Liberal Revisionist History myths - Page 2 - TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
BugAC
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2007
18573 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

You can't just ignore the slavery bit and be taken seriously.


You are correct. Because the North benefited from slavery every bit as much as the south. Slavery was cheap labor to produce a good. That good was bought by northern states.

But slavery wasn't the issue. If it was, then why did the Emancipation proclamation go into effect in 1863, yet the south seceded in 1860, during Buchanan's presidency?

quote:

JAMES BUCHANAN presided over the exodus from the Union. Although he thought secession to be illegal, he found using the army in this case to be unconstitutional.


No one can predict if slavery would have lasted. Most people believe slavery would have eventually been eliminated within 10 years of Lincoln's election.






Back to top
RollTide1987
Alabama Fan
Aurora, CO
Member since Nov 2009
24720 posts
 Online 

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

Think again


I don't need to. Just read the Declaration of Secession for the states of Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi. They all say that the reason why they seceded was to protect the institution of slavery.







Back to top
  Replies (0)
Blue Velvet
Colorado State Fan
Kenai, Alaska
Member since Nov 2009
15525 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


"The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals. No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle --- but only in degree --- between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure." – Lysander Spooner





Back to top
junkfunky
LSU Fan
Member since Jan 2011
14103 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

"The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals. No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle --- but only in degree --- between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure." – Lysander Spooner




Has there ever been a war that wasn't about power?






Back to top
  Replies (0)
BugAC
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2007
18573 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


I will add, slavery was a part of it, but was not the only issue.





Back to top
RollTide1987
Alabama Fan
Aurora, CO
Member since Nov 2009
24720 posts
 Online 

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

But slavery wasn't the issue. If it was, then why did the Emancipation proclamation go into effect in 1863, yet the south seceded in 1860, during Buchanan's presidency?



Slavery was the issue from the very start. When the South started to secede, the Northern politicians did EVERYTHING in their power to placate them. They tried to organize talks in Washington to assure the South that slavery would remain in place, some in Congress went so far as to propose a constitutional amendment to guarantee slavery's survival. The Emancipation Proclamation wasn't so much an abolishment of slavery as it was an ultimatum. Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in September 1862, just shortly after the Battle of Antietam. It essentially said, you have until January 1, 1863 to rejoin the Union. If you do that, slavery will be allowed to remain intact. If not...slavery is gone forever.

Why would the North be making these overtures and ultimatums if they didn't think the South seceded to protect the institution of slavery?







Back to top
BugAC
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2007
18573 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

1. Economic and social differences between the North and the South.

With Eli Whitney’s invention of the cotton gin in 1793, cotton became very profitable. This machine was able to reduce the time it took to separate seeds from the cotton. However, at the same time the increase in the number of plantations willing to move from other crops to cotton meant the greater need for a large amount of cheap labor, i.e. slaves. Thus, the southern economy became a one crop economy, depending on cotton and therefore on slavery. On the other hand, the northern economy was based more on industry than agriculture. In fact, the northern industries were purchasing the raw cotton and turning it into finished goods. This disparity between the two set up a major difference in economic attitudes. The South was based on the plantation system while the North was focused on city life. This change in the North meant that society evolved as people of different cultures and classes had to work together. On the other hand, the South continued to hold onto an antiquated social order.


quote:

2. States versus federal rights.

Since the time of the Revolution, two camps emerged: those arguing for greater states rights and those arguing that the federal government needed to have more control. The first organized government in the US after the American Revolution was under the Articles of Confederation. The thirteen states formed a loose confederation with a very weak federal government. However, when problems arose, the weakness of this form of government caused the leaders of the time to come together at the Constitutional Convention and create, in secret, the US Constitution. Strong proponents of states rights like Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were not present at this meeting. Many felt that the new constitution ignored the rights of states to continue to act independently. They felt that the states should still have the right to decide if they were willing to accept certain federal acts. This resulted in the idea of nullification, whereby the states would have the right to rule federal acts unconstitutional. The federal government denied states this right. However, proponents such as John C. Calhoun fought vehemently for nullification. When nullification would not work and states felt that they were no longer respected, they moved towards secession.


quote:

3. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.

As America began to expand, first with the lands gained from the Louisiana Purchase and later with the Mexican War, the question of whether new states admitted to the union would be slave or free. The Missouri Compromise passed in 1820 made a rule that prohibited slavery in states from the former Louisiana Purchase the latitude 36 degrees 30 minutes north except in Missouri. During the Mexican War, conflict started about what would happen with the new territories that the US expected to gain upon victory. David Wilmot proposed the Wilmot Proviso in 1846 which would ban slavery in the new lands. However, this was shot down to much debate. The Compromise of 1850 was created by Henry Clay and others to deal with the balance between slave and free states, northern and southern interests. One of the provisions was the fugitive slave act that was discussed in number one above. Another issue that further increased tensions was the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. It created two new territories that would allow the states to use popular sovereignty to determine whether they would be free or slave. The real issue occurred in Kansas where proslavery Missourians began to pour into the state to help force it to be slave. They were called “Border Ruffians.” Problems came to a head in violence at Lawrence Kansas. The fighting that occurred caused it to be called “Bleeding Kansas.” The fight even erupted on the floor of the senate when antislavery proponent Charles Sumner was beat over the head by South Carolina’s Senator Preston Brooks


quote:

4. Growth of the Abolition Movement.

Increasingly, the northerners became more polarized against slavery. Sympathies began to grow for abolitionists and against slavery and slaveholders. This occurred especially after some major events including: the publishing of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin, the Dred Scott Case, John Brown’s Raid, and the passage of the fugitive slave act that held individuals responsible for harboring fugitive slaves even if they were located in non-slave states.

