Searry
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 297
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:19 pm

Re: The Civil war From the Southern Viewpoint

Thu Oct 25, 2018 2:42 pm

I have been watching lectures by Professor Gary W. Gallagher.
I think it would be absurd to think the war would not have extensive and non-bias research done by now as he clearly demonstrates this. Maybe you have been reading something very old?

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1477
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Re: The Civil war From the Southern Viewpoint

Thu Oct 25, 2018 3:56 pm

The war is over. The Confederate soldiers were pardoned by Presidential Proclamation and are no longer traitors. Widows and survivors built monuments and wrote their own histories because they once again lived in a country where freedom of speech honors all opinions. The only State Right that the South lost was the right to own a human being. On Grant's Tomb are engraved the words of his final wish, "Let us have Peace".
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!

User avatar
Durk
Posts: 2515
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:36 am
Location: Wyoming

Re: The Civil war From the Southern Viewpoint

Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:01 am

I thorough agree with Gray Fox and Searry, my mentor, E. B. Long not only helped write Bruce Catton's volumes on the Army of the Potomac and his Civil War Trilogy, but also the volume, Why the South Won the Civil War is an exemplarily example of a neutral scholar on this war.

Rebellion to Tyrants
Private
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2018 5:43 pm

Re: The Civil war From the Southern Viewpoint

Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:14 am

Searry wrote:I have been watching lectures by Professor Gary W. Gallagher.
I think it would be absurd to think the war would not have extensive and non-bias research done by now as he clearly demonstrates this. Maybe you have been reading something very old?



I have hear those lectures as well. I also read his book the confederate war. I would not call him a radical pc pro north writer. But because it is passed on through standard textbooks/books the standard story is what is often believed by most. I think both sides should be heard.

Rebellion to Tyrants
Private
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2018 5:43 pm

Re: The Civil war From the Southern Viewpoint

Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:18 am

Gray Fox wrote:The war is over. The Confederate soldiers were pardoned by Presidential Proclamation and are no longer traitors. Widows and survivors built monuments and wrote their own histories because they once again lived in a country where freedom of speech honors all opinions. The only State Right that the South lost was the right to own a human being. On Grant's Tomb are engraved the words of his final wish, "Let us have Peace".



An example of what we are told to believe. What was lost during the war was the original union of the founders and state sovereignty both north and south. Read books that disagree with you, its great fun I love it. It will widen your knowledge and challenge you.

Rebellion to Tyrants
Private
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2018 5:43 pm

Re: The Civil war From the Southern Viewpoint

Fri Oct 26, 2018 2:20 am

Durk wrote:I thorough agree with Gray Fox and Searry, my mentor, E. B. Long not only helped write Bruce Catton's volumes on the Army of the Potomac and his Civil War Trilogy, but also the volume, Why the South Won the Civil War is an exemplarily example of a neutral scholar on this war.



I use to hold that opinion about a great many authors. That is until I actually herd authors defend the south. I assure you you will not know antebellum america and the civil war unless you hear both sides. Its really an eye opener. You will than ask why was I not told this before?

Searry
Lieutenant Colonel
Posts: 297
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 7:19 pm

Re: The Civil war From the Southern Viewpoint

Fri Oct 26, 2018 12:27 pm

Why does the south need to be defended? It ended slavery, I think that justifies a lot of what happened.

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1477
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Re: The Civil war From the Southern Viewpoint

Fri Oct 26, 2018 4:45 pm

I don't believe that E = mc^2, this is supported by the Scientific Method independent of any belief otherwise. Every day the results are challenged by scientists all over the planet and vindicated. Historians can't use the Scientific Method, but scholars today use rules, facts and evidence in a way very close to this method to record historical events. Every historical record should also be challenged and vindicated or discarded as biased opinion. Truth should win out over pro-Union or pro-Confederate opinions about the CW.

When part of a sovereign State rebels, the remainder of that State can do something about it under international law. That's how the colonies declared independence, defeated England in a war and won self rule. Under the laws of this Republic's self rule , Lincoln was duly elected President. Democracy is founded on respecting majority rule that is fair to all. If five men and three women are stranded on an island, it is not democratic for the men to vote that they get all the sex they want. The Declaration of Independence affirms that a people have the right to alter or abolish a government...when it is a tyranny. The USA was not a tyranny simply because Republicans rightfully won an election. A State does not have a right to secede just because their party lost. This would be chaos. Lincoln had done nothing tyrannical when the southern States seceded. After Beauregard attacked Fort Sumter, the Union abandoned diplomacy and chose to fight in response to an act of war. The Union then won that war militarily according to the laws of nationhood.

The Republic did not become a tyranny after the war ended, either. As I pointed out, the rebels were forgiven and granted amnesty by no less than a Presidential Proclamation. The people of the states that had been in rebellion were permitted to erect monuments of Confederates. A tyranny would not have allowed this. The southern authors of their viewpoint were not thrown into prison and their books were not burned. However, a viewpoint christened "Southern" is hard to vindicate when a third of the South's population at the time were freed slaves who most certainly did not share it.

Some of my ancestors suffered the anguish of lost sons, brothers and fathers in the CW. I don't chide widows, mothers and children for fabricating an explanation of their loss as a "Noble Cause". However, their opinion as historical fact is not supported by the truth of what actually transpired.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!

Rebellion to Tyrants
Private
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2018 5:43 pm

Re: The Civil war From the Southern Viewpoint

Fri Oct 26, 2018 9:51 pm

Searry wrote:Why does the south need to be defended? It ended slavery, I think that justifies a lot of what happened.



I see it as truth needs to be defended. Slavery is just one of many subjects we have been given one side of.

Rebellion to Tyrants
Private
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2018 5:43 pm

Re: The Civil war From the Southern Viewpoint

Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:25 pm

Gray Fox wrote:I don't believe that E = mc^2, this is supported by the Scientific Method independent of any belief otherwise. Every day the results are challenged by scientists all over the planet and vindicated. Historians can't use the Scientific Method, but scholars today use rules, facts and evidence in a way very close to this method to record historical events. Every historical record should also be challenged and vindicated or discarded as biased opinion. Truth should win out over pro-Union or pro-Confederate opinions about the CW.



