Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Five myths about why the South seceded
Washington Post ^ | January 9, 2011 | James W. Loewen

Posted on 01/19/2011 11:35:34 AM PST by kosciusko51

One hundred and fifty years after the Civil War began, we're still fighting it -- or at least fighting over its history. I've polled thousands of high school history teachers and spoken about the war to audiences across the country, and there is little agreement even on why the South seceded. Was it over slavery? States' rights? Tariffs and taxes?

As the nation begins to commemorate the anniversaries of the war's various battles -- from Fort Sumter to Appomattox -- let's first dispense with some of the more prevalent myths about why it all began.

1. The South seceded over states' rights.

Confederate states did claim the right to secede, but no state claimed to be seceding for that right. In fact, Confederates opposed states' rights -- that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: History
KEYWORDS: americanhistory; civilwar; dixie; secession; statesrights
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-215 next last
I thought this was interesting and wanted to see what other FReepers had to say about it.
1 posted on 01/19/2011 11:35:40 AM PST by kosciusko51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51; stainlessbanner

Find some cover. The lead’s about to fly.

}:-)4


2 posted on 01/19/2011 11:40:36 AM PST by Moose4 ("By all that you hold dear on this good Earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51

As a southerner, all I have to say is THE SOUTH IS GONNA RISE AGAIN. I was always taught, by my relatives, the War Between the States boiled down to states rights. I guess the Washington Post wants to makes southerners out to be liars, huh?


3 posted on 01/19/2011 11:40:56 AM PST by stansblugrassgrl (PRAISE THE LORD AND PASS THE AMMUNITION!!! YEEEEEHAW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stansblugrassgrl

“I guess the Washington Post wants to makes southerners out to be liars, huh?”

Uh, no, I think the writer wants to make all Southerners out to be racists.


4 posted on 01/19/2011 11:42:44 AM PST by Houghton M.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51
The guy manages to work in a bit of Bush-bashing (maybe just to reassure the typical Washington Compost reader that he's a good guy)--"Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy."

He's a sociologist, not an historian.

5 posted on 01/19/2011 11:43:57 AM PST by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51
I thought this was interesting and wanted to see what other FReepers had to say about it.

I have read both "Sundown Towns" and "Lies My Teacher Told Me" written by James Loewen.

In short, he's an American-hating Marxist. That's all that needs be known. Distrust everything and anything written by the repulsive and insignificant homunculus:


6 posted on 01/19/2011 11:44:33 AM PST by re_nortex (DP...that's what I like about Texas...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

Whether its slavery or states rights it still boils down to the same issue. He calls it slavery. We call it states rights. It was still one in the same reason.


7 posted on 01/19/2011 11:45:38 AM PST by Peter from Rutland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.

Liars, racists, what’s the difference?


8 posted on 01/19/2011 11:45:47 AM PST by stansblugrassgrl (PRAISE THE LORD AND PASS THE AMMUNITION!!! YEEEEEHAW!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51

Contrary to the article, the PREFERRED name for the “Civil War” is actually “The War of Northern Agression”. I think is WAS over State’s rights, AND the hyysterical drumbeat of the New York Times in the late 1850’s for WAR over the tariff-free imports through the Port Of New Orleans, thus undercutting New York’s importance. Read the old papers on microfiche!


9 posted on 01/19/2011 11:46:52 AM PST by 2harddrive
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stansblugrassgrl

Ma’am, take it from an ex-secessionist (and current Southern Nationalist), it’s not going to happen again. Another secession movement would require a separation between millions of people and their sports on television. I don’t see that happening.

Also, true secession would be nothing more than a glorified divorce, and only lawyers profit from divorce. The next War Between the States would be fought in courtrooms.

All that being said, to find out why the antebellum South sought separation, one only has to read what they wrote. They were quite clear.


10 posted on 01/19/2011 11:47:50 AM PST by warchild9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: stansblugrassgrl

Living in the North and having relatives in the South, I’d say the South has risen again and won.


