abolitionists in the North and the hardliners in the south feared the most. That is why Ft. Sumter was fired upon to prevent such an outcome.
The author may as well have written "The End" right there as that is all they really had to say.
Typically, many folks will actually agree with the above statement while cursing the feds for taking over, oh lets see, Federal EPA issuing air permits to industries in Texas thus exercising control over public and private businesses in that state.
They are like deer in the headlights and will suffer the same outcome.
Opinions are like /deleted/ evryone has one.
Aren't you overlooking one part of that equation? The buyers? Without demand for slaves those slave ships would never have left port.
Yes, lets just stop spinning it, the 3/5ths Compromise, so ignorantly attributed to racist southerners and demagogued to infinity, was a compromise insisted upon by northern interests, who did not want slaves counted as fully human in order to prevent Congressional reapportionment from shifting political power to the south.
Why would they want slaves counted the same as a free person? They were property in the South, not people. They had no more rights than a horse or a cow did. For the Southerners to demand that their chattel was entitled to representation was the height of hypocrisy. The 3/5ths clause still gave the South a disproportionate level of representation in the House.
My goodness, we've got a live one here, zooming back in his wacky little wayback machine freighted with modern biases and assuming anachronistically that everybody had voting rights in the antebellum era.
Who had voting rights and who did not, trumandogz? And, why? Did noncitizens? Did women? Did the newly naturalized? Did even the unlanded, owning no property, in many instances? What were people living under bondage in your mind trumandogz, citizens? Was this a uniquely southern American concept, in all the world? Where did it come from and who practiced it? And, when and where has it fully and finally been put to an end?
Your strange skewing of history via the lense of current law and societal taboo is known as "historicism," and while you're not alone, you're one of the primary purveyors of such on FR. You'll continue to not have a clue so long as you continue on your Quixotic way in believing this garbage.
0”More yankee revisionist history’’. So what’s ‘’revisionist’’, the South didn’t lose?
You may be a Yankee by birth but you got that good ole rebel spine in ya.
Funny, The Illinois Butcher pretty much held those very same sentiments.
No need to whitewash history. Simply, good guys won, bad guys lost.
The Union, the US, went on to secure liberty across the globe on many different occassions.
Last week, it was an early Christmas present...
2,147 posted on Tuesday, December 21, 2010 4:29:15 PM by Jim Robinson
Yep, if this is the case then why weren’t the slaves emancipated in 1861?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.