I mean, I can't think of a nice way to put it, but...you're wrong. The main reason was because they were defending their land. Many had no idea it was because of slaves, or states' rights, etc. They knew they were being invaded.

 

And since this is the War Between The States thread, I would like to put this comment: General Sherman would be tried and sentenced to a very harsh punishment for his war crimes, if it had taken place today. So would Lincoln (that racist piece of sh*t), for advocating it.

so would 98% of victorious armies if using modern ideals of war, is there a point to that?

 

 

and Lincoln was no more racist than the typical Southern Congressman.

 

 

 

I guess Jeff Davis was a non-racist right?

so then like i stated way back when.....

 

 

in the end it all comes back to slavery....

 

 

in economic, social, poltical terms etc.....

slavery in the economic sense maybe, but the south overall was inadequate economoically, much like a lot of latin america. it lacked a manufacturing base and proper transportation. Its exports weren';t diversified and were primarily agricultural. All of these things made the idea of slavery going away very threatening, So it depend on what you see is the cause. Slavery, because no slavery sparked revolt or economic backwardness, which in its most broad sense is what put the south in such a position.

 

 

We know now of course, that slavery only held the south back, because it prevented it from becoming industrialized.

Ok... I am baffled now :o How was Lincoln a racist???? Forgive my ignorance in the subject since you all know I am an invited guest to the USA party. As far as I can remember from history books (in Colombia we study World's History) Lincoln advocated freedom and the abolition of slavery. Also, some southerners seem to think that the North attack them without warning or reason... Here is an excerpt of Lincoln's biography:

 

Lincoln warned the South in his Inaugural Address: "In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you.... You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to preserve, protect and defend it."

 

Lincoln thought secession illegal, and was willing to use force to defend Federal law and the Union. When Confederate batteries fired on Fort Sumter and forced its surrender, he called on the states for 75,000 volunteers. Four more slave states joined the Confederacy but four remained within the Union. The Civil War had begun.

Now, if I missed a page in the History book or somehow I was not taught something you did, please correct me, but this is an excerpt of what Lincoln stated most movingly in dedicating the military cemetery at Gettysburg:

"that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

Second Inaugural Address:

"With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds.... "

 

How was this man a racist SOB like someone called him?

lol, how was he racist...oh geez, I guess I must look up the quotes....

 

meanwhile...

 

now, here is a quote from Jefferson Davis in an interview... "And emancipation! You have already emancipated nearly two millions of our slaves, and if you will take care of them you may emancipate the rest. I had a few when the war began. I was of some use to them; they never were of any to me. Against their will you 'emancipated' them, and you may 'emancipate' every Negro in the Confederacy, but we will be free. We will govern ourselves. We will do it if we have to see every Southern plantation sacked, and every Southern city in flames."

 

 

And Jefferson Davis may be considered a racist (because he did own slaves, but one must look into how he handled his slaves, and how they felt towards him....that gets on a whole other sidetrack, and requires way too much typing...maybe I'll get to that later), but he was an advocate of freeing the slaves.....EVENTUALLY. He wanted them to be assimilated, so they could be productive members of society. Robert E. Lee himself, was adamant against slavery, and supported the emancipation of slaves immediately. No, I'm not saying there weren't any racists in the South. I am proving the myth that Lincoln was trying to help the slaves WRONG.

 

which gets me to a point I wanted to bring up, because it is relevant to the War for Southern Independence (although, no Sorianofan, it is not answering the original question). Was the emancipation of slaves best for slaves? For our country? Yes slavery is wrong, and I am glad today that there is none. But should it have been a slower process...so that the slaves could be properly acclimated to society. I mean, these former slaves knew nothing about living on their own. In fact, many of the former slaves resorted to crime, or to going back to their former masters and working for very little wage. If they didn't do that, they most likely ended up in the North working in just as bad of conditions as slavery, in factories working with immigrants for next to nothing.

 

Just a thought...

here's a quote from him in a debate with Stephen Douglas in 1858 (September 18th to be exact)...

 

"He [Douglas] shall have no occasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am not in favor of Negro citizenship....

I will say then, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way, the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor have ever been in favor of making voters of the Negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them marry with white people. I will say in addition that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I suppose will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality and inasmuch as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior that I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white man... "

 

it's amazing what they dont teach ya in history classes.

 

Lincoln had his own agenda (preserving the Union). He didnt give a rat's a** about slavery...in fact...

 

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." - 1st Inaugural Address March 4, 1861.

 

"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." (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862)

 

there ya have it.