Thanks for the comments. and Amen. That is the point of my thread, truth. Allow that historical information to be heard so the truth will win out.


Gray Fox wrote:When part of a sovereign State rebels, the remainder of that State can do something about it under international law. That's how the colonies declared independence, defeated England in a war and won self rule. Under the laws of this Republic's self rule , Lincoln was duly elected President. Democracy is founded on respecting majority rule that is fair to all. If five men and three women are stranded on an island, it is not democratic for the men to vote that they get all the sex they want.


A sovereign state cannot rebel since it is in fact sovereign. Neither does international law apply in anyway to antebellum america politics. Lincoln was elected by a minority 39% of the votes and was given the presidency of the united states as he should have. This led to the deep souths secession as they were fully in their right to do as sovereign states. I must point out the founders hated democracy and tyranny by majority rule. That is why we formed a union of states under a federated republic.


"A simple democracy, or an unbalanced republic, is one of the greatest of evils.
Benjamin Rush to John Adams 21 July 1789Letters 1:522--24

“A pure democracy is generally a very bad government, It is often the most tyrannical government on earth; for a multitude is often rash, and will not hear reason.”
― Noah Webster, The Original Blue Back Speller


"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide."
John Adams, Letter, April 15, 1814US diplomat & politician (1735 - 1826)



“A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way.”
 Fisher Ames






Gray Fox wrote: The Declaration of Independence affirms that a people have the right to alter or abolish a government...when it is a tyranny.


Actually it reads

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government


So it is the right of the people to decide if they were under tyranny. Well this is just what they claimed and just what happened. Lincoln was the most tyrannical president we have ever had, yet the average civil war reader has very little knowledge of these facts. They actually believe Lincoln saved the Constitution. If the south was not under any tyranny, it would have no cause to leave the union.

“opposing secession changes the nature of government “from a voluntary one, in which the people are sovereigns, to a despotism were one part of the people are slaves”
- New York Journal of commerce 1/12/61

“The great principles embodied by Jefferson in the declaration is... that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed” Therefore if the southern states wish to secede, “they have a clear right to do so”
-New York tribune 2/5/61

Secession is “the very germ of liberty...the right of secession inheres to the people of every sovereign state”
-Kenosha Wisconsin Democrat 1/11/61





Gray Fox wrote:The USA was not a tyranny simply because Republicans rightfully won an election. A State does not have a right to secede just because their party lost. This would be chaos. Lincoln had done nothing tyrannical when the southern States seceded.



Once more this is what we are told to believe. Neither did any state leave for losing an election but because they were no longer represented by their government. They no longer had a government of their consent. In fact they no longer had a federal union but a centralized nation under republican rule. All you are doing is giving the standard story. I suggest reading those books, they would do you good.



Gray Fox wrote:After Beauregard attacked Fort Sumter, the Union abandoned diplomacy and chose to fight in response to an act of war. The Union then won that war militarily according to the laws of nationhood.


Once more, many other details and circumstances surround this event that led many to view it very differently. Those books could provide that for you.



Gray Fox wrote:The Republic did not become a tyranny after the war ended, either. As I pointed out, the rebels were forgiven and granted amnesty by no less than a Presidential Proclamation. The people of the states that had been in rebellion were permitted to erect monuments of Confederates. A tyranny would not have allowed this. The southern authors of their viewpoint were not thrown into prison and their books were not burned. However, a viewpoint christened "Southern" is hard to vindicate when a third of the South's population at the time were freed slaves who most certainly did not share it.


Perhaps the most false statement you have made yet. Tyranny started with the republicans under Lincoln at election and continued long after the war and in fact became worse. We live with it today. The fact that you are a civil war fan who has read leading historians and are completely unaware shows just what my op is for, the standard view does not give us all the facts but only selected/edited chosen information that is approved by the winning [federal government] side.


Gray Fox wrote:Some of my ancestors suffered the anguish of lost sons, brothers and fathers in the CW. I don't chide widows, mothers and children for fabricating an explanation of their loss as a "Noble Cause". However, their opinion as historical fact is not supported by the truth of what actually transpired.


Some of my ancestors suffered the anguish of lost sons, brothers and fathers in the CW. I don't chide poltically correct goverment edcuation for fabricating the destruction of so many americans and the union of the founders and repalce it with thier own "Noble Cause". However, their opinion as historical fact is not supported by the truth of what actually transpired

Rebellion to Tyrants
Private
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2018 5:43 pm

Re: The Civil war From the Southern Viewpoint

Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:29 pm

GrayFox

I was thinking on treason as you suggested the south were rebels. Please think on this.


Article 3 section 3 of the constitution says
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

This is what Abraham Lincoln did in the American civil war, he waged war against the southern states.


“To coerce the states is one of the maddest projects that was ever devised... a complying state at war with a non complying state. Congress marching the troops of one state into the bosom of another? Here is a nation at war with itself. Can any reasonable man be well disposed toward a government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself- a government that can exists only by the sword”.
-Alexander Hamilton Northern federalist



But southerns would also say the south was not leaving the original American republic, but establishing it. That is why before the war the south often thought the north should succeed.

"All that the South has ever desired was the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth."
 Gen. Robert E. Lee Quoted in The enduring Relevance of Robert E Lee


Also being called a traitor is not automatically a bad thing, our nations greatest heroes IMO were traitors. The declaration of Independence was a secession document of sovereign states choosing separation from England's tyrannical government. From Great Britans point of view, they were the loyalist and Americans the traitors. The difference is the north won the war. Had America lost its war for independence, they would have taught the founders as traitors and rebels in textbooks in America. During the revolution “loyalist” like Benedict Arnold were the traitors. John Brown is celebrated in the north yet he formed his own constitution, left the union and created a nation “the republic of liberated slaves”

“If the declaration justified the secession of 3 million colonists in 1776 then why did it not justify the secession of 5 million southerns from the union in 1861”
Horce Greeley

“Rebellion if successful, is sacred, if not, is treason”
Proverb

Rebellion to Tyrants
Private
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2018 5:43 pm

Re: The Civil war From the Southern Viewpoint

Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:43 pm

Secession

“Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.”
-Abraham Lincoln 1848

“The tree of liberty must refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” -Thomas Jefferson

