Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 10/29/2013 3:22:30 PM EST
Some of you guys went to school at a earlier year then me. Has slavery always been taught as the main cause of the civil war or is that a relatively new thing?
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:23:34 PM EST
That's what they taught when I was in school 20 years ago.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:24:49 PM EST

I'm 55 and was taught that the war of northern aggression was about slavery.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:24:54 PM EST
In public schools during the 1970s, yes.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:25:04 PM EST
Originally Posted By saigamanTX:
Some of you guys went to school at a earlier year then me. Has slavery always been taught as the main cause of the civil war or is that a relatively new thing?
View Quote


Of course.... just like always the winners get to re-write the history.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:25:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/29/2013 3:26:32 PM EST by Gastard]
I went through high school in the late 70's . After passing all of that civil rights legislation it's what they were sellin' . Although most southern boys that I have talked to learned it as " the war of northern aggression . "
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:25:37 PM EST
Yes it is because it's the only thing high school kids can grasp the concept of. If you start talking State's Rights with them, they all revert to their socialistic indoctrination upbringing and wonder why States ever got the freedom to have their own government and individual rights.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:25:41 PM EST
In on 1
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:26:12 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/29/2013 3:27:18 PM EST by JosieWales]
Even the Nun's Taught us:

Civil War=States Rights!!

ETA: Sister Sheila
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:28:38 PM EST
It was.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:31:01 PM EST
yep, even a few guys on here that believe that
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:31:22 PM EST
It was purely states' rights. The Yankees brought an ass whooping since they were so tired of hearing the certain states pushing the fugitive slave act through Congress and bitching that the Dred Scott decision was not being effectively enforced in Yankee states. So, they brought a whoopin' - which was also their right.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:31:43 PM EST
Just curious...states' rights to what?
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:32:15 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/29/2013 3:57:02 PM EST by Darkstar117]
Fellow-Citizens of the United States:

IN compliance with a custom as old as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President "before he enters on the execution of this office."
1
I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement.
2
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
3
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
4
I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another.
5
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
6
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution—to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
7
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?
8
Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"?
9
I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.
10
It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our National Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.
11
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
12
Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
13
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
14
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
15
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
16
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and I shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
17
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.
18
The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections.
19
That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?
20
Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?
21
All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.
22
From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.
23
Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession?
24
Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.
25
I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.
26
One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.
27
Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.
28
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
29
The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor.
30
Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.
31
By the frame of the Government under which we live this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years.
32
My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new Administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.
33
In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
34
I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.
View Quote
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:32:17 PM EST
My jr. high history teacher was emphatic that it was NOT about slavery. That the root of the issue was States Rights, and that slavery was the primary topic of disagreement. This was in 1984.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:32:19 PM EST
Graduated H.S. in 1962. That is what I recall. Now I realize I was misled about a lot of things.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:32:31 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By staringback05:
yep, even a few guys on here that believe that
View Quote

More than a few.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:34:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/29/2013 3:37:45 PM EST by weptek911]
The South rebelled and seceded to preserve slavery the North fought to preserve the Union. States rights is a construct of the post war "Lost Cause" revisionist history movement by the defeated rebels.

Slavery was the main reason as much as revisionists like deny it.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:35:38 PM EST
At my children public middle school, I looked at the American history book my kids used to see how they framed the Civil War. I was pleasantly surprised to see Lincoln wasn't painted in the best light and that the south wasn't portrayed with any negativity at all. The slavery issue wasn't the main focus of the Civil War in that book.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:35:46 PM EST
Early on, no. But then Lincoln wasn't worshiped for a long time like he is today. It's always fun to sit back and watch people on this website (who claim to be freedom loving Conservatives) argue what are essentially 1930s era Progressive talking points regarding Lincoln.

Here's the reality: neither side was as pure as the wind-driven snow.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:38:12 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 103:
Early on, no. But then Lincoln wasn't worshiped for a long time like he is today. It's always fun to sit back and watch people on this website (who claim to be freedom loving Conservatives) argue what are essentially 1930s era Progressive talking points regarding Lincoln.

Here's the reality: neither side was as pure as the wind-driven snow.
View Quote
Eh Lincoln was no angel . Just like a lot of presidents we were taught about in history class
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:39:16 PM EST
Its been taught that way for a long time...because its the truth. Yes, it was a battle over State's Rights, the most predominant of which was the right to allow private citizens to own another human being. Twist it however you want, it is what it is.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:41:15 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By weptek911:
The South rebelled and seceded to preserve slavery the North fought to preserve the Union. States rights is a construct of the post war "Lost Cause" revisionist history movement by the defeated rebels.

Slavery was the main reason as much as revisionists like deny it.
View Quote


This is what is taught in the north. The opposite in the south.

So I ask anybody who questions either school of thought.....

How much weight does the 10th Amendment have today?

There you go.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:41:30 PM EST
Is it time for another one of these threads again? These are usually good for people yelling at other people for how their Grandpa was superior to someone else's Grandpa.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:41:42 PM EST
My American history teacher in high school was a civil war buff. She taught us the history leading up to the war. It was pretty clear the Emancipation Proclamation was just a minor foot note to the whole thing.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:42:13 PM EST
I don't remember for certain what I was taught in the 80s and early 90s.