5. The election of Abraham Lincoln.

Even though things were already coming to a head, when Lincoln was elected in 1860, South Carolina issued its “Declaration of the Causes of Secession.” They believed that Lincoln was anti-slavery and in favor of Northern interests. Before Lincoln was even president, seven states had seceded from the Union: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas.






Back to top
  Replies (0)
RollTide1987
Alabama Fan
Aurora, CO
Member since Nov 2009
24720 posts
 Online 

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

I will add, slavery was a part of it, but was not the only issue.



This is true but it is also intellectually dishonest. Only a fool believes that the Civil War would have happened without the existence of slavery.







Back to top
junkfunky
LSU Fan
Member since Jan 2011
14103 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

Slavery was the issue from the very start.



quote:

Only a fool believes that the Civil War would have happened without the existence of slavery.




You have way too much faith in politicians.



This post was edited on 11/20 at 11:51 am


Back to top
  Replies (0)
BugAC
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2007
18573 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

This is true but it is also intellectually dishonest. Only a fool believes that the Civil War would have happened without the existence of slavery.


It could be argued that the Civil War would not have existed without the election of Abraham Lincoln as well.







Back to top
RollTide1987
Alabama Fan
Aurora, CO
Member since Nov 2009
24720 posts
 Online 

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

It could be argued that the Civil War would not have existed without the election of Abraham Lincoln as well.



It could have been William Seward and the South would have still seceded. If a Republican won the White House the result would have been exactly the same.







Back to top
junkfunky
LSU Fan
Member since Jan 2011
14103 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

It could be argued that the Civil War would not have existed without the election of Abraham Lincoln as well.


And slavery would probably have died out on its own during the next 40 years due to the birth of industry.



This post was edited on 11/20 at 11:54 am


Back to top
davesdawgs
Georgia Fan
Georgia - Class of '75
Member since Oct 2008
17132 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

So you would have been completely okay with slavery extending its life into the 20th Century?



No, I was referring to the Industrial Revolution which extended from roughly 1750 to 1850. I suppose it's possible that slavery could have extended into the early 1900's but most likely mechanization and natural social change throughout the world would have caused the South to eliminate slavery on its own.

So you consider that immediately freeing slaves was worth the cost of 600 thousand plus American lives and the political repercussions that live on to this day?






Back to top
  Replies (0)
bamafan1001
Alabama Fan
Member since Jun 2011
2393 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

Again, your angle is the revision. The reason there was a north and south was slavery. The reason the South feared the Fed was because of the threat to slavery - nothing more nothing less. I find it pathetic that 21st century southerners are wasting time trying to justify a blot on our history.


Pardon me if I refuse to damn my ancestors despite the fact that they didnt own any slaves. Only the very rich were able to own slaves.






Back to top
RollTide1987
Alabama Fan
Aurora, CO
Member since Nov 2009
24720 posts
 Online 

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

And slavery would probably have died out on its own during the next 40 years due to the birth of industry.



The South should have thought of that before they seceded then.







Back to top
RollTide1987
Alabama Fan
Aurora, CO
Member since Nov 2009
24720 posts
 Online 

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

Pardon me if I refuse to damn my ancestors despite the fact that they didnt own any slaves. Only the very rich were able to own slaves.



My ancestors DID own slaves and I don't damn them. There's no reason to. It was 150 years ago and what's past is past. I just don't let their actions define me. They were in the wrong, however, and that's all that matters.




This post was edited on 11/20 at 11:55 am


Back to top
  Replies (0)
BugAC
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2007
18573 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

It could have been William Seward and the South would have still seceded


I'm not talking secession, i'm talking civil war.






Back to top
RollTide1987
Alabama Fan
Aurora, CO
Member since Nov 2009
24720 posts
 Online 

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

I'm not talking secession, i'm talking civil war.



They are linked. When South Carolina seceded on December 20, 1860, war became inevitable.







Back to top
Patrick O Rly
New Orleans Saints Fan
y u do dis?
Member since Aug 2011
38223 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

Only a fool believes that the Civil War would have happened without the existence of slavery.


The roots for the civil war was laid after the revolution between the federalist and the anti-federalist.







Back to top
  Replies (0)
Patrick O Rly
New Orleans Saints Fan
y u do dis?
Member since Aug 2011
38223 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

"The principle, on which the war was waged by the North, was simply this: That men may rightfully be compelled to submit to, and support, a government that they do not want; and that resistance, on their part, makes them traitors and criminals. No principle, that is possible to be named, can be more self-evidently false than this; or more self-evidently fatal to all political freedom. Yet it triumphed in the field, and is now assumed to be established. If it really be established, the number of slaves, instead of having been diminished by the war, has been greatly increased; for a man, thus subjected to a government that he does not want, is a slave. And there is no difference, in principle --- but only in degree --- between political and chattel slavery. The former, no less than the latter, denies a man's ownership of himself and the products of his labor; and asserts that other men may own him, and dispose of him and his property, for their uses, and at their pleasure." – Lysander Spooner


Amen.






Back to top
  Replies (0)


Back to top