“The South maintained with the depth of religious conviction that the Union formed under the Constitution was a Union of consent and not of force; that the original States were not the creatures but the creators of the Union; that these States had gained their independence, their freedom, and their sovereignty from the mother country, and had not surrendered these on entering the Union; that by the express terms of the Constitution all rights and powers not delegated were reserved to the States; and the South challenged the North to find one trace of authority in that Constitution for invading and coercing a sovereign State.-the one for liberty in the union of the States, the other for liberty in the independence of the States.”
-John B Gordon Confederate General Reminiscences of the Civil War 


The right to self govern is maybe the most fundamental American right there is. It is what led to the revolution. America prior to 1860 maintained a confederation of sovereign states. These states were self governing and independent. The right to succession has been a fundamental right of sovereign states in American history. It has been more common of northern states in America prior to 1860, to discuss or threatened succession. Lincoln turned history on its head and declared the nation created the states and states had no right to leave the union. He also declared the entire people [not the states simple democracy] created the union.

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government”
-Declaration of Independence


The declaration of Independence says “These colonies are, and ought to be free and independent States.” The deceleration is itself a succession document. When the revolution ended the king of England made a peace treaty with each and every state, not with one American nation. Under the articles of confederation article 1 section 2. “Each state retains its sovereignty freedom and Independence.” This is at odds with Lincolns view, but even so, some will say the peoples of the states gave up sovereignty when they ratified the Constitution.

"The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the states; and these, in uniting together, have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the states chooses to withdraw from the compact, it would be difficult to disapprove its right of doing so, and
the Federal Government would have no means of maintaining its claims directly either by force or right. -Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America


The first draft of the preamble to the constitution read “we the people of the states of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode island etc.. when they realized not all states might adopt it, they left out the states to ratify as they chose to. The constitution was than ratified by the states, not the American people. During the Virginia ratification Patrick Henry [anti federalist] warned “we the people” instead of “we the states” would lead to a consolidated national government. Federalist Governor Edmund Randolf [and later federalist Madison and Pendelton] assured him “we the people was to be understood as “we the people of each ratifying state.” and saw his objection as trivial since it would be assumed the people of the states were those referred to. John Randolph of Roanoke said in a speech in congress in 1823 “gentlemen may say what they please of the preamble of the Constitution, but this Constitution is not the work of the amalgamated population of then existing confederacy, but the offspring of the states.” The self governing sovereign people of the individual states appointed representative from each state to ratify the constitution.

“The power to coerce a State into obedience to the federal authority, was distinctly proposed in the convention which framed the Constitution of the United States, to be a part of the Constitution, and it was as distincly rejected. Such a power was totally inconsistent with the whole theory of the Constitution, which was — that the Constitution was a compact between the States.”
-Report on the confederate committee of foreign affairs 1861


The states existed prior to and created the constitution out of their own free will. In federalist #39 James Madison “The father of the constitution” said the constitution was ratified by the people “Not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as composing the distinct and independent states to which they respectively belong” “states were considered a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only bound by its own voluntary act.” Virginia, New York and Rhode Island reserved the right to succeed from the union before ratifying the constitution.

“The laws of Congress are restricted to a certain sphere, and when they depart from this sphere, they are no longer supreme or binding.”
-New York’s ratifying convention


They also declared the right for other states, the others assumed this was the case. In the constitution “united states” is always in plural, not the way we use it today as to refer to one nation. When the constitution was formed, the states had to seceded from the articles of confederation to do so. Federally founded West Point taught the right to secession in its textbook “a view of the constitution of the united states of america by William Rawle.”

"It depends on the state itself...weather it will continue a member of the union. To deny this right would be inconstant with the principles on witch all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people are in all cases a right to determined how they will be governed...the states then may wholly withdraw from the union."

The constitution nowhere outlaws secession. The constitution established where the federal government has been delegated authority. The rest is reserved to the states. Secession than is a state issue. Nothing is authorized to the states in the constitution [secession or otherwise] since the purpose of the constitution is federal powers.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”
-10th amendment U.S Constitution


Thomas Jefferson

 “Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government; but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force: that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers; but that, as in all other cases of compact among powers having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself...each party has equal right to judge for itself” -Kentucky Resolutions of 1798 written by Thomas Jefferson

“Sever ourselves from the union we so much value, rather than give up the rights of self government which we have reserved, and in which alone we see liberty, safety and happiness”
-Thomas Jefferson to James Madison 1799

“Whether we remain in one confederacy, or form into Atlantic and Mississippi confederacies, I believe not very important to the happiness of either part.  Those of the western confederacy will be as much our children & descendants as those of the eastern, and I feel myself as much identified with that country, in future time, as with this; and did I now foresee a separation at some future day, yet I should feel the duty & the desire to promote the western interests as zealously as the eastern, doing all the good for both portions of our future family which should fall within my power.”
–Letter from President Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Joseph Priestly, Jan. 29, 1804


Hartford convention 

At the convention the New England states debated whether they should leave the union. No one questioned the legality, simply if it should be done.  In 1801 Thomas Jefferson as president said “If there be any among us who would wish to dissolve this union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed.” Jefferson said alittel rebellion is “a medicine necessary for the sound health of government.” When as president the New England federalist were considering succession Jefferson said “If any state in the union will declare that it prefers separation...let us separate”

Other Founders

“But the indissoluble link of union between the people of the several states of this confederated nation, is after all, not in the right, but in the heart. If the day should ever come, (may Heaven avert it,) when the affections of the people of these states shall be alienated from each other; when the fraternal spirit shall give away to cold indifference, or collisions of interest shall fester into hatred, the bands of political association will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and kindly sympathies; and far better will it be for the people of the disunited states, to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the precedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect union, by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separated parts to be reunited by the law of political gravitation to the centre”
-John Quincy Adams Northern federalist 1839


Northern federalist Daniel Webster said in 1851 that if the north would not comply with the fugitive slave law, “The south would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain can not be broken on one side, and still bind the other side”

“The thirteen states are thirteen sovereign bodies”
-Oliver Ellsworth

“The states are nations”
-Daniel Webster Commentaries on the Constitution

“If the union was formed by the accession of states then the union may be dissolved by the secession of states”
-Daniel Webster U.S senate Feb 15 1833

