Liberal Revisionist History myths - Page 4 - TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
Patrick O Rly
New Orleans Saints Fan
y u do dis?
Member since Aug 2011
36966 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

The Tariff of Abominations was passed in 1828 and was completely off the political landscape by the mid-1830s. I can assure you that the word on everyone's lips in November 1860 was not "tariffs". It was another word that you choose to ignore.


Slavery? I'm not ignoring it. It was a huge factor. Don't confuse me with someone else. But in my view, the point of the war was to attack the southern states economy and subjugate them to the federal government in order to preserve the goal of creating an empire.






Back to top
RollTide1987
Alabama Fan
Pensacola, Florida
Member since Nov 2009
24051 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:


Why could that issue not have been decided by the Courts?



It was....in White v. Texas (1869) .

Can you please give me a good reason as to why the Southern Confederacy would have rejoined the Union if the Supreme Court would have ruled secession unconstitutional?

quote:

If the South had not fired on Sumpter, Lincoln could never have raised an Army to conquer the South. And there was no need to maintain the Federal presence in Sumpter, which the north could not do anyway if war broke out.



If it wasn't Fort Sumter it would have been somewhere else down the line. More than likely it would have been Fort Pickens in Florida or Fortress Monroe in Virginia.






Back to top
kingbob
LSU Fan
St. Amant, LA
Member since Nov 2010
17157 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


An army of Kiges could not agree with this enough






Back to top
RollTide1987
Alabama Fan
Pensacola, Florida
Member since Nov 2009
24051 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

But in my view, the point of the war was to attack the southern states economy and subjugate them to the federal government in order to preserve the goal of creating an empire.


There wouldn't have been a war had the South not seceded. They seceded to protect the institution of slavery. They didn't secede over some stupid tariff. Slavery WAS the Southern economy.






Back to top
CarrolltonTiger
LSU Fan
New Orleans
Member since Aug 2005
46291 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

They didn't secede over some stupid tariff. Slavery WAS the Southern economy.


And the north took 40 or 50 years to rid itself of Slavery largely by selling their blacks down the river or granting freedom when they became elderly and of no economic value, then often putting barriers to the mere presence of free blacks in their jurisdiction.


Then the South was to abandon its capital (which the North transported, mortgaged, insured, etc.) for no compensation, really no political plan there, just a love of freedom and equality.






Back to top
Patrick O Rly
New Orleans Saints Fan
y u do dis?
Member since Aug 2011
36966 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

There wouldn't have been a war had the South not seceded.


Agreed.

quote:

They seceded to protect the institution of slavery. Slavery WAS the Southern economy.


I agree. Why wouldn't they try to protect it? Why wouldn't they secede if they North kept trying to undermine it?

quote:

They didn't secede over some stupid tariff.


I didn't say it was, but tensions didn't happen over night. Tariffs can be an act of war. So can elections, which a couple of contentious elections sparks rumors of civil war.






Back to top
Scrowe
New Orleans Saints Fan
Louisiana
Member since Mar 2010
1371 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

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?


This is rather contradictary.

You say it was about all about slavery yet you say that the Union was trying to assure the South that slavery would remain in place. Then you go on to say the EP was an ultimatum to get the South back and would preserve slavery. If the South was only leaving for slavery and that was no longer an issue since the Union was going to preserve it, then what were they leaving for after the EP? Seems like your statements ensures it was about more than slavery.






Back to top
udtiger
LSU Fan
Louisiana
Member since Nov 2006
23891 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


States' right for their citizenry to own property.





Back to top
kingbob
LSU Fan
St. Amant, LA
Member since Nov 2010
17157 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


The lead up to the war itself is a very fascinating time. Secession was meant to be a peaceful process. Many federal garrisons peacefully and honorably handed over their forts to state forces and were allowed to leave with their arms, munitions, and lives intact. The head of Ft. Sumpter was prepared to do the same when the word from Washington came in to stand their ground and not give up the fort. The Union and Confederate leaders at that battle were good friends and harbored no animosity towards each other. The same was often true of the soldiers on each side.

Lincoln ordering his commander not to stand down forced Beauregard to have to fire on the fort according to the rules of engagement. It was Lincoln ordering his troops not to stand down that caused the war.

If Lincoln had allowed his troops to stand down, the South would have left the union without a single life being lost. Lincoln could not let this happen as the South's tax revenue was far too important (South Carolina alone accounted for 1/3 of all federal tax receipts at the time). What Lincoln should have done was allow them to secede, watch the horribly framed government the South established lead the country towards economic collapse, and then allow them to be readmitted one by one peacefully on the condition that they give up their slaves. No one dies, you get the same end result, and you make the same point albeit with far less resentment and economic destruction.






Back to top
Turbeauxdog
LSU Fan
Member since Aug 2004
5669 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


Whole lot of justification for tyranny in this thread, rather than arguing the tyranny occurred.





Back to top
Patrick O Rly
New Orleans Saints Fan
y u do dis?
Member since Aug 2011
36966 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


There was tyranny on both sides. The south's was more visible. The north's had more long term consequences.





Back to top
CarrolltonTiger
LSU Fan
New Orleans
Member since Aug 2005
46291 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

Many federal garrisons peacefully and honorably handed over their forts to state forces and were allowed to leave with their arms, munitions, and lives intact.


