War between the States

[Doug Stevens]

My son recently asked me if I sided with the North or the South during the War between the States. I told him that I felt both sides had their pros and cons. I told him if I were bolted back to 1861, that I would probably fight for the South because the issue of the War was States Rights. I can point to the mess the Federal Government has gotten us into which proves that the South was absolutely correct in fighting for States Rights. Afterall, the States have little if any rights and a Liberal Godless President like Clinton can have his way anywhere in the Union. The only good thing that came out of the War between the States is that Slavery was put to an end. Even though many Southerners wanted it ended, there is no telling how long the institution of slavery may have lasted.

 

[Tiger Fan]

Originally posted by Doug Stevens:
Even though many Southerners wanted it ended, there is no telling how long the institution of slavery may have lasted.

It would not have lasted very long with the introduction of the Cotton Gin. Besides, who said slavery has ended? Has anyone ever heard of welfare?

Looks to me like we have just as much slavery today as we did in 1861. The only difference now is that in order to get food, clothes and shelter all you need to do is vote (D) every November instead of working 10 hours out in the field.

Slavery itself has not ended. We have slaves from every race dependent upon the one great Master - The U.S. Federal Government.

 

[Baptist Believer]

Originally posted by Doug Stevens:
My son recently asked me if I sided with the North or the South during the War between the States. I told him that I felt both sides had their pros and cons. I told him if I were bolted back to 1861, that I would probably fight for the South because the issue of the War was States Rights.

I would fight on the Southern side myself.

After all, the States have little if any rights and a Liberal Godless President like Clinton can have his way anywhere in the Union.

Clinton was restrained by laws (or at least vulnerable to prosecution) during his presidency. In my opinion, Clinton's biggest problem was that he had no agenda of his own, no internal compass, except to do things to enhance his own reputation and gain public acclaim. He had/has real issues with power - that explains his womanizing and dishonesty.

The only good thing that came out of the War between the States is that Slavery was put to an end.

There are more benefits than that... The Bill of Rights was extended to every person in the United States by virtue of the 14th Amendment. Also, the structure of government is more powerful in a federalist system which means we can resist our enemies much more efficiently. Confederations are not an efficient means of governing.

Even though many Southerners wanted it ended, there is no telling how long the institution of slavery may have lasted.

Very true. It's a good thing that Congress finally got around to making the slaves citizens after the war since the Emacipation Proclamation was such a joke. For those of you who didn't know, the Emancipation Proclamation only "freed" slaves in areas that the Union did not control -- it did not free any slaves where the Union had any authority. It was simply a propaganda move to make the war about slavery instead of state's right.

Don't believe me? Read it yourself:

http://www.nps.gov/ncro/anti/emancipation.html

 

[LadyEagle]

Baptist Believer: I would fight on the Southern side myself.

Lawd have mercy, BB! I b'lieve this is the FIRST time you & I ever agreed on ANYTHING on this Board! Will miracles never cease?! LOL!

(PS: I knew you couldn't be all bad, you ole Rebel, you!)

Just cause I live in Ohio, doesn't mean a thing!! My heart's back home below the Mason-Dixon!

(Distant cousin of Stonewall, they tell me!)

And yes, slavery does still exist. It's called the working middle class...what percentage of your gross income goes for taxes (including state & local, excise, federal, social security, etc.)?

And people STILL know how to get the freebie handouts, too, believe you me! And the government WASTE is appalling, too!

Slaves, we are. All who are middle class working folk.

Nobody knows the trouble I seen. Nobody knows but Jesus. Tow that barge, tote that bale....

 

[rlvaughn]

Since this discussion is about history, but not Baptist History, I will be moving it to the "All Other Discussions" forum.

 

[Dr. Brigit]

My husband has been known to refer to it as "The War of Northern Aggression" when in the presence of people from the area he terms "the Yankee Wasteland." I was born in Switzerland, so I don't feel invested on either side. I was a little surprised when I moved to Tennessee and learned how much more important this topic is to Southerners.