“The attributes of sovereignty are now enjoyed by every state in the union”
-Alexander Hamilton

“The first thing I have at heart is American liberty, the second thing is American union
-Patrick Henry

“The Union, next to our liberties most dear.”
-John C. Calhoun

“Had Buchanan in 1860 sent armed forces to prevent the nullification of the fugitive slave law, as Andrew Jackson thretned to do so in 1833, there would have been a secession of fifteen northern states instead of thirteen southern states. Had the democrats won in 1860 the northern states would have been the seceding states not the southern.”
-George Lunt of Massachusetts Origin of the Late war

“It is in the power of the states to extinguish this government at a blow”
-John Randolph of Roanoke 1823



If for any cause the Government...should become inimical to the rights and interests of the people, instead of affording protection to their persons and property, and securing the happiness and prosperity, to attain which it was established, it is the natural right of the people to change the Government regardless of Constitutions.
What then is the South to do? Suffer the compact which brought them into the Union to be violated with impunity, and without means of redress; submit to incursions into their territory and trespass upon their property by northern abolitionists?...Who expects, who desires the South to submit to all this?
-Dubuque Iowa Herald 1860

User avatar
Durk
Posts: 2515
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:36 am
Location: Wyoming

Re: The Civil war From the Southern Viewpoint

Sat Oct 27, 2018 1:54 am

Oh dear Rebellion to Tyrants,
You totally misread what the three of us have said. Please be more careful in your history. If you do so, I will be more than ready to engage in your discourse. I have spent too much time in study of this war and its aftermath to engage in superficial discussions.
You are dealing with scholars of the American Civil War and not simply anti-Southern bigots or misinformed novices. You do know this? I hope.
Which means, your plausible arguments are weak, repetitive and not of much interest to serious scholars. I would be glad to recommend some books for serious study, starting with the OR.
And you must remember, hearing both sides means actually hearing both sides; not just hearing your own voice. I do hear both sides and as I suggested above, many Civil War scholars do also. Shelby Foote would be an excellent example of a Southern author who hears both side.
Durk

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 2984
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Re: The Civil war From the Southern Viewpoint

Sat Oct 27, 2018 7:33 am

Rebellion to Tyrants wrote:Secession

“The tree of liberty must refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” -Thomas Jefferson


Are you aware that the "tyrants" he referred to were the armed citizens of Shay's Rebellion?

http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/08/jeffersons-tree-of-liberty-quote-in.html

Rebellion to Tyrants
Private
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2018 5:43 pm

Re: The Civil war From the Southern Viewpoint

Sat Oct 27, 2018 2:13 pm

Durk wrote:Oh dear Rebellion to Tyrants,
You totally misread what the three of us have said. Please be more careful in your history. If you do so, I will be more than ready to engage in your discourse. I have spent too much time in study of this war and its aftermath to engage in superficial discussions.
You are dealing with scholars of the American Civil War and not simply anti-Southern bigots or misinformed novices. You do know this? I hope.
Which means, your plausible arguments are weak, repetitive and not of much interest to serious scholars. I would be glad to recommend some books for serious study, starting with the OR.
And you must remember, hearing both sides means actually hearing both sides; not just hearing your own voice. I do hear both sides and as I suggested above, many Civil War scholars do also. Shelby Foote would be an excellent example of a Southern author who hears both side.
Durk



oh dear durk, i am sorry if i misread any of your posts. I believe you perhaps have missed my post. My claim is that the standard [what you call "scholars of the american civil war"] historians by no choice of their own [and in many cases by choice] have been given the standard interpretation of the war and the allowed documents and understanding of american history. This becomes very clear when one reads the southern view of the war.


Heresyphobia- Fear of deviation from traditional doctrine


So to claim my arguments [I have not really made many] can be rejected because your trust is in the standard pc pro north view is evidence of self indoctrination. You believe what you wish by calling only your historians legit witch is decided by the version they give you. I would rather have truth and history decide what I believe. Its another topic but I think you underestimate the ability of government education to raise a people to think as they would wish them to.


"The first step in liquidating a people is to erase its memory. Destroy its books, its history. Then have somebody write new books, manufacture a new culture, invent a new history"
-Milan Hubl, Czek communist

[i]“It means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy; that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers; will learn from Northern school books their version of the War, will be impressed by all influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors, our maimed veterans as fit objects for their derision.”
-Major General Patrick Cleburne, C.S.A. Jan. 2, 1864


“Modern historians, looking through their rosy tinted lenses of government education resemble the “blind leading the blind.”
-Jacqueline Sprinkle Forward to a Girls Life in Virginia Before the war Sprinkle Publishing Harrisonberg Virginia[/i]

“The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.”
-Abraham Lincoln

“A general state education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another, and the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in government.”
-John Stuart Mill, 19th Century English Economist, Author of On Liberty, Principles of Political Economy


“A state controlled teachers collage [ government approved teachers] can be a engine to sway the public sentiment, morals and the public religion more powerful than any in the possession of the government”
-James Carter Harvard 1795–1849



“The federal government has increased its control over the American education system...it is simply not in the federal governments self interest to teach the public that it is advantageous to place limits on the governments powers...Government always uses public education to aggrandize itself”
-Thomas J Dilorenzo Lincoln Unmasked

“Washington controlled curriculum. To insure a uniformity nationalized”
-John Codes Destroying the republic Jabez Curry and the Reeducation of the old South

“When our youth learn to read similar books, similar lessons, we shall become one people, possessing one organic nationality”
-Northern senator J.P Wickersmah 1865

“The role of the national government is to mold the character of the American people”
-Northern senator Justin Morrill behind the first public school education bill

“we will compel the states to do what they will not do” and to “form one homogeneous American people....after New England”
-George Hoar Massachusetts 1870 Bill to support National education

“The South is to be destroyed and replaced by new propositions and new ideas.”
-Abraham Lincoln 1862 Quoted in Kirkpatrick Sale Emancipation Hell: The Tragedy Wrought By the Emancipation Proclamation 150 Years Ago

Rebellion to Tyrants
Private
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2018 5:43 pm

Re: The Civil war From the Southern Viewpoint

Sat Oct 27, 2018 2:18 pm

Durk

“The truth, indeed, is something that mankind, for some mysterious reason, instinctively dislikes. Every man who tries to tell it is unpopular, and even when, by the sheer strength of his case, he prevails, he is put down as a scoundrel.”
H. L. Menck




Sorry if I seemed argumentative. I know it can make us feel uncomfortable to go outside of the standard version of history or to go Against what we have been taught to believe. But i do hope we search for truth in all things. I think if we do that, it will come out clear. But we must accept the possibility that we have not been given the full story and search for our own to find truth. If we cant do that we will just fall in line and believe what they choose us to believe.

if freedom of speech is taken away than dumb and silent may be led, like sheep to the slaughter"
-George Washington 

“He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would suffice.”
- Albert Einstein

“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.” 
― Mark Twain

In logic, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: "If many believe so, it is so."