11 posted on 01/19/2011 11:47:59 AM PST by Free Vulcan (The cult of Islam must be eradicated by any means necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51

The Socialists running Wall Street drove the South to secede.


12 posted on 01/19/2011 11:48:21 AM PST by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51

I like the clever way the reporter ties slave holders to people who support the Bush tax cuts. (sigh)


13 posted on 01/19/2011 11:48:43 AM PST by MeganC (I'm allergic to tequila. When I drink it I break out in handcuffs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51

Despite some of the specific pot-shots the author takes at Bush, etc. It’s largely true; the five main points of the article are certainly valid.

Donning flame-resistant suit.


14 posted on 01/19/2011 11:48:45 AM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Houghton M.

The conerstone of the southern confederacy was slavery. A good book is David Barton’s American history in Black and White


15 posted on 01/19/2011 11:49:29 AM PST by navysealdad (http://drdavehouseoffun.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Peter from Rutland
Looking at the full text of South Carolina' secession declaration, I agree with you that they are one in the same.
16 posted on 01/19/2011 11:50:40 AM PST by kosciusko51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51

The whole thing with Lincoln going to war was to preserve the Union. The slavery issue was not a factor at the time.


17 posted on 01/19/2011 11:51:17 AM PST by ReverendJames (Only A Lawyer, A Painter, A Politician And The Media Can Change Black To White)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51
In 1860, many subsistence farmers aspired to become large slave-owners. So poor white Southerners supported slavery then, just as many low-income people support the extension of George W. Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy now.

Got that? Supporting tax cuts is like supporting slavery.

18 posted on 01/19/2011 11:52:26 AM PST by pogo101
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Moose4

Who cares. The south got there A$$ handed to them. Why they want to glorify a war they lost is beyond me.


19 posted on 01/19/2011 11:54:11 AM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pogo101
Yeah, focus on the minutia while ignoring the elephant in the room.

“WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US.” - Pogo

20 posted on 01/19/2011 11:54:28 AM PST by kosciusko51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ReverendJames

Oh man not this sh*t again...okay, if the war wasn’t about slavery...why didn’t they get rid of it? Why did they maintain an aparthied system based on race? Everytime someone said something about freeing the slaves why did the South always freaked out?

Why did they then maintain an aparthied system for another 100 years?


21 posted on 01/19/2011 11:55:56 AM PST by gman992
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51
Your right it was about States rights..
Slavery was indeed a sub issue.. but not the main issue..
Most all the southern people had never owned any slave or wanted to own one..
Most all of the soldiers were not slave owners..

People giving their lives (not so a few) could own slaves but that their State could be sovereign..
Also not all the southern soldiers agreed with slavery..

The Civil War was not about slavery.. but something more practical..
Progressive history re-writers have made the Civil War about slavery.. it wasn't..

Americans(YOU) have probably been brain washed..
Along with those that think America is a democracy..

Any democracy is a myth, it is a lie..
No democracy has ever been democratic..
Democracy is Mob Rule by mobsters.. always in every iteration..
Democracy is a lie.. that's why America is a Republic..
Democracy is a political disease that results in socialism.. as a symptom..

The democrat party is a diseased cabal.. a junta.. NOW..
Always has been from the beginning..

22 posted on 01/19/2011 11:55:56 AM PST by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: re_nortex
Did you catch this?:

"White Northerners' fear of freed slaves moving north then caused Republicans to lose the Midwest in the congressional elections of November 1862."

He must be a Republican.

23 posted on 01/19/2011 11:57:46 AM PST by tsomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51

“In fact, Confederates opposed states’ rights — that is, the right of Northern states not to support slavery”

You’re confusing the ramp up to secession with the cause of secession. Yes, Southerners supported the Dred Scott decision and wished for Washington to enforce human bondage across the land. They saw themselves as defending individual rights (not slaves’ rights, of course, but the rights of their owners) against states’ prerogatives.