However, what taught me it was about slavery was the Declarations of Causes of Seceding States.

These are inevitably posted in every Civil War thread, and the "states rights" proponents just ignore them like a fart in the wind.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:42:17 PM EST
In for the southern butt hurt
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:43:55 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/29/2013 3:46:04 PM EST by Disintegr8or]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Maccrage:
That's what they taught when I was in school 20 years ago.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Maccrage:
That's what they taught when I was in school 20 years ago.

+1

Damn, I hate seeing that number.


Originally Posted By beardog30:
In for the southern butt hurt



Why? Chances are that our gun laws are currently better than yours, and we are also enjoying nice mild weather at the moment.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:44:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/29/2013 3:49:45 PM EST by Bohr_Adam]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SRT_312:
Its been taught that way for a long time...because its the truth. Yes, it was a battle over State's Rights, the most predominant of which was the right to allow private citizens to own another human being. Twist it however you want, it is what it is.
View Quote



But it wasn't even that. One of the biggest source of heartburn for the seceding states was that anti-slave states were exercising their right to treat slaves - who made it to their territory - as free men, and not return them in accordance with a federal law that had been passed to placate the slavers. The contemporary speeches and statements of the time were full of slavers bitching that Yankees states had no such right, and were obligated to yield to federal authority - an authority they lusted after, and only decided to reject when the tide turned and the power balance shifted.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:45:42 PM EST
As with all wars, in the end, it's always about land and money.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:46:09 PM EST
It was about slavery.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:46:31 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:



But it wasn't even that. One of the biggest source of heartburn for the seceding states had was that anti-slave states were exercising their right to treat slaves who made it to their territory as free men, and not return them in accordance with a federal law that had been passed to placate the slavers. The contemporary speeches and statements of the time were full of slavers bitching that Yankees states had no such right, and were obligated to yield to federal authority - an authority they lusted after, and only decided to reject when the tide turned and the power balance shifted.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By SRT_312:
Its been taught that way for a long time...because its the truth. Yes, it was a battle over State's Rights, the most predominant of which was the right to allow private citizens to own another human being. Twist it however you want, it is what it is.



But it wasn't even that. One of the biggest source of heartburn for the seceding states had was that anti-slave states were exercising their right to treat slaves who made it to their territory as free men, and not return them in accordance with a federal law that had been passed to placate the slavers. The contemporary speeches and statements of the time were full of slavers bitching that Yankees states had no such right, and were obligated to yield to federal authority - an authority they lusted after, and only decided to reject when the tide turned and the power balance shifted.



You are of course correct. I was trying to be simpler, and apparently failed.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:46:46 PM EST
I think they touched on the economic contentions leading up to the war, but they all tied back into slavery.

Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:46:53 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:



But it wasn't even that. One of the biggest source of heartburn for the seceding states had was that anti-slave states were exercising their right to treat slaves who made it to their territory as free men, and not return them in accordance with a federal law that had been passed to placate the slavers. The contemporary speeches and statements of the time were full of slavers bitching that Yankees states had no such right, and were obligated to yield to federal authority - an authority they lusted after, and only decided to reject when the tide turned and the power balance shifted.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By SRT_312:
Its been taught that way for a long time...because its the truth. Yes, it was a battle over State's Rights, the most predominant of which was the right to allow private citizens to own another human being. Twist it however you want, it is what it is.



But it wasn't even that. One of the biggest source of heartburn for the seceding states had was that anti-slave states were exercising their right to treat slaves who made it to their territory as free men, and not return them in accordance with a federal law that had been passed to placate the slavers. The contemporary speeches and statements of the time were full of slavers bitching that Yankees states had no such right, and were obligated to yield to federal authority - an authority they lusted after, and only decided to reject when the tide turned and the power balance shifted.
Bingo.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:47:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/29/2013 3:50:18 PM EST by Bohr_Adam]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JDC_VA_USMC:
I don't remember for certain what I was taught in the 80s and early 90s.

However, what taught me it was about slavery was the Declarations of Causes of Seceding States.

These are inevitably posted in every Civil War thread, and the "states rights" proponents just ignore them like a fart in the wind.
View Quote


I know that Georgia's was clearly written by a Yankee who went back in time to twist the truth. It's chock full of Yankee lies - it even tries to suggest this issue had been around from the beginning, and not that those Yankees always loved slaves and wanted more until they could use the issue against the freedom loving Southerners.

Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:47:52 PM EST
I'm 45 and went to a Catholic school. All we were taught was slavery and what a great president Lincoln was. No mention was made of arresting legislators who would vote against him.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:48:17 PM EST
not as a single cause to me in the south in a good public school 20 years ago (fuck). The complex economic and political environment was covered.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:49:41 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By pepperbelly:

I'm 55 and was taught that the war of northern aggression was about slavery.
View Quote


SAme age, I was taught the same thing. Only the wise minds of Arfcom enlightened me.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:50:35 PM EST
Yes, in public school in Texas 50 years ago.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:53:10 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By zeekh:


SAme age, I was taught the same thing. Only the wise minds of Arfcom enlightened me.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By zeekh:
Originally Posted By pepperbelly:

I'm 55 and was taught that the war of northern aggression was about slavery.


