Tonight I saw on the tube a story about a black man carrying a Confederate Battle Flag across the south. He is doing this to show that the CBF is not a sign of racism but a flag that people carried into battle fighting for an ideal (States Rights).

The politically correct crowd is trying to rewrite history. The PC version of the events of 1861-1865 is that that war was fought over slavery. This is false. On the first of January 1863, Abe Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation which freed the slaves in Union controled areas. This proclamation almost brought the war to a halt because of mass desertions from both armies. The average soldier on both sides was not interested in fighting to free slaves. The Northern soldiers were fighting to "preserve the Union", the Southern soldiers were fighting for "States Rights". The irony is that the Confederacy had a law exempting anyone who owned seven or more slaves from military service. Only a moron would believe that some poor dirt farmer would voluntarily go to war and fight for the right of the rich landowners to keep slaves. Let us not forget that the thirty-year veteran of the United States Army, Colonel Robert E. Lee, resigned his commission (after he was offered command of the entire Union Army) to go be a part of the Army of Northern Virginia (his home State). Jefferson Davis (President of the Confederacy) also offered Lee command of the Confederate Army and Lee declined that offer for the same reason. Lee felt that he was a Virginian first. This is the best example of why the War began. The primary issue (there were multiple lesser issues) was States rights. Was the State government supreme, or was the Federal government supreme. This is why the War fought between 1861-1865 is called the Civil war by the North, and the War Between the States in the South. The Southern terminology is correct. However, the North won, and the winners write the history books.

Nox

Isn't the war also called "The War of Northern Aggression" by Southerners? I've heard that term somewhere.

Good post.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
Isn't the war also called "The War of Northern Aggression" by Southerners? I've heard that term somewhere.

Good post.

---

The civil war IS called the war of northern aggression by some really stupid southerners.

On the issue, what I know is this:
Yes, the war was fought over state's rights for the southerners and succession for the northerners.

However the cause for the succession of the south WAS the issue of slavery, and the paranoia of southerners who thought that lincoln wanted to take away the slaves. (he wanted to stop the spread of slavery to the territories.) This gives some validity to the idea that the war was over slavery. My point is that the cause for the war is a grey area, not one of black and white.


Homer

Nox!

Very interesting. I was, of course, fed the official version too, in school. Since then I�ve understood that it�s wrong. But never how, much less what the real story is. You managed to explain both in one post. Thanks!

FoxLeonard

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
Isn't the war also called "The War of Northern Aggression" by Southerners?

---

Yes, and not just by a few. If you want to find real hatred of the North, just take any road from Atlanta to Savannah and stop and talk to the folks along the way.

You're welcome Fox. You have taught me much, glad to return the favor.

Nox

Homer, why do you think it's stupid for southerners to call it the War of Northern Aggression?

Slavery was one of the breakings straws on the horses back (even if it weren't really the main issue) though, right? or am I still just regurgitating everything I've been force fed?

I believe that it's the right of a state to wave the confederate flag on it's capital building.

However, I do acknowledge the United States as a Union, and I completely disagree with the idea that it's the right of a state to secede from this Union for rights to commit immoral acts. While Robert E. Lee had loyalty to his state, I consider loyalty to one United Country more important and productive then the backward survivalist attitude behind the rights of individual States. Therefore, I completely support the actions taken by the North in the civil war, and would do so again if a state attempting to secede from the Union for no purpose other then to deny it's citizens certain rights.

If a state were to secede for the purpose of preserving it's culture, I'd have to consider the situation more thoughtfully., which is an argument that can be made in defence of Southern hatred of the North.

I was taught that the war was fought over economic issues, primary that the North was just going to ignore the economic needs and concerns of the South. The South had obvious reason to fear this as there were slightly more states opposed to slavery than for it. The North was not responsive to the Souths needs and to the South, the North seemed on the verge of passing some "very bad" laws. This is how I was taught it, correct me or offer opinions, but this all does tie back into the states rights issue.

That is an intresting point NOX but because the north one all slaves who were commonly black were freed as a result so in some respects it was faught for the slave community at that present time even though soldiers did not wish to fight for that cause but still fought for their homeland.

mysterychick..ps sorry about my (sp)

it is stupid to call the civil war the war of northern aggression, because the first shots in the civil war were shot by who..... Oh yeah, the south.

