no representation?

 

 

didnt every Southern state have 2 senators?

 

 

what the big bad North had more representatives in Congress because they had a higher population...boo hoo.

 

 

bottom line, if the South had any organization they could have defeated Lincoln. They didnt.

 

 

Stop trying to blame everyone else, while ignoring the facts. The North united behind Lincoln. The South had no clue whom to vote for.

once again, whether the South COULD have had representation is not the point in as much as the fact that they didnt THINK they had representation.

 

But you are helping my point. YES! They did have a higher population. Therefore, they had more say in the House of Representatives. This is exactly what New Jersey (a Northern state) was worried about when the foundation was laid for this country (New Jersey Plan, as opposed to the Virginia Plan--A southern state...ironic).

 

The fact they FELT they did not have proper representation in the Presidential election, added to the fact that they did not have AS MUCH representation (whether it's fair or not) is a main cause. Notice slavery was not mentioned.

 

Once again, they must have been some DAMN good politicians to convince the Southern States' people that they are fighting to save the institution of slavery.

 

I have not even brought points about how each state seceded individually, and in some cases, for different reasons. Check North Carolina's history, as to why and when they seceded.

And as for those who compare the Confederate flag to the Nazi flag...very interesting article, written by the chairman of the North Carolina League of the South...

 

Nazis? Not Hardly

 

Debunking South-Haters

 

 

 

by Michael C. Tuggle

 

 

 

You've seen the accusations. Every time there's a debate on the Confederate Battleflag, someone compares it to the Nazi flag. Typical of such comments is this one from a letter to the Charlotte Observer:

 

?The Stars and Bars [sic]represents the same thing to African-Americans as the Nazi swastika represents to Jews. Why should a people be subjected to a painful reminder of a time when they were systematically victimized, to be sold like cattle, starved, beaten, and murdered just because of their race??

 

And so on.

 

Another round of Confederate flag bashing was unleashed after the election in Austria of a candidate said to have neo-Nazi ties. Editorial cartoonists around the US showed the Confederate flag flying over Vienna, while others penned the Nazi flag over Columbia.

 

The truth is, when you compare the underlying ideas of the Confederate and the Nazi governments, it's clear that such comparisons have no basis in fact. Further, if you take the next step and compare the Union and Nazi causes, some troubling (or amusing, depending on your point of view) parallels emerge.

 

First, what was Nazism? The Nazis created a centralised, authoritarian government based on nationalist and socialist principles that reject traditionalism and celebrate man?s sovereignty. Nazis, like Communists, believed in the centralised power of the state as an instrument for creating a better world. The state was supreme, an expression of the ?people?s will.? Hitler perverted the normal affection for one?s own countrymen into a materialistic creed of racial superiority. An alliance of state power and big business kept the masses busy with rallies that transformed men into machines. When Hitler promised that he would ?teach Germans how to think,? he meant that they would learn to act logically rather than being constrained by traditional morality or compassion. The old order, according to the Nazis, was based on a ?slave morality? that encouraged compassion and forgiveness, obvious signs of weakness to the Nazi mind. Nazi racial theories were based on ?survival of the fittest? ideas of progress, with superior races eventually coming to dominate inferior races. Thus, in the Nazi view, the all-powerful state should promote the growth of the superior race, and discourage the growth of inferiors.

 

Compare Nazism to the Southern Cause. Our Confederate forefathers were secessionists who wanted only to be left alone to preserve the traditional order, an order based on Christian principles and limited government. What use would Hitler have had for a Confederate constitution that limited the president to a single six-year term? States Rights, which seeks to disperse political power as a counterweight to the central government is based on the idea that fallen man simply cannot be trusted to wield concentrated power.

 

The status of Jews in the South would also displease Herr Hitler. Judah P. Benjamin served in the Confederate cabinet. David Yulee of Florida was the first Jew to be elected to the US Senate. After the war, former North Carolina governor Zebulon Vance toured the US making a speech entitled ?The Scattered Nation,? which argued for tolerance of Jews.

 

On the other hand, more parallels quickly come to mind when comparing the North to the Nazis. Like the Nazis, the Radical Republicans represented an alliance of Big Business and Big Government. Hitler?s first political speech was a blistering attack on a professor who'd advocated that the state of Bavaria secede from Germany. Like Lincoln, Hitler believed national glory justified mass slaughter, as well as the illegal imprisonment of dissenters. When the South peacefully seceded, Lincoln, leader of the party of nationalist expansion through Federal subsidies of Big Business, instead embarked on an unconstitutional campaign to hold and subjugate the agrarian South by any means.