However, nothing’s to say they dropped out because nationwide slavery was at stake. More likely, they figured those dirty, n****r-loving, radical Republicans would abolish the peculiar institution at home, in the South. That’s ultimately why they left.

Once the South had its own government, obviously, it could expand slavery westward. No doubt that was on their mind. But that doesn’t mean opposition to states’ rights caused secession. Fear that Washington would violate Dred Scott did.


24 posted on 01/19/2011 11:59:09 AM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51

The writer forgets to mention a few things that could have skewed his data.

1. Free blacks in the south
2. Free blacks who owned slaves in the south
3. Nearly all businesses hired immigrant labor (like the irish) instead of owning slaves for anything except agriculture. Why? - if it was cheaper to own slaves as the author suggests (ps - it wasn’t).
4. I seriously doubt the south had 75% of all American exports. The south was already in decline and the north was already largely industrialized by 1860.


25 posted on 01/19/2011 11:59:18 AM PST by 2banana (My common ground with terrorists - they want to die for islam and we want to kill them)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MeganC
“I like the clever way the reporter ties slave holders to people who support the Bush tax cuts.”

That is interesting being the main political party in the South at the time and pro-slvery party was Democrats.

26 posted on 01/19/2011 12:01:11 PM PST by NavyCanDo (Jan 2013 - Sarah Palin sees the Potomac from Her House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51
Well, are you expecting a rational response? What about the Neo Confederates on Fr makes you think you will get one?
Good article by the way.
27 posted on 01/19/2011 12:01:19 PM PST by IrishCatholic (No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
Slavery was indeed a sub issue.. but not the main issue..

So Mississippi didn't actually say this?

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery -- the greatest material interest of the world," proclaimed Mississippi in its own secession declaration, passed Jan. 9, 1861. "Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of the commerce of the earth. . . . A blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."

28 posted on 01/19/2011 12:01:52 PM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

The author might be confused. But his words are not my words.


29 posted on 01/19/2011 12:02:43 PM PST by kosciusko51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

“Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy”

Not that it matters anymore, but I’m gonna go ahead and repeat that Bush’s (Congress under Bush’s, actually) tax cuts were utterly progressive. So happens that basically any tax cut is for rich people, to some degree. But only because they’re the ones who pay taxes, which if you’ll recall was the entire point of progressive taxation in the first place.


30 posted on 01/19/2011 12:02:43 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51
South Postpones Rising Again For Yet Another Year


31 posted on 01/19/2011 12:02:56 PM PST by iowamark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
3. Nearly all businesses hired immigrant labor (like the irish) instead of owning slaves for anything except agriculture. Why? - if it was cheaper to own slaves as the author suggests (ps - it wasn’t).

Well, there were a lot of skilled labor jobs done by black slaves that were hired out for temporary periods. I remember something about someone asking why they weren't using slaves loading a riverboat but were using Irish workers instead. The answer was because slaves could get hurt too easily doing that kind of work.
32 posted on 01/19/2011 12:03:14 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51
Well the first two arguments have been thoroughly debunked previously on lrc.com. They are standard Lincoln cult pap. The third argument is a free floating argument supported by nothing but a back handed slap at George Bush (they can't resist). As for point 4, Lincoln's interest was in preserving the ability of the Union to enforce a protective tariff, which they could not do if the South seceded and adopted a revenue tariff. Lincoln was not interested in abolishing slavery. So point 4 is correct, though not for the reason given.