Brigit

 

[The Galatian]

It's understandable. No one holds a grudge for a hundred and forty years because their side won. If America had lost, Yankees would still be angry about it.

Not all Southerners joined the rebellion, of course. Some of the best Union troops came from Tennessee.

In many areas of Texas, people remained loyal to the United States throughout the war. Governor Sam Houston himself refused to take part in the sucession.

Van Zandt county was so Unionist and antislavery that it was called "the free state of Van Zandt".

And many other southerners, while no friends of Yankees, had no interest in fighting them to hold onto slavery. The Confederates had quite a time finding many draftees. They tended to head for the woods, to camp out until the heat was off. This was euphemistically referred to as "joining General Green".

A large encampment of Confedrate draft dodgers and deserters (and a good number of Union counterparts) existed to the northwest of Denton, TX during the war. It was out near Comanche country, and few were inclined to bother them, including the Commanches.

[ August 19, 2002, 08:21 PM: Message edited by: The Galatian ]

 

[LadyEagle]

Originally posted by The Galatian:
It's understandable. No one holds a grudge for a hundred and forty years because their side won. If America had lost, Yankees would still be angry about it.

See, Galatian. Now your true transplant colors are showing. I just KNEW you couldn't have been born & bred in the Lone Star!

 

[The Galatian]

There were a lot of Texans who remained loyal to the U.S. Sam Houston, perhaps the greatest of all Texans, refused to have anything to do with sucession, and correctly fortold the disaster it would cause.

Of course, Houston, like most of the heros of Texas history, wasn't a native Texan.

Neither am I, BTW, but I got here as fast as I could.

And I understand the natives resenting people like us. It's why they call it "the Santa Anna syndrome". This is a great state, and they don't want to share it.

[ August 19, 2002, 08:26 PM: Message edited by: The Galatian ]

 

[rsr]

It would not have lasted very long with the introduction of the Cotton Gin.

Actually, the introduction of the cotton gin in the early 1800s spurred the expansion of slavery because for the first time it made cotton an economical crop to produce.

Eagle, equating middle class taxation to chattel slavery is too much hyperbole.

Galatian, I won't comment on the virtues of Texas (on the wrong side of the River ) other than to agree about Sam Houston. There's a very nice essay about him in "Profiles in Courage."

Although my favorite southerner to support the Union was George Thomas, one of the finest generals in the northern ranks. He's never got the recognition he deserved.

[ August 27, 2002, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: rsr ]

 

[rlvaughn]

rsr, I think he meant that thing that picked cotton, rather than the gin. And you're kinda being careful there not commenting on Texas & Texans. We know how you Okie's are!

In my opinion, for the most part the Southerners were correct from state's rights standpoint. It also seems that most of the original colonies/colonists would have probably thought they could have pulled out of the Union if they didn't like the way it was going. I would also recommend that those interested in this subject find the Constitution of the Confederate States of America and study it. It had several interesting innovations, such as term limits.

As much as it pains me to say anything bad about my beloved southland, I am compelled to admit we were wrong about slavery (although I must say there are a lot of historical issues that the average person doesn't know and/or understand - e.g. there were free blacks in the south, there were slaves in the north, there were blacks who owned slaves, etc., etc.).

 

[rlvaughn]

Oh, BTW, a couple of odd facts:

During the conflict, the capital of Missouri (southern side) was/became located in Marshall, Texas.

Jones County, Mississippi was also a "free state."

 

[rsr]

Oh. Picking. Even at that, I don't know about your part of the country, but it wasn't until the '20s and '30s and later that it became more economical to use machinery for picking cotton.

We disagree on states rights. While New Englanders and Fireaters often talked about secession, it seemed incredible to most Americans to take that step. Andy Jackson, southern to the core, firmly upheld the union when he stared down the Fireaters.

Surprised no one from the Lone Star state has mentioned Kirby Smith. Or Stand Watie, the last Confederate general to surrender. (Wait, Stand wasn't a Texan.)

And if Texans thought Reconstruction was harsh, it was even worse in Indian Territory, where the Five Tribes had to forfeit much of their land.

