Myths about the American Civil War

[Lonestar]

The article does a poor job of presenting that fact. Of course it runs counter to the position taken that the south was in any way vibrant and gaining momentum.

The article is titled "Five myths about why the South seceded", and then it lists them by the numbers.

[Tuberski]

It's important to know the reasons why the American Civil War was fought. Otherwise, we let distortionists have free reign.

So I thing you're wrong.

You better not thing me.

If we don't care why it was fought we don't care what retarded distortions are presented, now do we.

I actually heard an apparent staunch Republican, say that Democrats were ignorant, today. I just laughed at him and left the table.

I've never seen a hillbilly liberal.

ACK!

[Hauldren Collider]

Yeah, that's why it's a MYTH Dingus.




Northern Virginia is not "The South", at least not culturally. The Mason-Dixon line is a poor demarcation point for the cultural South. The Sweet Tea line is a better boundry.

Did you miss the Tennessee part? And also, I'm pretty sure schools in Virginia all use the same textbooks.

That line's wrong, by the way. Have you ever been in Fauquier county?

[Lonestar]

Did you miss the Tennessee part? And also, I'm pretty sure schools in Virginia all use the same textbooks.

That line's wrong, by the way. Have you ever been in Fauquier county?

How old were you in Tennessee? You're like 13 now, so I'm guessing your History class in TN consisted of Disney's Pocahontas.

And yeah, personal ancedotes don't trump statistics. Did they not teach you that at your school for "science and technology"?

[MrFun]

You better not thing me.

If we don't care why it was fought we don't care what retarded distortions are presented, now do we.

I actually heard an apparent staunch Republican, say that Democrats were ignorant, today. I just laughed at him and left the table.

I've never seen a hillbilly liberal.

ACK!

Ooops - sorry. I didn't thing I had offended you.

[Arrian]

They fired off some cannons here in Hartford this morning (to commemorate Beauregard's attack on Ft. Sumter).

I am, rightly or wrongly, under the impression that the causes of southern sucession were:
- states rights AND
- tariffs AND
- slavery

States rights: pretty much wrong here. This was a convenient position held only when it helped and discarded when it hurt (see also: Fugitive Slave Act).

Tariffs: The South had pretty much won this argument, or at least their position was ascendant. Tariffs in the late 1850s were extremely low. The big tariff fight was back in ~1830. This issue could have risen again, of course, and old animosities from earlier political battles may have helped "poison the well" but no way this triggered the war.

Slavery: correct. Not just the preservation of slavery in the Old South, but also its expansion. The real fight was over the territories. Also, there was concern in the North that the Dred Scott decision could be read as preventing the abolition of slavery even in Northern states (this was probably a bit overblown, but I get it). The rulers of the South, obviously, were worried about retaining enough political power to protect their immensely profitable "peculiar institution," where basically all of their capital lay (#1 asset class in the United States - all of it - at the time? Slaves).

Lincoln would have happily avoided war by promising not to mess w/slavery where it already existed. Lincoln would not, I believe, have allowed slavery's spread. The Powers that Were in the South couldn't allow that - it would've meant a slow descent into minority status (in the federal government). From the founding until the Civil War, The South pretty much ran the federal government. Then they lost an election and... well... yeah.

-Arrian

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

The article is titled "Five myths about why the South seceded", and then it lists them by the numbers.

Items 4 and likely 5 are not appropriate to the title. The motivation of Lincoln to prosecute a war for the rejoining of the union has little bearing as the secession activities were a fait accompli at the time. His response to threatened or actual secession had little bearing on the south' s decisions to secede or southern motivation. This points seems simple filler to say that the Lincln wasn't a hard core abolitionist and was instead a moderate and that the south was acting in dispropportionate fashion. If that was his intent the author failed to explicitly draw that link. Until he makes that implied conclusion item 4 has no real bearing to the myths of why the South seceded. Item 4 is a portion of the larger mythology of the civil war in general not of southern rationales.

Item 5 is suppositional at best as the author ackowledges and therefor not worthy of inclusion as a 'factual' point of order.

In summary I agree with Whoha, the article is rather sloppy.

[SpencerH]

States rights: pretty much wrong here. This was a convenient position held only when it helped and discarded when it hurt (see also: Fugitive Slave Act).

Tariffs: The South had pretty much won this argument, or at least their position was ascendant. Tariffs in the late 1850s were extremely low. The big tariff fight was back in ~1830. This issue could have risen again, of course, and old animosities from earlier political battles may have helped "poison the well" but no way this triggered the war.

Slavery: correct. Not just the preservation of slavery in the Old South, but also its expansion. The real fight was over the territories. Also, there was concern in the North that the Dred Scott decision could be read as preventing the abolition of slavery even in Northern states (this was probably a bit overblown, but I get it). The rulers of the South, obviously, were worried about retaining enough political power to protect their immensely profitable "peculiar institution," where basically all of their capital lay (#1 asset class in the United States - all of it - at the time? Slaves).

Lincoln would have happily avoided war by promising not to mess w/slavery where it already existed. Lincoln would not, I believe, have allowed slavery's spread. The Powers that Were in the South couldn't allow that - it would've meant a slow descent into minority status (in the federal government). From the founding until the Civil War, The South pretty much ran the federal government. Then they lost an election and... well... yeah.

-Arrian

I pretty much agree with this except I think the tariffs were a bigger incindiary factor than you suggest.

The ironic thing about the secession is this, if the south had stayed in the union, slavery would have survived much longer than it did.

[Docfeelgood]

They fought because there was nothing better to do