Homer

quote:

---

Originally posted by mysterychick:
That is an intresting point NOX but because the north one all slaves who were commonly black were freed as a result

---

It appears that we are going off on a tangent of slavery so I'll ride that pony for a while.

As an institution, slavery was dying in this country until our friend Eli Whitney invented the Cotton Gin in 1793 (patented 1794). With the advent of that device, slavery really became profitable. The number of slaves in this country was declining steadily until then. The climatology of the south was such that a slave could provide useful labor for more of the year than was possible in the north. One problem with slavery is that the slave must be fed the entire year, not just when productive labor is performed. The north had its share of slaves (although it's not PC to talk about it since slavery was a disease of the south) many of whom helped build the ports and docks (not to mention Wall Street) of New York City. But the winters in the north precluded extensive use of slaves because of the sheer lack of cost/effectiveness and slavery was a minor factor in the overall labor market in the north.

However, in the south, tobacco was labor intensive and the European demand for a good smoke (coupled with local demand) ensured that a mediocum of slavery would persist in this country for some time. However, in the Caribbean, slavery was off to the races. Sugar cane is a labor intensive crop (especially during harvest and refining) and then there were the ever popular diseases called malaria and yellow fever.

A favorite Hollywood theme is the severe beatings inflicted on the slaves. While there is truth about the practice, common sense dictates otherwise. Example: I own you. I have paid money for you. You are a capital investment for me. The only way I get a return for my capital investment is for you to work. It is not in my best interest to disable you which will prevent you from working. I must continue to provide you food and the necessities for life (however meager). You as the slave are only interested in staying alive and obtaining freedom. A return for my capital investment does not even appear on your radar screen.

My point: Slavery is a totally inefficient means of labor. However, the cotton gin eliminated the most labor intensive portion of growing cotton (removal of the seeds and husks from the cotton balls) and finally made slavery in this country profitable (it already was in the Caribbean). But agrarian slavery was where the profit was.

This sermon is too long already. I'll do volume two later if anyone cares.

Nox

i read somewhere that although the north won the war casualities in nothern side were more than in the southern side
i find this weird for a war could someone please tell me if it's true ?

FINALLY! As a southern boy, it sickens me everytime I hear someone go off on the injected federal jargon about what the Civil War was all about. You hit it right on the head Nox, with little for me to include except this.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN WAS A RACIST! He didn't think blacks and whites are equal. There's a little known quote from Lincoln in which he says:

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. "

That was the measure of his resolve. He wanted to maintain the Union of our great country. While the North definatley imposed upon its rights, and they definatley defied the constitution, the South shouldn't have seceeded.

The whole concept is similar as to what everyone says concerning Thomas Jefferson. People say "How could he be a slave owner, and still be so anti-slavery? How could he be a slave owner and still take a black woman as a lover?" Did Jefferson think they should be free? Yes, but he didn't think they were equal. He thought they should be freed and sent back to Africa. As to why he owned the slaves, was because he wanted to be a suitable husband and plantationer(?) to his wife. He also thought he could give the slaves better treatment if he owned them, but the only ones to recieve any specific special treatment was Sally Hemings and their illegitimate children.

quote:

---

He thought they should be freed and sent back to Africa.

---

Why didn't he do this? I'm sure the blacks would have loved to be totally free of the oppression of the white man keeping them down by having the chance to return to The Motherland.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TheMouse:
Why didn't he do this?

---

Mouse,

You forget one small point, the timing. Jefferson was President after the invention of the cotton gin. At that point it was too late...slavery was profitable.

Nox

NOX i asked a question could you please answer it since no one answered me!?

quote:

---

Originally posted by princecharmant1980:
[b]NOX i asked a question could you please answer it since no one answered me!?[/B]

---

Google can give you numbers. The numbers will probably be wrong. As in any internal conflict accurate 'body counts' are difficult. At that period of our history, the folks on 'graves detail' were not always our 'best and brightest'. They had the singular job of planting victims. Ciphering was not a requirement for the job. It is my guess that if you could cipher, you were too smart for the job.

Nox

The North had a higher population.

quote:

---

Originally posted by VeneFrigus:
The North had a higher population.

---

And way more supplies to supply the soldiers.

Homer