“[P]eople are always more loyal to their tribal group than to any abstract notion of “truth”
— scientists especially. If not they are unemployable. It is professional suicide to continually contradict one’s teachers or social leaders”
-Lynn Margulis

“powerful human erge to belong inside the group to think like the majority...and to win the groups approval by trashing dissenters conformity and group think are attitudes of particular danger in science. Because progression depends on overturning established wisdom”
new york times 23 july 2009

Rebellion to Tyrants
Private
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2018 5:43 pm

Re: The Civil war From the Southern Viewpoint

Sat Oct 27, 2018 2:20 pm

DrPostman wrote:
Rebellion to Tyrants wrote:Secession

“The tree of liberty must refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” -Thomas Jefferson


Are you aware that the "tyrants" he referred to were the armed citizens of Shay's Rebellion?

http://americancreation.blogspot.com/2009/08/jeffersons-tree-of-liberty-quote-in.html



I never said it was towards the government but a general principle. Of course the biggest tyrants most always come from government so it was most often apply to them. As for a response I would suggest a reading them to the article you posted. But thanks for looking out and reading my post.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: The Civil war From the Southern Viewpoint

Sat Oct 27, 2018 5:25 pm

TL;DR :blink: ... well, just a little ;)

Yes, often "the winner writes the history". In many cultures, this is driven by the governing authorities. In the USA, the federal government does undertake such steps -- although the popular culture does tend to propagate a biased view. In fact, the 1st Amendment of the Constitution specifically prohibits this.

The hypothesis that "the winner writes the history" does not equate to all popular opinions being incorrect, nor that all opposing view must therefore be correct. Only an objective analysis of the evidence can determine this.

The "Right", which the Confederate states wished to preserve, was the right to own humans as chattel-slaves. This has been demonstrated numerous times.

From my understanding, most constitutional experts, prior to the Civil War, believed, that a state had the right to dissolve its connection to the Union, although the concept was never officially tested, nor was the path to dissolution ever determined.

Tyranny is a subjective state of being. If the Southern states felt, the federal government was threatening to or being tyrannical against them, the slaves in those states most certainly felt the same toward the their subjugators.

Following these principles, which the Confederate States decried as their right to rebel, equally this principle gave the federal government not only the right to quell such a rebellion, but the moral obligation to do so.

In view of this, the Union could have found the justification to completely and utterly conquer the Confederacy, persecute its propagators and supporters, and disband the cultural underpinnings on which these tyrannical tendencies based themselves, without betraying its own principles; the same principles upon which the Confederate states based their rebellion in the first place; and yet the Union did not do this.

Rebellion to Tyrants
Private
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2018 5:43 pm

Re: The Civil war From the Southern Viewpoint

Sat Oct 27, 2018 6:37 pm

Captain_Orso wrote:TL;DR :blink: ... well, just a little ;)

Yes, often "the winner writes the history". In many cultures, this is driven by the governing authorities. In the USA, the federal government does undertake such steps -- although the popular culture does tend to propagate a biased view. In fact, the 1st Amendment of the Constitution specifically prohibits this.

The hypothesis that "the winner writes the history" does not equate to all popular opinions being incorrect, nor that all opposing view must therefore be correct. Only an objective analysis of the evidence can determine this.



Good point and I fully agree. However often many place there trust in the majority opinion alone without question of how the majority came to their conclusions. Further in the case of the civil war, the other side is kept from the majority so they cannot have an objective analysis of the evidence as me and you both want done. So I thought i would post a few books that can offer up some of that material.



Captain_Orso wrote:The "Right", which the Confederate states wished to preserve, was the right to own humans as chattel-slaves. This has been demonstrated numerous times.


by whom? by the pc government card carrying winner writes the history historians. For every argument their is a counter. For every pro north their is a southern response and a southern argument it was to maintain the union of the founders among other issues. We are not given that perspective or those documents so we conclude the pc version is correct as you have done without knowing we were not even given a fair chance to make up our mind. I would be glad to get into this topic and I will if you wish [read those books if interested as well] to show that we have been given the pc version.





Captain_Orso wrote:From my understanding, most constitutional experts, prior to the Civil War, believed, that a state had the right to dissolve its connection to the Union, although the concept was never officially tested, nor was the path to dissolution ever determined.


I would agree mostly. I would say it was actually almost used a few times. It also deepened if you were a high Federalist/nationalist or a compact theorist. Lincolns radical view [what we are taught today] was indeed radical and changed our nation.



Captain_Orso wrote:Tyranny is a subjective state of being. If the Southern states felt, the federal government was threatening to or being tyrannical against them, the slaves in those states most certainly felt the same toward the their subjugators.


I would not disagree fully. Of course many slaves would/did, many did not. But we cant blame blacks for wanting freedom and condemn southerners. Further a big difference between them [morality aside] is southern whites had legal rights and sovereignty while slaves were property with no rights in africa, brought to america and given few rights and no political rights.



Captain_Orso wrote:Following these principles, which the Confederate States decried as their right to rebel, equally this principle gave the federal government not only the right to quell such a rebellion, but the moral obligation to do so.


? what principles? the csa did not rebel, they dissolved their attachment to a union that had violated its Constitution and their rights and chose the principles of the declaration and seceded. The federal government had no right to coerce states back into the union and i would say it was the most morally incorrect thing to do in our history. further the north never went to war to end slavery, they maintained slavery in multiple states throughout the war. This shows how much history is distorted.


“The war now prosecuted on part of the federal government is a war for the union”
-Secretary of war Simon Cameron August 8 1861

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. 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. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."
-Abraham Lincoln The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln Letter to Horace Greeley August 22, 1862


“The condition of slavery in the several states would remain just the same weather it [the rebellion] succeeds or fails”
-Secretary Seward to US Ambassador to France



Lincoln and the north did not invade the south to end slavery. The north maintained slavery in states such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri, during and after the civil war. Lincoln had no problem with the upper south slave states in the union such as Virginia as he called for volunteers to attack the deep south to repress the rebellion. The 1860 the republican platform plank 4 said slavery was a state issue and they would not interfere. Lincoln said the states had the right to chose on slavery and he would not interfere with slavery where it already existed.

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere Untitled 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”
-Abraham Lincoln Inaugural address


Lincoln in his inaugural address said he supported the Corwin amendment. This amendment was first proposed in Dec 1860 and passed both the house and senate. It would have made slavery a constitutional right to states and permanently untouched by congress. Lincoln also said he supported the Fugitive slave act. During the war after the south left the union, the north controlled congress yet they did not end slavery. After the south succeeded the federal government decided it would not end slavery in the house on Feb 1861 and senate march 2 1861. On July 22 1861 congress declared “This war is not waged , nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions [slavery] of those states.” October 8th 1861 the newspaper Washington D.C National Intelligence said “The existing war had no direct relation to slavery.”

“I think as much of a rebel as I do an abolitionist”
-Union General Phil Kerney


In the early parts of the war Union soldiers and generals returned any runaway slaves back to their southern masters. General McClellan ordered runaway slaves back to masters in Virginia. When union general John Fremont emancipated slaves in union occupied Missouri, Lincoln recalled the orders and relived Fremont of his command. When union general David Hunter ordered general order number 11, declaring all slaves in SC/GA/FL to be “forever free” Lincoln revoked the proclamation and also ordered Hunter to disband the 1st South Carolina regiment made up of blacks hunter had enlisted. Late in 62 Lincoln supported in union held territory in VA and LA to continue slavery and allow the slave owners peacefully back into the union. Slavery led many especially in the old Whig party to “cling more tightly to the union.”

“Howard county [MO] is true to the union” “our slaveholders think it is the sure bulwark of our slave property”
-Abeil Lenord a Whig party leader at onset of war


Had the war ended earlier, slavery would have not been touched.



Captain_Orso wrote:In view of this, the Union could have found the justification to completely and utterly conquer the Confederacy, persecute its propagators and supporters, and disband the cultural underpinnings on which these tyrannical tendencies based themselves, without betraying its own principles; the same principles upon which the Confederate states based their rebellion in the first place; and yet the Union did not do this.



In fact they did this and much worse. This would be its own topic i think but the crimes done by republicans to the south after the war and during reconstruction show just how much america died in 1865.

User avatar
Durk
Posts: 2515
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:36 am
Location: Wyoming

Re: The Civil war From the Southern Viewpoint

Sun Oct 28, 2018 12:58 am

Rebellion to Tyrants wrote:oh dear durk, i am sorry if i misread any of your posts. I believe you perhaps have missed my post. My claim is that the standard [what you call "scholars of the american civil war"] historians by no choice of their own [and in many cases by choice] have been given the standard interpretation of the war and the allowed documents and understanding of american history. This becomes very clear when one reads the southern view of the war. [/i]


I was referencing scholars such as Kenneth M. Stampp and David Blight who make your argument, but with scholarly reference rather than cherry picked quotations. It is not that you are wrong, it is that you make a singular case for a very complex history. Thus my previously referenced, Why the South Won the Civil War.

Don't push, discuss.

User avatar
Durk
Posts: 2515
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2011 4:36 am
Location: Wyoming

Re: The Civil war From the Southern Viewpoint

Sun Oct 28, 2018 1:04 am

Durk wrote:
Rebellion to Tyrants wrote:oh dear durk, i am sorry if i misread any of your posts. I believe you perhaps have missed my post. My claim is that the standard [what you call "scholars of the american civil war"] historians by no choice of their own [and in many cases by choice] have been given the standard interpretation of the war and the allowed documents and understanding of american history. This becomes very clear when one reads the southern view of the war. [/i]


I was referencing scholars such as Kenneth M. Stampp and David Blight who make your argument, but with scholarly research rather than cherry picked quotations. It is not that you are wrong, it is that you make a singular case for a very complex history. Thus my previously referenced, Why the South Won the Civil War.

Don't push, discuss. And read the historigraphy of the war. Many scholars take your position. They are not all 'blind' but come for so many points of view, nationalist, socialist, deconstructionist, determinist and moralist, among others, including passionate Southernists - with scholarly research and strong inferences.

Rebellion to Tyrants
Private
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2018 5:43 pm

Re: The Civil war From the Southern Viewpoint

Sun Oct 28, 2018 1:08 am

Durk wrote:
Rebellion to Tyrants wrote:oh dear durk, i am sorry if i misread any of your posts. I believe you perhaps have missed my post. My claim is that the standard [what you call "scholars of the american civil war"] historians by no choice of their own [and in many cases by choice] have been given the standard interpretation of the war and the allowed documents and understanding of american history. This becomes very clear when one reads the southern view of the war. [/i]


I was referencing scholars such as Kenneth M. Stampp and David Blight who make your argument, but with scholarly reference rather than cherry picked quotations. It is not that you are wrong, it is that you make a singular case for a very complex history. Thus my previously referenced, Why the South Won the Civil War.

Don't push, discuss.


I agree no single case should be made. Both sides should be heard. Just wondering what argument i made you refer to that Stampp and Blight made.

Rebellion to Tyrants
Private
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2018 5:43 pm

Re: The Civil war From the Southern Viewpoint

Sun Oct 28, 2018 1:10 am

Durk wrote:
Durk wrote:
Rebellion to Tyrants wrote:oh dear durk, i am sorry if i misread any of your posts. I believe you perhaps have missed my post. My claim is that the standard [what you call "scholars of the american civil war"] historians by no choice of their own [and in many cases by choice] have been given the standard interpretation of the war and the allowed documents and understanding of american history. This becomes very clear when one reads the southern view of the war. [/i]


I was referencing scholars such as Kenneth M. Stampp and David Blight who make your argument, but with scholarly research rather than cherry picked quotations. It is not that you are wrong, it is that you make a singular case for a very complex history. Thus my previously referenced, Why the South Won the Civil War.

Don't push, discuss. And read the historigraphy of the war. Many scholars take your position. They are not all 'blind' but come for so many points of view, nationalist, socialist, deconstructionist, determinist and moralist, among others, including passionate Southernists - with scholarly research and strong inferences.



I dont disagree. In fact I have referenced some in my op of non majority views. I am not sure what you think I am saying by my thread. I am not saying dont read anyone, i am saying read everyone.

User avatar
Captain_Orso
Posts: 5766
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2009 5:02 pm
Location: Stuttgart, Germany

Re: The Civil war From the Southern Viewpoint

Sun Oct 28, 2018 6:39 pm

Rebellion to Tyrants wrote:
Captain_Orso wrote:TL;DR :blink: ... well, just a little ;)

Yes, often "the winner writes the history". In many cultures, this is driven by the governing authorities. In the USA, the federal government does undertake such steps -- although the popular culture does tend to propagate a biased view. In fact, the 1st Amendment of the Constitution specifically prohibits this.

The hypothesis that "the winner writes the history" does not equate to all popular opinions being incorrect, nor that all opposing view must therefore be correct. Only an objective analysis of the evidence can determine this.



Good point and I fully agree. However often many place there trust in the majority opinion alone without question of how the majority came to their conclusions. Further in the case of the civil war, the other side is kept from the majority so they cannot have an objective analysis of the evidence as me and you both want done. So I thought i would post a few books that can offer up some of that material.



Captain_Orso wrote:The "Right", which the Confederate states wished to preserve, was the right to own humans as chattel-slaves. This has been demonstrated numerous times.


by whom? by the pc government card carrying winner writes the history historians. For every argument their is a counter. For every pro north their is a southern response and a southern argument it was to maintain the union of the founders among other issues. We are not given that perspective or those documents so we conclude the pc version is correct as you have done without knowing we were not even given a fair chance to make up our mind. I would be glad to get into this topic and I will if you wish [read those books if interested as well] to show that we have been given the pc version.





Captain_Orso wrote:From my understanding, most constitutional experts, prior to the Civil War, believed, that a state had the right to dissolve its connection to the Union, although the concept was never officially tested, nor was the path to dissolution ever determined.


I would agree mostly. I would say it was actually almost used a few times. It also deepened if you were a high Federalist/nationalist or a compact theorist. Lincolns radical view [what we are taught today] was indeed radical and changed our nation.



Captain_Orso wrote:Tyranny is a subjective state of being. If the Southern states felt, the federal government was threatening to or being tyrannical against them, the slaves in those states most certainly felt the same toward the their subjugators.


I would not disagree fully. Of course many slaves would/did, many did not. But we cant blame blacks for wanting freedom and condemn southerners. Further a big difference between them [morality aside] is southern whites had legal rights and sovereignty while slaves were property with no rights in africa, brought to america and given few rights and no political rights.



Captain_Orso wrote:Following these principles, which the Confederate States decried as their right to rebel, equally this principle gave the federal government not only the right to quell such a rebellion, but the moral obligation to do so.


? what principles? the csa did not rebel, they dissolved their attachment to a union that had violated its Constitution and their rights and chose the principles of the declaration and seceded. The federal government had no right to coerce states back into the union and i would say it was the most morally incorrect thing to do in our history. further the north never went to war to end slavery, they maintained slavery in multiple states throughout the war. This shows how much history is distorted.


“The war now prosecuted on part of the federal government is a war for the union”
-Secretary of war Simon Cameron August 8 1861

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. 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. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."
-Abraham Lincoln The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln Letter to Horace Greeley August 22, 1862


“The condition of slavery in the several states would remain just the same weather it [the rebellion] succeeds or fails”
-Secretary Seward to US Ambassador to France



Lincoln and the north did not invade the south to end slavery. The north maintained slavery in states such as Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware and Missouri, during and after the civil war. Lincoln had no problem with the upper south slave states in the union such as Virginia as he called for volunteers to attack the deep south to repress the rebellion. The 1860 the republican platform plank 4 said slavery was a state issue and they would not interfere. Lincoln said the states had the right to chose on slavery and he would not interfere with slavery where it already existed.

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere Untitled 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”
-Abraham Lincoln Inaugural address


Lincoln in his inaugural address said he supported the Corwin amendment. This amendment was first proposed in Dec 1860 and passed both the house and senate. It would have made slavery a constitutional right to states and permanently untouched by congress. Lincoln also said he supported the Fugitive slave act. During the war after the south left the union, the north controlled congress yet they did not end slavery. After the south succeeded the federal government decided it would not end slavery in the house on Feb 1861 and senate march 2 1861. On July 22 1861 congress declared “This war is not waged , nor purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institutions [slavery] of those states.” October 8th 1861 the newspaper Washington D.C National Intelligence said “The existing war had no direct relation to slavery.”

“I think as much of a rebel as I do an abolitionist”
-Union General Phil Kerney


In the early parts of the war Union soldiers and generals returned any runaway slaves back to their southern masters. General McClellan ordered runaway slaves back to masters in Virginia. When union general John Fremont emancipated slaves in union occupied Missouri, Lincoln recalled the orders and relived Fremont of his command. When union general David Hunter ordered general order number 11, declaring all slaves in SC/GA/FL to be “forever free” Lincoln revoked the proclamation and also ordered Hunter to disband the 1st South Carolina regiment made up of blacks hunter had enlisted. Late in 62 Lincoln supported in union held territory in VA and LA to continue slavery and allow the slave owners peacefully back into the union. Slavery led many especially in the old Whig party to “cling more tightly to the union.”

“Howard county [MO] is true to the union” “our slaveholders think it is the sure bulwark of our slave property”
-Abeil Lenord a Whig party leader at onset of war


Had the war ended earlier, slavery would have not been touched.



Captain_Orso wrote:In view of this, the Union could have found the justification to completely and utterly conquer the Confederacy, persecute its propagators and supporters, and disband the cultural underpinnings on which these tyrannical tendencies based themselves, without betraying its own principles; the same principles upon which the Confederate states based their rebellion in the first place; and yet the Union did not do this.



In fact they did this and much worse. This would be its own topic i think but the crimes done by republicans to the south after the war and during reconstruction show just how much america died in 1865.


Why do you not come out and directly state your hypothesis?

Rebellion to Tyrants
Private
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2018 5:43 pm

Re: The Civil war From the Southern Viewpoint

Mon Oct 29, 2018 1:09 am

Captain_Orso wrote:
Rebellion to Tyrants wrote:
Captain_Orso wrote:TL;DR :blink: ... well, just a little ;)

Why do you not come out and directly state your hypothesis?



That was not the meaning of my post. My post was just to reference some pro south books to give the other side of the history. If you are interested in my stance on various civil war topics its this.


Lincoln was our worst president from the southern founders perspective. He was an american tyrant who violated the Constitution and transformed the original union of the founders into our modern nation with a government the founders would have rebelled against. He was the founding father of big government. He was a white supremacists and was not a abolitionist.


The south left the union over many issues. The election of a radical big government nationalist sectional party republican. The north misuse of the Constitution and violation of state sovereignty to witch the south made their own Constitution that resembled the Virginia centric state ratification. The north stole money for themselves through tariffs paid for by the south, the norths push towards a democracy, the north and south were two separate cultures, and the north intrusion on the rights of the southern states in regards to slavery. the north inciting slave revolts and violating the Constitution in regards to runaway slaves. And the norths upward population that increased their power in congress while the south no longer was represented by the federal government. Later the upper south left because of the republicans coercion of the deep south states and their violation of states rights and transformation of the union to a nation.


Slavery has been much misportrayed. half is lies half is based on the worst 1-5% of actual slaves treatment. The slaves treatment was a elevation from slavery in africa and their treatment was generally good. They were well fed and taken care of not harshly treated. They were better off materially than blacks in africa and poor northern workers/immigrants and industrial workers. That would be a general idea.


Also our republic and union were destroyed by Lincoln and the war.

User avatar
Gray Fox
AGEod Guard of Honor
Posts: 1477
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 7:48 pm
Location: Englewood, OH

Re: The Civil war From the Southern Viewpoint

Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:08 pm

The first four books you linked are written by founders of the League of the South. This is a white nationalist organization. In their own words:

“Somebody needs to say a good word for slavery. Where in the world are the Negroes better off today than in America?”
— Jack Kershaw, League of the South board member, 1998

“[T]he Southern League supports a return to a political and social system based on kith and kin rather than an impersonal state wedded to the idea of the universal rights of man. At its core is a European population.”
— Michael Hill, essay on League of the South website, 2000

“If the scenario of the South (and the rest of America) being overrun by hordes of non-white immigrants does not appeal to you, then how is this disaster to be averted? By the people who oppose it rising up against their traitorous elite masters and their misanthropic rule. But to do this we must first rid ourselves of the fear of being called ‘racists’ and the other meaningless epithets they use against us. What is really meant by the [anti-racist] advocates when they peg us as ‘racists’ is that we adhere to ethnocentrism, which is a natural affection for one’s own kind. This is both healthy and Biblical. I am not ashamed to say that I prefer my own kind and my own culture. Others can have theirs; I have mine. No group can survive for long if its members do not prefer their own over others.”
— Mike Hill, Web essay

“We also encourage individuals and families to personally secede from the corrupt and corrupting influence of post-Christian culture in America. We call this ‘abjuring the realm,’ and it’s a real and dramatic first step all of us can take by simply withdrawing our support of and allegiance to a regime that has imperiled our future. … Once our Southern culture is re-established, then the political issues will begin to take care of themselves. Good leaders flow naturally out of a healthy culture; however, power-hungry, self-seeking politicians are all we can expect from the debased cultural climate we have today.”
— League website

As to reading all of those books, I have read quite enough!

In the fifth link, Bennett contends that Lincoln was a racist because he felt freed slaves would not want to live in the country that enslaved them and would therefore want to return to Africa. Fortunately for our country, freed slaves remained here. I got to serve in the U.S. Army with some of the best fighting men this nation ever produced who were descendants of those slaves. Everyone in the previous history lived in the ignorance that people of color were a separate race. Science has conclusively proved through Mitochondrial DNA that every human being alive today is descended from a small group of fewer than 10k people. Mount Toba had erupted approximately 75,000 years ago spreading about a meter of ash on most of the world. The population went from several millions to a few thousand as homo sapiens almost went extinct. Those few people lived in Africa. We are one race and we all came out of Africa.

Soooo...perhaps you have read actual scholarly works on the CW as well? I refer to true historical texts worthy of quoting supported by groups larger than the 9,000 members of the League of the South.
Last edited by Gray Fox on Tue Oct 30, 2018 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I'm the 51st shade of gray. Eat, pray, Charge!

User avatar
Nikel
Posts: 2378
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 8:38 pm

Re: The Civil war From the Southern Viewpoint

Tue Oct 30, 2018 7:26 pm

Genetic similarities have not stopped humans killing each others and fighting for supremacy.

That is in short our history.

User avatar
DrPostman
Posts: 2984
Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 5:39 pm
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact: Website Facebook Twitter YouTube

Re: The Civil war From the Southern Viewpoint

Tue Oct 30, 2018 10:17 pm

I'm a Southerner - born and raised in Tennessee. I believe I would have been one
of the 42,000+ who fought for the Union. I proudly served in the USAF and even
got disabled during my service. I tend to look upon my fellow Southerners who
support the Lost Cause fantasy as near treasonous.

Rebellion to Tyrants
Private
Posts: 23
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2018 5:43 pm

Re: The Civil war From the Southern Viewpoint

Wed Oct 31, 2018 12:06 am

DrPostman wrote:I'm a Southerner - born and raised in Tennessee. I believe I would have been one
of the 42,000+ who fought for the Union. I proudly served in the USAF and even
got disabled during my service. I tend to look upon my fellow Southerners who
support the Lost Cause fantasy as near treasonous.



sadly this is what happens when the winner writes the history and controls education.

Return to “ACW History Club / Histoire de la Guerre de Sécession”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests