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 ...
Find some cover. The lead’s about to fly.
}:-)4
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?
“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.
He's a sociologist, not an historian.
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:
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.
Liars, racists, what’s the difference?
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!
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.
Living in the North and having relatives in the South, I’d say the South has risen again and won.
The Socialists running Wall Street drove the South to secede.
I like the clever way the reporter ties slave holders to people who support the Bush tax cuts. (sigh)
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.
The conerstone of the southern confederacy was slavery. A good book is David Barton’s American history in Black and White
The whole thing with Lincoln going to war was to preserve the Union. The slavery issue was not a factor at the time.
Got that? Supporting tax cuts is like supporting slavery.
Who cares. The south got there A$$ handed to them. Why they want to glorify a war they lost is beyond me.
“WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US.” - Pogo
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.