 

Many Native Americans, aware they stood in the way of North?s dreams of nationalistic glory, allied with the Confederacy. Cherokee General Stand Watie was the last Confederate commander to surrender. The Union?s subsequent genocide against Native Americans included the distribution of smallpox-infected blankets on reservations. General Phil Sheridan, who declared the only good Indians he?d ever seen were dead, used the same techniques of warfare against Indian women and children he had perfected against civilian Southerners. But despite Sheridan?s and Sherman?s war crimes, Robert E. Lee refused to retaliate against Northern civilians. The North, like the Nazis, pursued a brutal policy of military aggression to pursue its ends.

 

And what of Grant?s Gen. Order number 11, which expelled all Jews from his theatre of operations? This order, issued in late 1862, was backed up by Assistant Secretary of War Wolcott, who approved such action against ?Jews and other unprincipled traders.?

 

Such actions cannot be easily dismissed as accidents of war. When two parties undertake similar actions, it's critical whether they base those actions on shared underlying ideas. After the North brought its version of progress and enlightenment to the South, it then eradicated the Indians in the name of progress as well. Subsequent US campaigns against the Philippinos took nearly a quarter million lives.

 

The legacy of Northern ?progress? continued to manifest itself in subsequent social policy in Northern states. On 13 August, 1999, National Public Radio reviewed Nancy Gallagher's book Breeding Better Vermonters: The Eugenics Project in the Green Mountain State. Gallagher has documented the eugenics programs of the 20's and 30's, which she clearly identifies as being based on ?the legacy of progressive era reforms.? While Southerners rejected notions of the perfectibility of man, many Northern states implemented social policy based on just such notions. One of the groups targeted by the Vermont Eugenics program were the Abenaki Indians, who were deemed undesirable because of their traditional lifestyle of hunting and living off the land. Sterilization and reeducation were used to limit the numbers of the Abenaki and other so-called ?undesirables.? It's interesting to note that California conducted a similar eugenics program.

 

So, which side, North or South, has the most ?links? to the Nazi movement? Some of those links are fairly direct. The Reich Youth Leader in the Nazi administration was Baldur von Schirach, whose great-grandfather was a Union officer who fought at Manassas. Baldur told his captors at Nuremburg that he began to despise Jews at the age of 17 after reading Henry Ford?s Eternal Jew.

 

Mr Mike Tuggle is the chairman of the NC League of the South

 

http://www.southernevents.org/nazis.htm

yup, thats how it was.

 

 

slavery meant squat to Southerners. it existed but since 95% of the people didnt own slaves it meant nothing.

 

 

nevermind the fact that lower class Southerners didnt strive to be upper class slave owning citizens.

 

 

lets just make excuses for the fact that so many of the most important Southerners owned slaves. Yes slavery was wrong, yes holding slaves was not the thing to do....

 

News flash....they still OWNED slaves.

 

 

The Civil War's main underlying cause and the cause that everything traces back to is slavery.

 

 

What's ironic entails the South's attempts to make slaves count as population, but yet not be treated as people in various moments prior to 1861.

 

 

Both sides were racist. The South wanted to maintain an agrarian way of life which is obvious. The North was industrializing while moving forward. Its a matter of two differing viewpoints.

 

The South's economy and way of life revolved around slavery. Period.

The economy was based on cotton. And yes, slavery was a big issue in the economy, the problem was TARRIFFS, economically.

 

Just as representation was a problem...economically, tarriffs was the problem. The Southern states were exporting cotton to Europe. The North was not getting the cotton like they wanted to, so tarriffs were created, and raised (by ironically, Southerner Andrew Jackson).

 

I am not denying that slavery was present in the South. I'm not saying that slavery had nothing to do with the war. But the main reasons were tarriffs, states' rights, and representation.

William Lloyd Garrison was a militant Yankee ABOLITIONIST (anti-slavery) and editor of the Liberator. This is what he had to say when the first 7 states seceded from the Union..."My biggest worry is that Southern secession is just a bluff." Wow. Doesn't sound like he was to concerned about slavery.

 

Ok, I'm gonna delve into the fact that different states had different reasons for seceding from the Union (therefore, further developing my theory that slavery was in fact NOT the main issue).

 

Take North Carolina for example. They chose not to be one of the first 7 states to secede from the Union in February of 1861. Along with NC was Tennessee, Arkansas, and VIRGINIA.

 

But, in April of 1861, Lincoln orders 75,000 troops to invade the South (even though Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution says that only Congress has the power to call up militia). Lincoln also orders the blockade of ALL Southern ports (including North Carolina's...who was PRO-UNION!).

 

So, on May 20, 1861, North Carolina secedes from the Union, along with Tennessee, Arkansas, and Virginia.

 

I have only talked about these 4 states (especially North Carolina, since that was the example state), and obviously, slavery was NOT an issue. At least not an issue for seceding (which of course was the most direct cause of the war).

 

Also, for those who think Lincoln was a good President (whether racist or no), check out this link....it's long, so I figured only Sorianofan will read it. http://www.southerncaucus.org/ron8.htm

 

Look at how dirty of a politician he was!

 

In 1848, he talks about how we have the sacred right to rise up against government (here's the quote: "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. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.").

 

Then later, as President (15 years later), he says that we do NOT have the right to rise up against government (here's the quote: "No state, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union. Plainly, the central idea of secession, is the essence of anarchy.").

 

Man, Lincoln pisses me off.

the tariffs were an immediate cause for the state rights conflicts during jackson's administration. A republican president threatened the south economically because of the perceived stance on slavery.

 

edit:

I'm reading the lincoln thing now, but from reading your post, I don't see how this really reflects upon lincoln's presidency. Of course, there was no real need to take back the south. The "preserving the union" things was an excuse to take back the south to prevent us from having two possible hostile neighbors to the north and the south.

 

edit:stuff fromt he article...

Lincoln bastardized a respected federal government with limited powers into a dictatorial, uncontrollable Washington federal empire.

This is a very strong statement. How about the progressive movement? FDR? Lyndon Johnson? George W. Bush Jr? Lincoln's "dictatorial federal empire" dissolved after the war and not until the progressive movement had the government start attain a massive regulatory beureaucratic(sp?) structure.

 

 

Sadly, in the case of Abraham Lincoln?s war against the Confederacy and Southern civilians, it was all for money, company profits and government tariff revenues. A simple case of political pay back in return for the Northeastern manufacturing interests that supported the Republican Party and his campaign for the presidency.

Is it that simple? That is like saying the USA got involved in WW1 purely because of banking interests or armaments manufacturers. There are strategic and other long term reasons for the civil war, most notably the fact that US power would be hurt by a CSA neighbor.

 

 

 

This article is big on assumptions yet lacks good examples. Many of the things that happened under lincoln, such as burning down cities and suspension of habeus corpus aren't hidden in the history books. We now tend to believe that the end justified the means. A society without slavery, a unified "United States of America" led to greater end than a divided house, which would of probably fought each other like the countries in south america, and lead to unforseen, horrible consequences.

 

You have to take the good with the bad and the bad with the good. That's why Nixon is my favorite president.

still if slavery and the race issue was unimportant and not a major aspect of Southern life then what was the need for Jim Crow?

I really don't wanna go there right now (Jim Crow, poll tax, etc.)....so I'll just a few things...I don't have enough time right now....but I will say this: blacks were voting how the carpetbaggers and scalawags wanted them to, and not for Southern candidates. Were the Jim Crow laws, poll tax, literacy tests, etc. because they just didnt want people with black skin to vote? Maybe some. But it was more because of how they were voting. It wasn't right of them to do it, and you would have to search pretty hard to find someone that says that Jim Crow laws were good (although, I do kinda like the literacy test), but that was their reasoning. It wasn't because they were former slaves, or because they looked different. That is a cute smokescreen that education tries pushing on us, though. Race is a great way of making someone look bad, and as The Drive-By Truckers once said, "it's more convenient to talk race in a Southern accent."

Oh, and Sorianofan, yes that article took things to a little extreme. It did present interesting ideas, which was the point of me giving the link. I mean, it was on the Southern Caucus' website, so it will be a bit one-sided.

 

An interesting book to read is the Real Lincoln...I forget the author. My dad has the book, I'll ask him who the author was.

Oh, and Sorianofan, yes that article took things to a little extreme. It did present interesting ideas, which was the point of me giving the link. I mean, it was on the Southern Caucus' website, so it will be a bit one-sided.

 

An interesting book to read is the Real Lincoln...I forget the author. My dad has the book, I'll ask him who the author was.

I'll be taking a course on the presidents soon, so I tell you if I learn anything of the sort that is interesting.

 

blacks were voting how the carpetbaggers and scalawags wanted them to, and not for Southern candidates. Were the Jim Crow laws, poll tax, literacy tests, etc. because they just didnt want people with black skin to vote? Maybe some. But it was more because of how they were voting. It wasn't right of them to do it, and you would have to search pretty hard to find someone that says that Jim Crow laws were good (although, I do kinda like the literacy test), but that was their reasoning. It wasn't because they were former slaves, or because they looked different. That is a cute smokescreen that education tries pushing on us, though. Race is a great way of making someone look bad, and as The Drive-By Truckers once said, "it's more convenient to talk race in a Southern accent."