Furman, would you mind stating your source or a link? This is sort of new to me. As you say, it is not taught in history class, therefore I want to know where this came from and if it is from a valid source or is pure speculation.

Lincoln didnt want to see slavery extended to other newer lands.

 

 

something the South couldnt grasp.

 

 

they wanted to be able to extend slavery further West into new lands they move into.

 

 

Lincoln was very much against that.

Furman, would you mind stating your source or a link? This is sort of new to me. As you say, it is not taught in history class, therefore I want to know where this came from and if it is from a valid source or is pure speculation.

Don't get too sucked in by Furman...Why? I disagree with his view of history!

 

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." - 1st Inaugural Address March 4, 1861.

How does this prove Lincoln was a racist? It doesn't. Of course he would say this because he wanted to prevent a war that would kill 600,000 people. Would he eventually end slavery? Probably, that's what the republicans ran on and that's why the south got enraged when he was elected. Lincoln had to use the "preserving the union": card in order to solidify support for a war.

 

Should of slavery been ended in a more gradual fashion. NO. Right after the civil war, slavery and disfranchisment was eliminated in 5 years. The freeman's bureau was helping people get on their feet, and more blacks were literate than whites in proportion before 1890. Why? They were getting their asses educated and the south felt threatened, disenfranchised the blacks, reinstated an economic form of slavery, and meanwhile guys like Booker T. Washington advocated blacks to not demand equal rights and taking it slow.

 

Taking it slowly did not work. It just perpetuates inequality. Du bois had the right thing going, and it would take until the 1960s to get work done.

 

Anyone who was for letting slavery lasting a second longer was a racist, because when the war was over, laws were made fast, and more blacks were getting educated. A gradual assimlation would build towards what?

"I will say then, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way, the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor have ever been in favor of making voters of the Negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them marry with white people. I will say in addition that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I suppose will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality and inasmuch as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior that I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white man... "

 

LOOK AT THAT! He FORBIDS the two races to live together on terms of social and political EQUALITY. He explicitly states that the superior position should go to the WHITE man! It can't get much clearer. But, Lincoln decides to go on...he doesnt want Negroes to vote, or be on juries, or hold office. So far, so racist. He also is against blacks marrying whites.

 

I mean, he can't get much clearer.

 

And, I could cite the stuff, but I only got these quotes from websites, and I hate citing stuff from websites. The above quote is straight out of the debate transcripts, which you can read at a library (or on the internet) most likely. I have a few books that cite everything (including these quotes), but I have left the books back in SC.

 

For having such an open mind, Sorianofan, you seem to not want to think that maybe our "national hero" Abraham Lincoln was not in fact such a hero.

 

Furthermore, I believe it is our right to secede as a state, if we want. Just as the colonies broke away from the tyranny of Great Britain, the Southern states broke away from Union.

 

Hell, their vote didn't even mean a thing! Lincoln wasn't even on the ballots in the South, yet he won. Why? More people in the North. What the hell is the South supposed to do, if their vote means nothing! Not to mention, they were getting raped by tariffs (who were ironically placed by Southerner president Andrew Jackson) for exporting cotton.

 

And the North...well weren't they just a bunch of abolitionist moralists! The Northern states had slaves just like the Southern states. But then, they realized...what the hell do we have slaves for? We have factories, and industry! So...instead of, oh I dont know, FREEING their slaves...they sold em to the Southern plantation owners....real cute. Throw in little facts like Illinois (Lincoln's state....I dont consider him a Kentuckian) wouldn't even allow a black in their state! What the hell! Racist pieces of sh*t!

 

This sh*t pisses me off, because yes the South wasnt perfect, and slavery is an evil institution. But Northerners need to get off their high horses, and history needs to be taught the right way. Unfortunately, the winners write the history books.

and the effects of immediate emancipation can still be seen today.

and the effects of immediate emancipation can still be seen today.

No, the effects of unequal segregated education and a failing attitude is what is seen today.

why is there a failing attitude?

 

And, by segregated education system, I guess you mean the South. But, the effects can be seen all over the U.S.

LOOK AT THAT! He FORBIDS the two races to live together on terms of social and political EQUALITY. He explicitly states that the superior position should go to the WHITE man! It can't get much clearer. But, Lincoln decides to go on...he doesnt want Negroes to vote, or be on juries, or hold office. So far, so racist. He also is against blacks marrying whites.

 

I mean, he can't get much clearer.