Number five is partly true and partly false. Slavery was very profitable for those plantations that were large enough to employ the gang system. Technology would have changed that though and would have done so a lot sooner if the war had not destroyed Southern investment capital and broken up the large plantations. European pressure was also building and would have push the South towards abolition. The British in particular were becoming increasingly fanatical about it. But the biggest reason the South could not have survived as a slave society has to do with the cost of dealing with fugitive slaves. With the north no longer constitutionally obliged to return runaway slaves the South could not have afforded to maintain a slave economy. There have only been five examples in history of societies that built their entire economies on slave labor: the Greeks, the Romans, the Caribbean Islands, Brazil, and Dixie. The one thing they all had in common was the ability to socialize the cost of runaway slave management. In every case except Dixie the slave economy ended when this advantage disappeared. In the case of Brazil this was particularly dramatic. One province abolished slavery, runaway slaves began flocking there, and the economies of all the other provinces collapsed. The large slave owners then began calling for abolition as a means of encouraging workers to stay and work.

33 posted on 01/19/2011 12:04:21 PM PST by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: napscoordinator

Got their a$$es handed to them??????

The Union armies had from 2,500,000 to 2,750,000 men. Their losses, by the best estimates:
Battle deaths: 110,070 Disease, etc.: 250,152 Total 360,222

The Confederate strength, was from 750,000 to 1,250,000. Its estimated losses:
Battle deaths: 94,000 Disease, etc.: 164,000 Total 258,000

So the SMALLER Confederate Army (1.25mm) caused more deaths on the LARGER Union army (2.75 mm men)and they were handed WHAT????????????????????????? You think like obama.


34 posted on 01/19/2011 12:05:09 PM PST by bt579 (Liberals need women dependent and scared so that women, like blacks, will vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: ReverendJames

“The whole thing with Lincoln going to war was to preserve the Union. The slavery issue was not a factor at the time.”

This isn’t rocket science. Just take one little backward steps. Lincoln went to war to preserve the Union why? Because the South seceded. Why did it secede? Because of slavery.


35 posted on 01/19/2011 12:07:04 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51
I tend to laugh out loud when I read tripe as this. This fight was settled long ago, yet there are those who still want to blame someone or something. I am all for righting wrongs, yet it is just plain simple wrong to keep drudging up lies and stating those lies as truth. Examples...Since the end of that terrible war, where brother fought against brother, the truth is states rights were decided in that war. Now while I do not believe such, for states' rights remains in the Constitution, yet if one asks most politicians, politicians will not say states' rights have been dissolved in favor of the whole flying under the flag of the Stars and Stripes, yet that is what most politicians think based on their actions and disdain for any state willing to go up against the federal monster....imho

This fact is about to be observed, first hand, in the Zer0care fight. This fact has already been observed in Arizona, with the federal monster taking on Arizona in the illegal immigration fight. There are countless other examples of the federal monster fighting against states' rights. The piece, by the author, does nothing but antagonize feelings to come to the surface, to ignore the facts of the day....imho

36 posted on 01/19/2011 12:07:25 PM PST by no-to-illegals (Please God, Bless and Protect Our Men and Women in Uniform with Victory. Amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2banana
“I seriously doubt the south had 75% of all American exports.”

Not sure about the 75%, but The South produced three quarters of the World Cotton prior to the war and that is a fact. And Cotton was king. It was the oil of the time.

37 posted on 01/19/2011 12:08:20 PM PST by NavyCanDo (Jan 2013 - Sarah Palin sees the Potomac from Her House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51

“WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US.”

I have always absolutely HATED that bastardization of Oliver Hazard Perry’s famous saying.


38 posted on 01/19/2011 12:09:32 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51

I think it is a classic liberal smear - The south was bad because secession was only about slavery, the north was bad because the war didn’t have anything to do with slavery, so ultimately whether you are from the north or south, you are bad, responsible for slavery, so send out some reparation checks.


39 posted on 01/19/2011 12:09:35 PM PST by MrShoop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gman992
"Lincoln's concern was to save the Union, not to save or destroy slavery. Lincoln would save the Union the shortest way he could under the Constitution and by using extra constitutional means.