The poll tax, literacy tests, all those things were on paper not racist, but they perpetuated de facto racism. Laws like the "grandfather clause" gave whites the ability to vote, but not the black with the same socieoeconomic disadvantages exploited by jim crow laws.

 

Furthermore, because "blacks voted for who the 'political machines' wanted them to" is a lousy argument, because we all vote for candidates that are pushed upon us by interest groups/"factions". Black, white, immigrant, whatever, it is all the same when it comes to voting.

 

No aspects of the jim crow laws were good, and trying to justify them would only be logical if one argued against democracy.

so white people were voting the 'right way' and not as the political machine had them feel was best for them?

so white people were voting the 'right way' and not as the political machine had them feel was best for them?

this isn't directed towards me right? It seems that furman insinuated this.

that is correct.

I'm not saying that whites were correct in utilizing the Jim Crow laws, nor am I saying that Jim Crow laws are a good thing. I never EVER tried justifying them, I simply tried to show yall that the laws were not used to keep people from voting BECAUSE THEY WERE FORMER SLAVES (getting back to the slavery topic).

I'm not saying that whites were correct in utilizing the Jim Crow laws, nor am I saying that Jim Crow laws are a good thing. I never EVER tried justifying them, I simply tried to show yall that the laws were not used to keep people from voting BECAUSE THEY WERE FORMER SLAVES (getting back to the slavery topic).

the problem is that the laws WERE MADE to keep former slaves from voting when intimidation didn't do the job.

they were former slaves, but it WASNT about slavery. Do you see what I am saying? It wasn't, "let's keep these people from voting because they were OUR SLAVES" (although, I'm sure it happened). The real reason was not because of slavery.

 

And back to my North Carolina example....how is slavery the cause of the Civil War, when half the Southern population were in the 4 states (Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia) that seceded BECAUSE OF THE ACTIONS TAKING PLACE AT FT. SUMTER (and the blockades and such). These 4 states were WILLING to stay in the Union AFTER the first 7 seceded. The population of the CSA was DOUBLED when Lincoln screwed up, and pissed off these 4 states.

And from these 4 states came such generals as Robert E. Lee (Virginia), Stonewall Jackson (Virginia), J.E.B. Stuart (Virginia), Patrick Cleburne (Arkansas), and Nathan Bedford Forest (Tennessee).

they were former slaves, but it WASNT about slavery. Do you see what I am saying? It wasn't, "let's keep these people from voting because they were OUR SLAVES" (although, I'm sure it happened). The real reason was not because of slavery.

 

And back to my North Carolina example....how is slavery the cause of the Civil War, when half the Southern population were in the 4 states (Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia) that seceded BECAUSE OF THE ACTIONS TAKING PLACE AT FT. SUMTER (and the blockades and such). These 4 states were WILLING to stay in the Union AFTER the first 7 seceded. The population of the CSA was DOUBLED when Lincoln screwed up, and pissed off these 4 states.

Yes it was. A good example is the grandfather clause.

 

How did WE screw up? You attacked our fort. If the cubans attacked guatanamo bay, is it our fault too?

well, I think I said (or at least meant) LINCOLN screwed up.

 

Oh, and I'm sure this also pissed off Southerners....

 

""I am directed by the President of the United States to notify you that an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only; and that, if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition will be made, without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the fort." - An aid to Secretary of the State Seward

 

well, we all know that when Lincoln brought in 2 "battleships" with a total of 21 guns and 475 men! Even though they were only supposed to be bringing in PROVISIONS (FOOD!!!), not men, arms, or ammunition!

 

Woulda pissed me off. It pissed Governor Pickens off.

what were the South Carolinians supposed to do? As they secede, they see Lincoln go back on his word, and bring in 2 battleships, armed and loaded, with 475 men.

what were the South Carolinians supposed to do? As they secede, they see Lincoln go back on his word, and bring in 2 battleships, armed and loaded, with 475 men.

nothing, it might of saved you an war and 300,000 lives...

 

"you" I mean as the CSA.

I'm sorry that's not how Southerners were back then (and hopefully not now either). Don't go down without a fight.

 

Either way, how can you say that Virginia's, North Carolina's, Tennessee's, and Arkansas' (half the Confederacy) seceded (and therefore causing the war) secession was because of SLAVERY!

because if the whole slavery issue hadn't existed, the socioeconomic differences would of not come into play, thus talk of secession would of been non-existant.

without slavery, the South would STILL have been agrarian.