 

And, I could cite the stuff, but I only got these quotes from websites, and I hate citing stuff from websites. The above quote is straight out of the debate transcripts, which you can read at a library (or on the internet) most likely. I have a few books that cite everything (including these quotes), but I have left the books back in SC.

 

 

Furthermore, I believe it is our right to secede as a state, if we want. Just as the colonies broke away from the tyranny of Great Britain, the Southern states broke away from Union.

 

Hell, their vote didn't even mean a thing! Lincoln wasn't even on the ballots in the South, yet he won. Why? More people in the North. What the hell is the South supposed to do, if their vote means nothing! Not to mention, they were getting raped by tariffs (who were ironically placed by Southerner president Andrew Jackson) for exporting cotton.

 

And the North...well weren't they just a bunch of abolitionist moralists! The Northern states had slaves just like the Southern states. But then, they realized...what the hell do we have slaves for? We have factories, and industry! So...instead of, oh I dont know, FREEING their slaves...they sold em to the Southern plantation owners....real cute. Throw in little facts like Illinois (Lincoln's state....I dont consider him a Kentuckian) wouldn't even allow a black in their state! What the hell! Racist pieces of sh*t!

 

This sh*t pisses me off, because yes the South wasnt perfect, and slavery is an evil institution. But Northerners need to get off their high horses, and history needs to be taught the right way. Unfortunately, the winners write the history books.

"I will say then, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way, the social and political equality of the white and black races -- that I am not, nor have ever been in favor of making voters of the Negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them marry with white people. I will say in addition that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which I suppose will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality and inasmuch as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior that I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white man... "

That sounds pretty damn racist, but this was a debate and he had to take a ground acceptable to more people. Lincoln favored giving every slave enough land and what not so they can build a new beginning. This was too radical and so no one supported it, so Lincoln had to compromise his beliefs on many occasions. Could of he been a racist even still? Maybe, but to take quotes from when a man is trying to appeal to the masses of the american people does not reveal the true man- the legislation (emancipation proclamation, though it was to try to get some states to return to the union, and the partitioning of land and establishment of services to help blacks) is what shows his true intentions.

 

For having such an open mind, Sorianofan, you seem to not want to think that maybe our "national hero" Abraham Lincoln was not in fact such a hero.

He could of been a dick and a racist. However, from seeing the legislation he wanted passed and always didn't get and the fact he had to compromise his positions makes it hard for one to accuse him of being racist. He was a politician remember. If you gave me a breakdown of racist political agenda, I would believe you 100%.

 

Furthermore, I believe it is our right to secede as a state, if we want. Just as the colonies broke away from the tyranny of Great Britain, the Southern states broke away from Union.

I don't think its anyone's right. It sets a precedent for chaos. We're strong united, not divided. If this government gets tyrannical (which I beleive the state governments are just as bad as the federal), it must be a mass uprising of all americans, not individual states that can compromise the nation as a whole.

 

 

And the North...well weren't they just a bunch of abolitionist moralists! The Northern states had slaves just like the Southern states. But then, they realized...what the hell do we have slaves for? We have factories, and industry! So...instead of, oh I dont know, FREEING their slaves...they sold em to the Southern plantation owners....real cute. Throw in little facts like Illinois (Lincoln's state....I dont consider him a Kentuckian) wouldn't even allow a black in their state! What the hell! Racist pieces of sh*t!

Oh I know. The emancipation proclamation just freed SOUTHERN slaves, not union slaves. The north was very racist too, that's why lincoln came across as a racist in your quotations- he was trying to woo northern voters.

 

This sh*t pisses me off, because yes the South wasnt perfect, and slavery is an evil institution. But Northerners need to get off their high horses, and history needs to be taught the right way. Unfortunately, the winners write the history books.

Yes, we need more accurate teaching. We need to stop glorifying Booker T. Washington and give Du Bois is fair share of attention, people ened to know that the north had defacto segregation (and still does), people need to know that lincoln fought a war to "preserve the union" because the north didn't really care about southern slaves.

 

However, we "northerners", especially northeast coastal people, view people from the south as slow and stupid. My honest opinion is that there is no such things as genetic inferiority, but I know this:" In Virginia, it took a Wendy's 50 minutes to make my burger! At least the arby's in virginia was very good. I beleive southern states have really bad test scores like california, because they would have less education. Does that make us better than southerners? No. Are we smarter if statistically we are better academically? Yes. Can education systems be fixed so such a discrephancy doesn't exist? Yeah.

Furman, please SOURCE!

why is there a failing attitude?

