Poll: The Civil War, which side was right?

Amen Bro. Glen.

Does it really matter at this point? There were so many issues involved in the War. It was not about secession, it was not about slavery, it was not about southern or northern rights, the War was about all of this and much much more. The War was an example of mans inabilty to peacfully solve his own problems.

Bill

 

There are laws that enslave men and laws that set them free. If you love slavery, GO SOUTH! If you embrace the Baptist ideas of freedom, GO NORTH!

Freedom is the right of all sentient beings.

 

In most of these posts, except for two or three, I see true biased opinion. I know what I was taught, and that is that the North was right. Do I say that they were 100% right? No, but I do believe that the fight for freedom of slaves was the right thing to do... No one[B/] has the right to enslave another person. The slaves in the Bible were more like servants, however, slaves in the United States were seen as less than a person, is that a right thing to do? NO! it isn't, and that is my two cents!

In Christ's gracious love,
Teresa

[ September 10, 2002, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: baptistforever ]

 

Freedom is EXACTLY what the South was fighting for! The freedom of each sovereign state...to be free from a tyrannical government much like the one we have today! Thank you, YANKEES!

 

Freedom is EXACTLY what the South was fighting for! The freedom of each sovereign state...to be free from a tyrannical government much like the one we have today! Thank you, YANKEES! </font>[/QUOTE]So instead of one tyrannical government, we would have 50. That would be good.

You show me in the Bible where people are given the right to throw off their "tyrannical government"? Did not Paul and Peter both say to submit to the governing authorities? It was worse for them. Rome killed people that disagreed.

The south fought for freedom???

Slaveowner: Slave, go fight or I will kill you.

Slave: I will die if I fight.

Slaveowner: Smack. Now, I will kill your family if you don't protect my right to own your filthy self.

Yeah, good system to fight for.

Out like overenthusiasic patriotism.

[ September 10, 2002, 04:29 PM: Message edited by: PreachtheWord ]

 

Biblical examples...Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, Mordecia, Daniel, the apostles, etc. The Bible does NOT teach unlimited submission to the civil magistrates! We must obey God rather than men! (Remember the South was not trying to overthrow the United States government.)

As far as your conversation between the slave and the slave owner...Massa, you've been a readin' too much "Uncle Tom's Cabin"!

I'm sure you know that only a VERY SMALL percent of Southerners even owned a slave. And, yes, Virginia...there were BLACK CONFEDERATES who WILLINGLY fought for the South!

 

I'm sure you know that only a VERY SMALL percent of Southerners even owned a slave.

Yeah, the rich ones. The ones who would rather buy a human as a piece of property, rather than hire a southern man who needed the money and pay him a decent wage. Such actions contributed greatly to the economic conditions of Southerners.

 

A black legislator from Washington County, Mississippi named John F. Harris said the following in a speech to the Legislature regarding Senate Bill #25, a bill to erect a Confederate Monument on the Capitol Square in Jackson:

"Mr. Speaker, I have arisen here in my place to offer a few words on the bill. I have come from a sick bed. Perhaps it was not prudent for me to come, but Sir, I could not rest quietly in my room without contributing a few remarks of my own. I was sorry to hear the speech of the young gentlemen from Marshall County.

I am sorry that any son of a soldier should go on record as opposed to the erection of a monument in honor of their brave dead. And sir, I am convinced that had he seen what I saw at Seven Pines and in the seven days fighting around Richmond, the battle field covered with the mangled forms of those who fought for their country and for their country's honor, he would not have made that speech.

When the news came that the South had been invaded, those men went forth to fight for what they believed. And they made no requests for monuments. But they died and their virtues should be remembered. Sir, I went with them. I too, wore the Grey. The same color my master wore. We stayed four long years and if that war had gone on until now, I would have been there yet. I want to honor those brave men who died for their convictions.

When my mother died I was a boy. Who Sir, then acted the part of a mother to the orphaned slave boy but my old misses. Was she living now or could speak to me from those high realms where gathered the sainted dead, she would tell me to vote for this bill and Sir, I shall vote for it. I want it known to all the world that my vote is given in favor of a bill to erect a monument in honor of the Confederate dead."