SAme age, I was taught the same thing. Only the wise minds of Arfcom enlightened me.


If these threads caused you to believe that, you had to have already been believing that.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

For forty years this question has been considered and debated in the halls of Congress, before the people, by the press, and before the tribunals of justice. The majority of the people of the North in 1860 decided it in their own favor. We refuse to submit to that judgment/
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:53:36 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:


I know that Georgia's was clearly written by a Yankee who went back in time to twist the truth. It's chock full of Yankee lies - it even tries to suggest this issue had been around from the beginning, and not that those Yankees always loved slaves and wanted more until they could use the issue against the freedom loving Southerners.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By JDC_VA_USMC:
I don't remember for certain what I was taught in the 80s and early 90s.

However, what taught me it was about slavery was the Declarations of Causes of Seceding States.

These are inevitably posted in every Civil War thread, and the "states rights" proponents just ignore them like a fart in the wind.


I know that Georgia's was clearly written by a Yankee who went back in time to twist the truth. It's chock full of Yankee lies - it even tries to suggest this issue had been around from the beginning, and not that those Yankees always loved slaves and wanted more until they could use the issue against the freedom loving Southerners.

I read that in RustedAce's voice.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:54:14 PM EST
No idea. I was the dumb fuck in school that was always sitting in the back of class acting like a jackass trying to be funny. I really regret not paying attention and blowing off good shit. I could have really had fun in Social Studies knowing what I know now
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:54:41 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By beardog30:
In for the southern butt hurt
View Quote


In for the perpetual Northern butthurt when they realize their ancestors died....stupidly. All for naught.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:55:37 PM EST
Originally Posted By saigamanTX:
Some of you guys went to school at a earlier year then me. Has slavery always been taught as the main cause of the civil war or is that a relatively new thing?
View Quote

The real spoils of war are the history books.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:55:42 PM EST
No. and it would not take much looking to learn that,
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:56:22 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By weptek911:
The South rebelled and seceded to preserve slavery the North fought to preserve the Union. States rights is a construct of the post war "Lost Cause" revisionist history movement by the defeated rebels.

Slavery was the main reason as much as revisionists like deny it.
View Quote


Do you really not understand how nonsensical this is? Here, let's try this on for size:

My wife wanted a divorce, in order to preserve our union I killed her and her family

My business partners wanted to go their separate ways. In order to preserve our union I burnt their homes and raped their wives.

Bottom line - a "Union" cannot be preserved by force. Once it is, it becomes slavery - the very institution you rail about
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:57:19 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SRT_312:



You are of course correct. I was trying to be simpler, and apparently failed.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SRT_312:
Originally Posted By Bohr_Adam:
Originally Posted By SRT_312:
Its been taught that way for a long time...because its the truth. Yes, it was a battle over State's Rights, the most predominant of which was the right to allow private citizens to own another human being. Twist it however you want, it is what it is.



But it wasn't even that. One of the biggest source of heartburn for the seceding states had was that anti-slave states were exercising their right to treat slaves who made it to their territory as free men, and not return them in accordance with a federal law that had been passed to placate the slavers. The contemporary speeches and statements of the time were full of slavers bitching that Yankees states had no such right, and were obligated to yield to federal authority - an authority they lusted after, and only decided to reject when the tide turned and the power balance shifted.



You are of course correct. I was trying to be simpler, and apparently failed.


It's hard not to fail in these threads. You can only reason someone out from a position, if said person originally reasoned themselves in to it.
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:58:48 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:59:28 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/29/2013 4:00:24 PM EST by Aimless]
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 3:59:55 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 999monkeys:


Do you really not understand how nonsensical this is? Here, let's try this on for size:

My wife wanted a divorce, in order to preserve our union I killed her and her family

My business partners wanted to go their separate ways. In order to preserve our union I burnt their homes and raped their wives.

Bottom line - a "Union" cannot be preserved by force. Once it is, it becomes slavery - the very institution you rail about
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 999monkeys:
Originally Posted By weptek911:
The South rebelled and seceded to preserve slavery the North fought to preserve the Union. States rights is a construct of the post war "Lost Cause" revisionist history movement by the defeated rebels.

Slavery was the main reason as much as revisionists like deny it.


Do you really not understand how nonsensical this is? Here, let's try this on for size:

My wife wanted a divorce, in order to preserve our union I killed her and her family

My business partners wanted to go their separate ways. In order to preserve our union I burnt their homes and raped their wives.

Bottom line - a "Union" cannot be preserved by force. Once it is, it becomes slavery - the very institution you rail about

Do you even read primary sources bro?
Link Posted: 10/29/2013 4:01:55 PM EST
I graduated in'94 and was taught that the Civil War was about state governments and secession.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Top Top