 

And, by segregated education system, I guess you mean the South. But, the effects can be seen all over the U.S.

Yeah, there is still de facto segregation with whites going to subburb schools and blacks to crappy city schools. Blacks schools were pretty well funded before the "reclamation" in the south which pretty much screwed black education.

 

I agree with you, the effects can be seen all over the US...that's why there's a problem.

 

And failing attitude? I'll tell you. I have spoken to guys from the city, I have been to the city...I observe these things. A lot of urbanites blame their problems on someone else. They see these stable external problems them cannot fix, so they make attributions concerning this causing them not to try as hard. They don't take responsibiltiy for their own failures, they blame someone else. They don't work their butts off like immigrants, so they just spend what little money they have on stuff and sat in debt and not get a proper education.

 

Less urbanites go to college or graduate than "Standard" white people.

 

Why? There's a failing attitude and lack of work ethic. Sicne FDR, people are unde rthe assumption the government has to bail everyone out of their problems. My neighbors are polish immigrants who work their butts off and they are slowly before my eyes making something of themselves. They work more than they have to. Why? They are in a deep hole and they want to get out. Many urbanites have been americans for two or more generations and they believe its up to america to bail them out, not themselves. so they have this failing attitude instead of the immigrant work ethic, which is neccessary if one wants to make it out of the hole.

 

Did i answer why there is a failing attitude? I'll make it simple:

1. Attributions concernign their failures to table causes

2. Typical americas- relatively lazy and think the government should bail them out

3. economic disparity- harder to make it out in the first place

 

Why is it the asians, who were lower than blacks, now make more money than whites on average? Their culture stresses better work ethic! They didn't have that failing attitude. And neither do my polish neighbors.

Actually, it's believed that Lincoln actually wanted to send all slaves back to Africa (eventhough all slaves at this time were born and bred in the States).

 

Link

 

Civil rights activists were also irritated by Mrs. Stowe?s support of the American Colonization Society?s belief that slaves should be returned to Africa, support she shared with Abraham Lincoln.

 

This link talks about Uncle Tom's Cabin...I found it intriguing.

I refuse to blame the fact that blacks have higher percentages of crime than whites because they are simply lazier. There are other reasons, and I feel a lot of it stems from how they were emancipated 150 years ago.

The Civil War ended any and all notion of seceding from the United States just because you feel it is best for you.

there were Northern states that at first SUPPORTED the secession of the Southern states. I still see no valid reason as to why a Southern state (or any state) should not be allowed to secede, if they feel it is in their best interest.

 

I look at where I live as most important, followed by state, THEN country. Because frankly, George Bush, Al Gore, or Howard Dean don't have nearly as much an effect as city council, and such.

It is not the interest of a few but the interest of ALL that should be taken into account. If you want to divorce your wife for whatever reason, she has to agree. Otherwise it is war!

It was in the best interest of the United States (North and South) that the South should not secede. Because they refuse to be part of a whole and the North refused to be divided into pieces... They went to war. Imagine having two different countries instead of one??????

seceding from a country, should not be equated to a marriage.

 

Just like the founding fathers, and the patriots that helped us secede from Great Britain, the state is more important the the country.

 

Pretty much what yall are saying is that it's alright to secede if you are willing to go to war, and you will win. Because, it's alright for the colonies to secede from GB because we won. But it's not alright for the Southern states to secede, because we lost. I dont understand.

I am imagining 2 different countries, and I am seeing a great team of the USA and the CSA.

 

It would be much like the relationship between Canada and the US except that it would be a MUCH stronger relationship. We would still rely on each other, and trade would continue (therefore, relationship is good).

 

From your statement, it seems like you are saying that the ends justify the means. Who cares how it went down in the 1860s, because whats good is that we are unified today. Right?

 

Who cares that Sherman destroyed the South Carolina coast, Atlanta, Columbia, and all the small towns in between (in the middle of the winter), destroying lives and property. Who cares that millions of CSA soldiers and USA soldiers died. Who cares that Reconstruction was such a terrible enactment, and that it was totally illegal. Who cares! Whats good is that we are together now...right?

 

Wrong.

ok if we had lost to Great Britian we would still be British subjects...and that would pretty much of ended the talk of us revolting and forming a new government.

 

 

States' Rights is an archaic principle and needs to be replaced with more modern ways of thinking as it stands anyway.

I dont see what you're getting at in your Great Britain comment.

 

As for States' Rights...I'm talking more about loyalty. Frankly, I believe loyalty should be placed towards what's closest to you...i.e. State over Country.