Beyond that the military cut orders allowing Southern officers and men to return to their states, even provided transportation for them and their families to return home. Very unusual behavior if the War Department did not recognize secession as a right and thought as these departures as a rebellion.

Secession was taught as a right under the Constitution at West Point pre civil war.

The great patriots in New England had threatened secession in 1812, when the war with the British was against their regional financial interest.






Back to top
GumboPot
LSU Fan
Saints Fan
Member since Mar 2009
23936 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

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


The obvious answer is an emphatic NO. However the trade off is ~30 more years slavey (that would have went away through legislative and economic pressure) verus the death of +620,000 Americans. And you choose the latter?

We have process for solving our differences in this country and it's through the voting booth and legislatures. NOT WAR.






Back to top
RollTide1987
Alabama Fan
Pensacola, Florida
Member since Nov 2009
24051 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

Why wouldn't they try to protect it? Why wouldn't they secede if they North kept trying to undermine it?


Because it was immoral, unjust, and wrong. And the North was not trying to undermine it. You talk to your average Joe in 1860 and a lot of them would tell you they were opposed to the immediate abolition of slavery because they didn't want freedmen coming north to take their jobs. However, they were opposed to the westward expansion of slavery and, for the most part, favored gradual emancipation.

The South, however, went overboard with the Election of 1860, ignored the assurances of their Northern cousins that slavery, as it existed in the South, would not be touched, and seceded from the Union. They perceived an imminent threat that was just not there.




This post was edited on 11/20 at 1:12 pm


Back to top
Ace Midnight
LSU Fan
Ball, LA - Home, Sweet Home
Member since Dec 2006
29074 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

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


Slavery was already obsolete in 1861. Slavery had until about 1875 or 1880, at the latest. I'm against it, but the great american "compromise" didn't happen which resulted in the conflagration.

Out of the 2 unpleasant choices, I would have taken allowing slavery (horrible as it was) to extend to 1875 or 1880 to prevent the war. However, there is a 3rd alternative - the feds could have come to some arrangement with the slaveholders (most of whom were sick of the "peculiar institution" themselves, but were unable to extricate themselves from the financial entanglement of slavery) - land in the territories out west, cash, tax credits, SOMETHING to replace the value of the slaves, and there could have been a compromise or "phase out" of slavery that would have been preferable to the US Civil War OR extension of slavery an additional 15 to 20 years.

Nevertheless, most Southerners did not fight to preserve slavery. However, many Northerners did see it as a crusade to free the slaves. Slavery was a factor in the conflict, but ultimately, it was a (failed) test of whether the states retained any real sovereignty in the United States. The real reason the war was actually fought was a failed compromise on the slavery issue forced everybody's hand. That's why when a nation feels it is compelled to act in a certain way, but its immediate safety is not threated, the very best action is to calm down and think everything out very carefully.






Back to top
Patrick O Rly
New Orleans Saints Fan
y u do dis?
Member since Aug 2011
36966 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

Because it was immoral, unjust, and wrong.


I agree, but they say them as property.

quote:

And the North was not trying to undermine it.


Yeah, sure.






Back to top
Tyrusrex
LSU Fan
Member since Jul 2011
330 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


There's almost a perfect corollary between Slavery and secession. The states with the highest levels of slavery were most in favor of secession. This even went down to the county level, as the counties that make up West Virginia seceded from Virginia, and some counties with low levels of slavery in the Deep South wanted to remain with the Union.

Slavery was the ultimate underlying issue.

Was the Civil War worth it? I don't know. I do know that slavery was wrong. We can argue that slavery would've eventually died out on it's own. But no one can say that for sure. Sharecropping, which is essentially the same exact labor as slavery existed well into the 20th century. And even if slavery eventually dies out, most likely race relations and Jim Crow laws would be severely set back.






Back to top
RollTide1987
Alabama Fan
Pensacola, Florida
Member since Nov 2009
24051 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

I agree, but they say them as property.



No excuse at all.

quote:

Yeah, sure.



Yeah...I know I'm right because Northern politicians spent the months between December 1860 and and April 1861 trying to get them to see reason. They guaranteed slavery could remain intact. Abraham Lincoln said this over and over. Republicans and Democrats went so far as proposing an Amendment to protect the institution of slavery. The South wouldn't listen and remained a separate entity.




This post was edited on 11/20 at 1:40 pm


Back to top
CarrolltonTiger
LSU Fan
New Orleans
Member since Aug 2005
46291 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

But no one can say that for sure.


I'm pretty sure you can with great certainty, Romania got rid of Roma slavery a few years later, Cuba and Brazil ended the practice not much later and they were more dependent on slave labor, other than in Black Africa, pretty hard to find real chattel slavery anywhere for the past 140 years.

With the progress of mechanization and potential of more efficient Italian labor, the South would have gladly gotten rid of its unique inefficient institution in a few years.






Back to top
RollTide1987
Alabama Fan
Pensacola, Florida
Member since Nov 2009
24051 posts

re: Liberal Revisionist History myths


quote:

With the progress of mechanization and potential of more efficient Italian labor, the South would have gladly gotten rid of its unique inefficient institution in a few years.



Inefficient? It was a $7 billion industry in 1860 which, when adjusted for inflation, is in the hundreds of billions of dollars in today's money.







Back to top


Back to top




//