LINCOLN SAVED THE UNION

40 posted on 01/19/2011 12:11:36 PM PST by ReverendJames (Only A Lawyer, A Painter, A Politician And The Media Can Change Black To White)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: bt579

Not to re-fight the war 150 years later, but the Confederacy fought mostly on its home turf, and higher casualties are almost always found among those on offense rather than defense.


41 posted on 01/19/2011 12:11:48 PM PST by cookcounty (Knives, Guns, Enemies and Axx-Kicks: The Gentle Political Speech of Barack Obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

“Fear that Washington would violate Dred Scott did.”

Specifically in the South, I mean.


42 posted on 01/19/2011 12:12:59 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: SeeSharp
In his new book, Forced Into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream, black American author, Lerone Bennett, presents historic evidence supporting the theory that Abraham Lincoln was, in fact,a devoted racist harboring a life-long desire to see all black Americans deported to Africa. Bennett suggests that as a young politician in Illinois, Lincoln regularly used racial slurs in speeches, told racial jokes to his black servants, and vocally opposed any new laws that would have bettered the lives of black Americans.
43 posted on 01/19/2011 12:13:46 PM PST by bt579 (Liberals need women dependent and scared so that women, like blacks, will vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
See my post to gman992

(ps - did you do some traveling in the East?)

44 posted on 01/19/2011 12:14:00 PM PST by ReverendJames (Only A Lawyer, A Painter, A Politician And The Media Can Change Black To White)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: bt579

Oh brother.....did you win the war? That is all that matters. Don’t try to change history. Saying I sound like Obama does not change facts.


45 posted on 01/19/2011 12:14:09 PM PST by napscoordinator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51

“But his words are not my words.”

I was addressing the author. Happened to be posted to you because you posted the article.


46 posted on 01/19/2011 12:14:41 PM PST by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51

Well, if the Washington Post prints it, it must be true... but that aside, what too many people COMPLETELY overlook is that the South didn’t go to war over anything... it declared independence from the North, for whatever reasons people wish to argue, and only FOUGHT BACK when occupied or otherwise made war upon by the North! That’s a distinction that cannot be stressed enough. It was a war of independence, same as the 13 colonies separating from Britain. Second, and just as important, is why the North started the war in the first place. Anyone who thinks it was to wipe out slavery flunks American history outright. It was entirely about “preserving the union,” much the same way Turkey wanted to preserve their “union” when the Balkan states began agitating for independence. Honest Abe himself said that if he could preserve the union by freeing all of the slaves, some of the slaves, or none of the slaves... he would do it. Holding the nascent empire together was the only thing that mattered in the end.


47 posted on 01/19/2011 12:15:10 PM PST by Chiltepe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51

The reason the States seceded was States Rights and the Morill Tax.

Like Democratic politicians of this very day and age, the issue was brought to false importance by Lincoln as a way to gain support for his over-the-top, slash and burn, scorched earth policy against American citizens who were fairly exercising their Constitutional rights. Lincoln stated the reason he could not allow secession was that the government simply could not survive on its own resources in the North. “The Great Emancipator” only became inured of the defense of freeing the slaves as a political ploy.

Here are some of Lincoln’s comments on African-Americans before it became politically expedient for him to change them.

Abraham Lincoln Quote

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”

African-Americans have been allowing themselves to be bought and sold by politicians ever since.

http://www.ashevilletribune.com/archives/censored-truths/Morrill%20Tariff.html


48 posted on 01/19/2011 12:15:26 PM PST by Aleya2Fairlie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane

Understood. Sorry for the confusion.


49 posted on 01/19/2011 12:17:09 PM PST by kosciusko51
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: kosciusko51

The Confederate states’ secession documents are fairly straightforward in identifying the single biggest cause.

Neither side in the war was right; both sides fought for evil reasons.


50 posted on 01/19/2011 12:17:18 PM PST by Sloth (If a tax cut constitutes "spending" then every time I don't rob a bank should count as a "desposit.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-215 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson