A question for southerners and germans.

[.Shane.]

I don't know what the Patriot is. But you attack and rofl just nailed it for me that your clueless as to the economic structure of the south. But don't let me get in the way of your "slaves slaves slaves slaves".

That bad Mel Gibson movie. He has a bunch of blacks working his land, but they make a point of saying they're not slaves.

Bad comparison, and it couldn't just be about slavery considering many farmers in the south didn't support secession.

Ah, but it is. Just because it wasn't uniformly supported doesn't mean that slavery wasn't the defining element.

Sure there were pockets where there was little/no support. Part of Tennessee. Hell, that's why we have West Virginia today. In Texas they just about lynched Sam Houston for being loyal.

I don't see how his use of statistics makes him an apologist.

Its the misleading use of that number. See, as a historian, I'm pretty familiar w/ all sides of this issue. The "6%" number is commonly thrown around be those trying to make the "its not about slavery argument."

They fail to mention that ownership was concentrated in the hands of the head of the family. So a family of 6 who owned, say 5 slaves... well the slaves had only 1 owner. Now do you get it?

The more realistic statistic is that about 23-24% of southerners benefitted directly from their families ownership of slavery.

Now, tbh, even that 23% number struck me as low when I was first studying this stuff. But, like any study of a social order, be it the south, the north, or modern day Iceland, there's much more than meets the eye.

For example. Those 23% were the people who, in the main, controlled the south. They were the judges, the political leaders, etc... they set the social standards, the norms. They were, in essence what those non-slave owning farmers aspired to.

Keep in mind, in the south circa 1850, there were not a lot of alternate avocations. Public and private education opportunities were way more limited in the south. The planter aristocracy eschewed careers in business, manufacturing, etc.... They imported northerners to be their accountants and run much of the business operations of their economies (the job title was typical "factor").

Additionally, slaves were often rented out by those who didn't own them. And, you're forgetting the class aspect where maybe I'm a dirt poor farmer, but I ain't no slave. You have a class of people that are your inferiors.

And, yes, there were free blacks in the south, but in a de facto sense they weren't even citizens. In both the north and south there were all kinds of laws that limited the movement, property rights, occupations, etc... of free blacks.

I don't understand where the idea that the South had no right to secede comes from. No precedent? What about the American secession from the British Empire. At any rate, any Union in which it is illegal to leave from is no union.

As I mentioned, there's an argument for historical precedent. What is debateable is the legality of it.

People have this Hollywood version of history in their mind that the civilized Northerners told the barbaric South to give up their slaves and the South refused causing the Civil War. This just did not happen. The Civil War was not caused by slavery. You can make the argument that the South seceded because of slavery but it was really all about state rights. However, the most important state right was about the legality of slavery.

Sounds like you have the Hollywood version.

While it is correct that the CW is primarily about slavery, its also incorrect that hte north was perfect or racism free or some kind of nirvana for the laboring class. But, please show me where I've made that argument.

The issue was slavery. States rights was simply the refuge in which they sought shelter. Just as New England did in its opposition to the War of 1812. You find that the sections of the nation flip flop on states rights as their needs dictate.

This Civil War actually started with the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter. But, blandly saying the South started the war is a gross misrepresentation of the actual history although it does sound better in the history books. Fort Sumter is in South Carolina which was deep in Confederate territory. Fort Sumter refused to surrender to the Confederacy. Shots are fired, and the war starts.

Fort Sumter was federal property. Federal. There had been no need for them to surrender because they were not attacking anyone. You forget the SCians beseiged them.

The laughable aspect that the apologists conveniently ignore is that the south never even bothered to check on the legality of secession. They didn't try to negotiate with Lincoln or even bother to see how he'd turn out as president. They basically freaked out when he got elected and starting leaving the Union. Who knows, given the softness of Northern Democrats, they may well have been able to negotiate there way out of the Union, but they didn't bother with any legal recourse at all. They could've filed a lawsuit, etc... but no. They'd have none of it.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

i'm glad the south lost and i live in TN.

i can't speak for germany.

 

[Nylan]

I would think more Germans would be unhappy about WWI or at the very least the Versailles Treaty than WW2.

 

[Atlas14]

As a southern American with nearly pure German ancestry, I wish we would have won the Civil War, but I don't mind America too much how it is today, so I am not too pissed.

As for wishing Germany had won WWII, I personally hate Hitler as an individual and believe Germany would have been almost doubly as strong militarily without him as leader. I believe if Germany would have won the war, more suffering would have occurred on a larger scale, and so I am glad Germany was defeated.

I am pissed about WWI though, and Germany "losing". Screw the Allies and their bullying. Germany started the war my ass.

 

[ori]

I would be amazed if Germans on this forum wished they had not lost the war.

Me too

There are still a few deranged people who wish Germany hadn't lost WW2, but among those only the boldest idiots would admit it.

Couldn't have put it better... We could have done without WW2 and the fascists all together though...

At any rate, any Union in which it is illegal to leave from is no union.

That would be the European Union then

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Ah, but it is. Just because it wasn't uniformly supported doesn't mean that slavery wasn't the defining element.

Sure there were pockets where there was little/no support. Part of Tennessee. Hell, that's why we have West Virginia today. In Texas they just about lynched Sam Houston for being loyal.


Its the misleading use of that number. See, as a historian, I'm pretty familiar w/ all sides of this issue. The "6%" number is commonly thrown around be those trying to make the "its not about slavery argument."

They fail to mention that ownership was concentrated in the hands of the head of the family. So a family of 6 who owned, say 5 slaves... well the slaves had only 1 owner. Now do you get it?

The more realistic statistic is that about 23-24% of southerners benefitted directly from their families ownership of slavery.

Now, tbh, even that 23% number struck me as low when I was first studying this stuff. But, like any study of a social order, be it the south, the north, or modern day Iceland, there's much more than meets the eye.

For example. Those 23% were the people who, in the main, controlled the south. They were the judges, the political leaders, etc... they set the social standards, the norms. They were, in essence what those non-slave owning farmers aspired to.

Keep in mind, in the south circa 1850, there were not a lot of alternate avocations. Public and private education opportunities were way more limited in the south. The planter aristocracy eschewed careers in business, manufacturing, etc.... They imported northerners to be their accountants and run much of the business operations of their economies (the job title was typical "factor").

Additionally, slaves were often rented out by those who didn't own them. And, you're forgetting the class aspect where maybe I'm a dirt poor farmer, but I ain't no slave. You have a class of people that are your inferiors.

And, yes, there were free blacks in the south, but in a de facto sense they weren't even citizens. In both the north and south there were all kinds of laws that limited the movement, property rights, occupations, etc... of free blacks.

And this is why I'm here, me being a history student and what not.

It's interesting, my American History text uses this number repeatedly, as did my professor. Of course, I found that I knew much more than her about history, but that's neither here nor there.

As for the lack of uniformity in attitudes about secession across the South, there are some rather interesting maps of Southern districts' attitudes towards secession. With the exception of South Carolina, almost every state is split 50/50 by area in either support or disapproval of secession; some states, like Florida and Mississippi, have what seems to be overwhelming majorities against secession. I'm not making excuses for the South, it's just very interesting to note the lack of uniformity that is so often assumed.

 

[Nylan]

I am pissed about WWI though, and Germany "losing". Screw the Allies and their bullying. Germany started the war my ass.

Exactly my point

 

[Tomoyo]

The point is that there is no movement in the field of legitimate history to say that the CW was not primarily about slavery. Even indirectly, it is about slavery.

Oh? In all my high school history classes, it was stressed that the Civil War was not about slavery, that most of the slavery rhetoric was primarily used to garner foreign support for the Union.

I wouldn't know how correct the history they teach us in high school is, but if the textbooks teach that the war was not about slavery, I think you can say that there might be a movement to say that it was not about slavery.

Anyway, think about it logically. Would a typical Northerner care about freeing some black slave? Why would a Northern white person want to risk their life or the life of their friends and family for black people? There was prejudice in the North, too. The only people who had to time to care about the morals of slavery were those outspoken people with way too much time on their hands.

 

[Atlas14]

That bad Mel Gibson movie. He has a bunch of blacks working his land, but they make a point of saying they're not slaves.


Ah, but it is. Just because it wasn't uniformly supported doesn't mean that slavery wasn't the defining element.

Sure there were pockets where there was little/no support. Part of Tennessee. Hell, that's why we have West Virginia today. In Texas they just about lynched Sam Houston for being loyal.


Its the misleading use of that number. See, as a historian, I'm pretty familiar w/ all sides of this issue. The "6%" number is commonly thrown around be those trying to make the "its not about slavery argument."

They fail to mention that ownership was concentrated in the hands of the head of the family. So a family of 6 who owned, say 5 slaves... well the slaves had only 1 owner. Now do you get it?

The more realistic statistic is that about 23-24% of southerners benefitted directly from their families ownership of slavery.

Now, tbh, even that 23% number struck me as low when I was first studying this stuff. But, like any study of a social order, be it the south, the north, or modern day Iceland, there's much more than meets the eye.

For example. Those 23% were the people who, in the main, controlled the south. They were the judges, the political leaders, etc... they set the social standards, the norms. They were, in essence what those non-slave owning farmers aspired to.

Keep in mind, in the south circa 1850, there were not a lot of alternate avocations. Public and private education opportunities were way more limited in the south. The planter aristocracy eschewed careers in business, manufacturing, etc.... They imported northerners to be their accountants and run much of the business operations of their economies (the job title was typical "factor").

Additionally, slaves were often rented out by those who didn't own them. And, you're forgetting the class aspect where maybe I'm a dirt poor farmer, but I ain't no slave. You have a class of people that are your inferiors.

And, yes, there were free blacks in the south, but in a de facto sense they weren't even citizens. In both the north and south there were all kinds of laws that limited the movement, property rights, occupations, etc... of free blacks.


As I mentioned, there's an argument for historical precedent. What is debateable is the legality of it.


Sounds like you have the Hollywood version.

While it is correct that the CW is primarily about slavery, its also incorrect that hte north was perfect or racism free or some kind of nirvana for the laboring class. But, please show me where I've made that argument.

The issue was slavery. States rights was simply the refuge in which they sought shelter. Just as New England did in its opposition to the War of 1812. You find that the sections of the nation flip flop on states rights as their needs dictate.



Fort Sumter was federal property. Federal. There had been no need for them to surrender because they were not attacking anyone. You forget the SCians beseiged them.

The laughable aspect that the apologists conveniently ignore is that the south never even bothered to check on the legality of secession. They didn't try to negotiate with Lincoln or even bother to see how he'd turn out as president. They basically freaked out when he got elected and starting leaving the Union. Who knows, given the softness of Northern Democrats, they may well have been able to negotiate there way out of the Union, but they didn't bother with any legal recourse at all. They could've filed a lawsuit, etc... but no. They'd have none of it.

Yes, because the entire south owned slaves and beat them and spit on them and had no other economic way of life. Of course. Sure, we could throw around the old, "but they all aspired to be slave owners!!!..." but that wouldn't really be accurate for WHY they were fighting.

 

[.Shane.]

As for the lack of uniformity in attitudes about secession across the South, there are some rather interesting maps of Southern districts' attitudes towards secession. With the exception of South Carolina, almost every state is split 50/50 by area in either support or disapproval of secession; some states, like Florida and Mississippi, have what seems to be overwhelming majorities against secession. I'm not making excuses for the South, it's just very interesting to note the lack of uniformity that is so often assumed.

Now take those maps and overlay them w/ maps that show the density of slave ownership and my point will be even further made.

SC, for example had the highest per capita population of slaves and, no coincidence, it was the first to secede. Delaware, a border state w/ legal slavery but a total # of slaves probably in the low 100s was never a risk to leave the union.

There's a strong correlation between slave ownership and secessionist implulse. And, yes, I realize that correlation does not always = cause. But, in this case all the related, ancillary, and indirect items make it pretty clear.

Anyway, think about it logically. Would a typical Northerner care about freeing some black slave? Why would a Northern white person want to risk their life or the life of their friends and family for black people? There was prejudice in the North, too. The only people who had to time to care about the morals of slavery were those outspoken people with way too much time on their hands.

You're mistaking why the North would fight the war for why the South would try to want to secede.

If you want to discuss the war from the Northern perspective, that's a whole 'nother (interesting) subject.

 

[Tomoyo]

The war was started by the North, I thought everyone agreed on that.

When we talk about what the war was about, we talk about why the North would want to fight, not why the South seceded. As far as I know, no one in the South wanted to fight the war; they were just defending themselves.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

"Give up what is rightfully yours and leave your military installation!" And then expecting the US military to comply? Don't think so. It was Union property and the Confederacy attacked it.

The fort belonged to the Southern states just as much as it did to the Northern ones. The fight over Fort Sumter is like the fight over who gets the car in a divorce process. However, this fort was in the South so logically it should go to the Confederacy. I would also think it would be stupid for the Confederacy to own a fort in the Northern states.

And as far as not being allowed to secede...try the Supreme Court's ruling? Try their word is law?

1. And the United States did not have the legal right to leave Britain, and England did not have the right to leave the Roman Empire, and.... Secession is self-legitimizing.

2.

Resolved: That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved."'

If states can't leave the union they can't be free and independent.

3. The Supreme Court's word is law but that doesn't make their word right. According to the Supreme Court, the tomato is a vegetable.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

The war was started by the North, I thought everyone agreed on that.

No, the opposite is pretty much agreed upon.

When we talk about what the war was about, we talk about why the North would want to fight, not why the South seceded. As far as I know, no one in the South wanted to fight the war; they were just defending themselves.

Dude, you must live in some parallel universe where the opposites happen; all I've ever heard is about why the South wanted to fight, what they were fighting for, etc. and all you hear about the North is fighting "to preserve the Union."

As far as "defending themselves" goes, if you throw the first punch, that makes you the agressor.

 

[.Shane.]

Wow, I'm not sure how seriously I should take this reply... You have almost everything either wrong or backward.

The war was started by the North, I thought everyone agreed on that.

The south chose to secede. They didn't try to find a way out via, say, negotiation or legislation. They then proceeded to arm themselves, confiscate federal property and expel federal forces that would cooperate, and when they came across federal forces that would not cooperate, they eventually attacked them.

When we talk about what the war was about, we talk about why the North would want to fight, not why the South seceded. As far as I know, no one in the South wanted to fight the war; they were just defending themselves.

No one anywhere wanted to fight the war. It came because the two sides could not reconcile their differences.

However, that said, the south initiated combat. They didn't have to. The north didn't force them to. They also did so as other were trying to solve the issues... etc... etc...

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Sounds like you have the Hollywood version.

While it is correct that the CW is primarily about slavery, its also incorrect that hte north was perfect or racism free or some kind of nirvana for the laboring class. But, please show me where I've made that argument.

Please show me where I said that you made that argument. I did not mean you in particular but people in general. If you don't believe the Hollywood version, good for you.

 

[shortguy]

The war was started by the North, I thought everyone agreed on that.

Yes and no. If the North hadn't wanted a war, then there wouldn't have been one, true, but there wouldn't have been a war if the Confederacy hadn't seceded, either.

When we talk about what the war was about, we talk about why the North would want to fight, not why the South seceded. As far as I know, no one in the South wanted to fight the war; they were just defending themselves.

The South wouldn't have had to have defended itself if it hadn't seceded.


For what it's worth, the professor of my US Military History class, who is the Civil War professor here (I think it's actually part of his title), is adamant in the belief that the Civil War was at its heart about slavery. I don't know if that's an opinion that most people in the field share, though.

 

[Babbler]

It was the North that invaded the South, after all.

Again, because the South succeeded. It succeeded because its slave-owning aristocracy realized it no longer had the clout to bully the North into its demands.

 

[Elrohir]

Texas is the only state with the right to secede, and it was part of their acceptance into the union that they be allowed to do so if they so chose.

Also not true.

At the time there was no decisive legal opinion. Nor was there legal precedent. In your defense, some make the case for historical precedent.

My point is there was no definitive rule... just self-serving opinions.

Wrong. The US Constitution does not mention the right to secede anywhere in it's text. (If it does, then please quote the relevant passage. But you can't, because I'm right and it doesn't.) And according to the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people."

In plain English, if the US Constitution doesn't say that the state's can't do it, then they can. The US Constitution doesn't say that state's cannot secede from the Union, ergo, they can.

As for precedent, there is certainly precedent, especially in the US for legal secession. We need look no further than the US Declaration of Independence, which says "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation......But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Do I agree that the US government was, at this time, a despotic government? No, but my opinion doesn't establish reality. They had every right to an alternative point of view on this issue. Don't get me wrong - I wasn't born in the South, despite living there now, and I'm glad the Union won the war, and that slavery was abolished. But Constitutionally speaking, at the time the US federal government had no legal right to force the secessionist states into staying in the Union.

 

[Azale]

I am very greatful that a nation doomed to failure and built on slavery did not succeed. It makes my blood boil whenever I see a Confederate flag, and even more when the excuse is "to represent my southern heritage". Its not MY heritage, thats for sure.

I dislike some *cough*Pontiuth*cough* generalizing all Southerners as redneck, Stars & Bars waving, gun nutsos who can't get over a war that happened over 150 years ago. But just go ahead and generalize if it makes you feel better, doesn't make it true.

 

[Zande33]

I'm glad we lost, but if I were alive I would have supported the Confederacy, because I would have lived in a core part.

By the way: im Dallas, Texas