Don't spin the Civil War

Washington Post ^ | 12.27.10 | E.J. DIONNE jR.

[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.

[trumandogz]

“Are you saying that blacks did not own slaves themselves?”

How on earth did you get that from a post that documented how succession and the Civil War was in fact about slavery?

[goat granny]

I think there were a lot of indentured servants that never got their freedom. These were from europe and I believe from the orient...

[trumandogz]

The condition of one human owning another human is reprehensible and disgusting, regardless of the color of the slave owner.

[Othniel]

If the citizens of the states considered allegiance to their state trumping that of the federal gvt, as in the case of Lee, then if they vote to be admitted, then vote to leave, it is under the assumption that they have read the Constitution and agree to its rules. If the states back then weren't looked as as individual entities, then why was the expression, 'The United States are' instead of 'The United States is'? Big distinction, according to Shelby Foote and other historians.

Or were the states that came in later duped in some way?

[goat granny]

golly wogs and wart hogs, I learned that in school pre 1950. But your many posts are really hard to follow, somewhere it fits into what you post LOL

I guess when slavery is mentioned, many factets of it get written about... /But did you know blacks held slaves and some white indentured servents never got out of their indentured position due to corrupt owners...

[trumandogz]

“We should have told them all to “shove it” and fought a guerilla war until they were choking on their own blood!”

And how long after this “guerilla war” should the South have mantained slavery?

[goat granny]

I haven't read one freeper that said it was a good idea.

But you sure have a right to bring it up as I did on black slave owners and white indentured servents..

My comment to you was a FYI incase you were educated by the politically correct.

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

blacks also fought against the north.

Yep. There was a thread about that a few months ago and the yankees were going crazy (especially NS) saying how it just couldn't possibly be true! lol.

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

Thanks!

[Repeal The 17th]

Thanks!

[trumandogz]

Please explain to me how blacks owning slaves somehow absolves the Candidacy of the sin of slavery.

[rockrr]

That’s not what he said. He rebutted the spurious claims and asked for verification of the numbers asserted.

LOL

[central_va]

If for some reason(miracle) Jeff Davis pulled a fast one on the Lanky Yankee and AGREED to the emancipation proclamation, freed all the slaves in the “states currently in rebellion” (I really like that part), do you think the North would have granted the South’s wishes for independence? Also, do you think the South would have givin up the “cause”? My contention is nothing would have changed except the Southern Army would have been a hell of a lot bigger.

[Thumper1960]

The “Civil” war is long over. The South lost. Slavery was ended as an institution of oppression.

Is it that Southerners are stupid, ignorant, obstinate, delusional, a combination or all those traits and more.

You’re still Americans, living under the United States Constitution, duty bound to pledge allegiance to the Stars and Stripes. Any time you wish to change that, go ahead....pick up a weapon and make my day, pussies.

Failing that, hit the road, cross the border, renounce your citizenship, re-locate to some other territory more “worthy” of your presence. Because, at this point, all of your whining and crying over a war you did not participate in nor fully understand is wasted energy. Instead of dealing with the here and now, you pitch a fit over an event of 150 years ago.

Grow up.

[rustbucket]

Dionne would do well to read Lincoln's own speeches about the root causes of the conflict, starting with his Inaugural Address of March 4, 1861.

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.

If the object of Lincoln's first inaugural speech was to promote peace and reconciliation between the two sections of the country, it failed miserably. It has been years since I posted a link to my old thread of how newspapers North and South interpreted the speech. The differences between the responses of the North and South were profound. Here is the link to short excerpts from those old editorials: Lincoln's First Inaugural Speech.

What was Lincoln's objective with that speech? If he were as smart as his supporters think him to be, why was he poking the South in the eye with a stick? Did he not realize how his speech would go over in the South? My interpretation is that he did in fact know how his speech would play in the South. His objective was war, not peace. He wanted to unite the North behind him to force the South back into the "voluntary" Union.

[sergeantdave]

“Can you quote the legislation that required that?”

The Republicans passed the Reconstruction Act of 1867, which set the conditions the Southern states had to accept before they could be readmitted to the union, including ratification of the 14th Amendment.

Congress also declared that southern states needed to redraft their constitutions, ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, and provide suffrage to blacks in order to seek readmission into the Union. To further safeguard voting rights for former slaves, Republicans passed the Second Reconstruction Act, placing Union troops in charge of voter registration. Congress overrode two presidential vetoes from Johnson to pass the bills.

[central_va]

A Federal Boot Lick has spoken.

Tell me, do you even know the name of your State legislature Senator in your district? Most people have to google it to find out. If you do my hats off to you, because about 98% of the time, nobody knows. That is how out of whack this Federal Usurpation has made us. Our republic has been turned on its head.

[central_va]

Based on your experience, is this dude doing it correctly?

[Cvengr]

One thing at a time.

Most voting privileges were reserved for landowners.

[mac_truck]

...blacks also fought against the north.

There were blacks in service to the confederate army, but there weren't any black confederate soldiers. The blacks that served the confederacy were either slaves or servants and they certainly were never given the status of soldiers or issued weapons. That is why the revisonist literature you read just calls them "black confederates" , and says things like blacks "marched with" or "alongside" the boys in Grey or some such nonsense. Its all part of the same myth you've been fed your whole life.