Here is a man, a black man, who wore the Confederate grey and he understood the War was not a racist War.

 

So, y'all really think that 80 percent of the Southern soldiers and sailors would fight a war for 4 years just so a few rich men could keep their slaves??? The war was NOT about slavery! Why did Lincoln wait so long to free the slaves if that was what the war was about??? Then, why did he only free the Southern slaves??? Yep, I'm sure the Northern slaves were glad when Lincoln FINALLY decided to set them free, too! I remind you that the Constitution of the Confederate States made the first clear and unqualified prohibition AGAINST the slave trade...not the United States Constitution!

 

Tariffs not Slavery

by Jack McMillan, Ph.D.

The American educational system continues perpetuating a myth regarding the War for Southern
Independence (often mistakenly called "The Civil War", a misnomer). Teachers using government- mandated, Northern-produced texts inform students the conflict centered solely on slavery, with Abraham Lincoln "The Great Emancipator" sending Union troops to "make men free". Nothing could be more untrue. We realize the wisdom in the adages that history-books are written by the victors and that truth is war's first casualty. Like other complex human activities, wars often have a number of underlying causes. In this article, I shall provide the reader with an overview of the primary causi belli of the War for Southern Independence, the issue of tariffs.

Far from being a mundane topic, taxation has been at the heart of the American political spirit. The original 13 American colonies formally dissolved ties with the British Empire due to the issue of taxation without representation. Penned by that great Virginian Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence stands out as this nation's first Article of Secession. In it, the colonies' grievances are listed. Amongst the litany of injustices committed by King George III, Jefferson mentions " For imposing Taxes upon us without our Consent." This split over taxation is a recurring theme in American history.

The precursor to Southern secession in fact occurred 30 years before the hostilities of 1861-1865. In
1828 and again in 1832, Congress passed tariffs legislation benefiting northern mercantile interests but injuring the South's agricultural economy. Heavy protectionist tariffs gave northern manufacturers an advantage by decreasing foreign competition, but forced the South to pay the bulk of federal taxes, as the South was a net exporter of raw goods and a net importer of manufactured products. These "Tariffs of Abominations" led Senator John C. Calhoun to declare the law unjust and a convention was held in South Carolina to nullify the federal tariff law. President Andrew Jackson threatened to send troops to enforce the tariff, but eventually the Compromise of 1833 was reached and taxes were lowered over a four-year period. As Professor Charles Adams states in his book For Good and Evil: The Impact of Taxes on the Course of Civilization, " … the South paid about three-quarters of all federal taxes, most of which were spent in the North."

The election of 1860 was perhaps the most contentious in American history. The Democratic Party
split with the northern faction voting for Stephen Douglass, the southern faction for John Breckinridge. Additionally the Constitutional Unionist Party (the renamed Whig Party) ran John Bell as a candidate and carried three states (Tennessee, Kentucky, and Virginia). Lincoln won with a mere 39% of the popular and not a single electoral vote from the South. As Salomon DeRothschild, a visitor to America at the time writes, " This state of affairs could have continued … if the two divisions, South and North, of the Democratic party had not split at the last electoral convention. Since each of them carried a different dandidate, they surrendered power to a third thief, Lincoln, the Republican choice."

The secession of Southern States began with South Carolina, where tax issues had been at the
forefront 30 years earlier. Contrary to what is now taught, slavery was not the primary issue. While it is unfortunate slavery existed, the blame cannot placed solely on the South; slavery existed in the North as well (it is interesting to note Delaware, a Northern slave state, refused to ratify the 13th Amendment abolishing the institution). Further, New England slavers from their homeports in Massachusetts and New York brought slaves to America in the first place!

With the election of Lincoln, the South realized northern manufacturers and bankers would have their puppet in the White House. Again Professor Adams states, "...Lincoln was supported in his bid for the presidency by the rich industrialists of the North. He was their man and he had long been their lawyer … No sooner had Congress assembled in 1861 than the high tariff was passed into law and signed by Lincoln. The Morrill Tariff, as it was called, was the highest tariff in U.S. history." Adams also notes, " Secession by the South was a reaction against Lincoln's high-tax policy. In 1861 the slave issue was not critical ... The leaders of the South believed secession would attract trade to Charleston, Savannah, and new Orleans, replacing Boston, New York, and Philadelphia as the chief trading ports of America, primarily because of low taxes." Note the Confederacy lowered taxes! To the charge often leveled that the newly formed Confederacy started the hostilities, Adams correctly points out " … with the import taxes, he (Lincoln) was threatening. Fort Sumter was at the entrance to the Charleston Harbor, filled with federal troops to support U.S. Customs officers. It wasn't too difficult for angry South Carolinians to fire the first shot." Again, Rothschild writing to his cousin in London in 1861 notes, " I'll come back later to the "slavery" question, which was the first pretext for secession, but which was just a pretext and is now secondary. The true reason which impelled the Southern states to secede is the question of tariffs."

Lincoln's election guaranteed a return of past disastrous policies and forced the Southern States to
secede. Writers of the day confirm this. In Great Britain, many intellectuals and political leaders saw Lincoln's War for exactly what it was - a dispute over taxation. Charles Dickens writes, "The Northern onslaught upon slavery was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic control of the Southern States." Dickens goes on to say " … Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this as of many other evils … The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel." Let us quote a passage from The Northern British Review, Edinburgh, 1862, " ... All Northern products are now protected: and the Morrill Tariff is a very masterpiece of folly and injustice. No wonder then that the citizens of the seceding States should feel for half a century they have sacrificed to enhance the powers and profits of the North; and should conclude, after much futile remonstrance, that only in secession could they hope to find redress."

I shall conclude this article with a passage written by John Reagan, Postmaster General of the
Confederacy. " You are not content with the vast millions of tribute we pay you annually under the operation of our revenue laws, our navigation laws, your fishing bounties, and by making your people our manufacturers, our merchants, our shippers. You are not satisfied with the vast tribute we pay you to build up your great cities, your railroads, and your canals. You are not satisfied with the millions of tribute we have been paying you on account of the balance of exchange, which you hold against us. You are not satisfied that we of the South are almost reduced to the condition of overseers of northern capitalists. You are not satisfied with all this; but you must wage a relentless crusade against our rights."

______________________________
Jack McMillan lives with his wife and daughter in Hawaii, where he received his PhD. in Geology and Geophysics from the University of Hawaii -Manoa. The Knoxville, Tennessee native is a member of the League of the South and the Southern Party.

 

rsr, most Americans are not in the career field for which they trained nor are they happy in them if the surveys are correct. Indeed, I have learned most of my secular trade by OJT and in my place of business I am the senior tech and considered and expert. Pieces of paper mean very little as I have met many folks with paper that can't find their tail with a two day head start and a map. I am sure that there are many more articles out there, but unless they agree with you and come froma Northern school you will not find them acceptable anyway.

Be sure to tell everyone in your church that they know nothing about their job or their avocational pursuits unless they have the right degree from the right school that you agree with. It should make you very popular.

 

The South had already seceded and had it's own government, money etc. so it was then a different country, though the North did not like it. Hence, it is a matter of debate over the civil part. War of Northern Aggression fits it better anyway.

I do have an article written by a Yankee who apologized for the War so you are right truth is truth regardless who writes it. It is far to large for me to scan and post here so when I have time I will look for some others.

Actually, a person in love with History may do better than one trained. He who loves is job is often far better at it than someone well trained for his job. As a computer geek I know many with lots of certications that can't do squat, but that lads and lassies thrilled with computers learn how to do and do very well. A trianed historian can be just as biased as anyone because he comes out with the slant and presuppositions of his school and will work from that basis whereas the avid historian will not have such blinders.

 

In fact, those trained in Yankee schools or by the Yankee material would also have that slant or bias. I grew up being taught the party line. It was not until about 10 years ago did I even come across anything that would make me question the history I was taught in high school. Brainwashing is like that. The same goes for evolution. Hence, I did not think about creationism until I became a Christian. Note, that neither the alternative perspective in history or science is welcome in the public school system. It would interfere in the indoctrination. Hence, private school is best for Christian children. You may say it is indoctrination as well, but at least it is indoctrination of truth in theology even if they use secular history and science books, which many do not.