Yes, the CSA constitution did have some innovations. And the weakness of the Confederate government it created played a major part in the South's loss. After all, if it's acceptable for Georgia (which was considering it at the end of the war) to secede from the U.S., it should be able to leave the C.S. at will, and each state will demand significant control over the military.

[ August 19, 2002, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: rsr ]

 

[Tiger Fan]

Originally posted by rsr:

Actually, the introduction of the cotton gin in the early 1800s tha spurred the expansion of slavery because for the first time it made cotton an economical crop to produce.

Yes of course. However, the mechanical cotton pickers would have virtually eliminated the need for cotton picking by hand.

Would slavery have been eliminated completely? Probably not, but the demands put on slaves would have been reduced and their overall standard of living would have increased greatly.

 

[rlvaughn]

rsr, on my part of the country - I don't know too much of the history of cotton. I am from a long line of "cotton pickers," but cotton was closer to being dead than king when I came along in the 50's (late ones at that!). I do know that they all did it the old-fashioned way - they picked it by hand and put it in sacks.

On secession, I only have in mind when colonists were entering the union, not later developments. In other words - many went in initially with a mindset that they could get out if they didn't like it or it went bad, etc. I think this idea quickly faded for the majority. Isn't it interesting that secession was originally a northeastern promotion?

On the CSA Constitution - that may be true to some extent, but on another level, I think with the fact that the CSA was a nation almost immediately and everlastingly at war, there was no real ability to test whether the Constitution could have really functioned. I doubt many people have ever actually read it.

On Watie and the Five Tribes - the South has probably never fully appreciated these allies and history has not given them the recognition they deserve. Were they not the only real ally the South had?

 

[rsr]

Were they not the only real ally the South had?

We won't count McClellan or the Copperheads?

In some ways, the situation in Indian Territory was like it was in the border states; some (primarily the Cherokees and Lower Creeks) were split horribly, some fighting with the North, some with the South.

This is too long, I'm sure, but there's an interesting reference at the beginning to Baptist history among the nations:

http://users.rcn.com/wovoka/Pmchap3-05.htm

 

[Farmer's Wife]

Well, the Farmer's Wife has finally had some time to sit down and reply...of course, y'all knew I would, huh?!

More appropriate titles for the war would be "The War of Northern Aggression" or "The War for Southern Independence" ! It was NEVER a war between the states...it was a war between two nations...the United States and the Confederate States.

Slavery was NOT the issue! Nearly 70 to 80 percent of Confederate soldiers and sailors were NOT slave owners. Does it make sense that these men would fight for 4 long years just so a few rich men could keep their slaves?! The South seceeded from the Union...which was their right. A union is voluntary. The South was 'unvolunteering' to be a part of that union. But since we lost the war, the South was FORCED to be a part of the 'United' States. They should have changed it's name to "The Consolidated States of America" . That would be more accurate!

What the South was trying to do was NO DIFFERENT from what early Americans did in the Revolutionary War (also known as the War of Independence) when they seceded from England!

A good (and accurate) book to read on this subject is "THE SOUTH WAS RIGHT!" by James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy. Don't rely on what the government school system has been dishing out as truth concerning this war.

"What passes as standard American history is really Yankee history written by New Englanders or their puppets to glorify Yankee heroes and ideals." ~ Dr. Grady McWhiney

It seems we have several puppets among us!

 

[LadyEagle]

"Don't rely on what the government school system has been dishing out as truth concerning this war. "

Amen! Or anything else that is dished out as truth, either. As you are well aware, there has been a rather successful attempt to rewrite history!

I posted info about slavery above because I knew it would ultimately come up. Of course, it hasn't been commented upon, nor did I expect it to be, but it was posted to define an inconspicuous (I hoped) boundary! LOL!

One can only wonder, in our dreams perhaps, how differently life would have been in the South had the South succeeded in secession. A Grand Old Institution, the institution of Chivalry, the Word of a Southern Gentleman, the Grandeur and Splendor & Gloriousness was destroyed. But of course, my very favorite movie of ALL TIME, is GWTW! (sigh)

Did you know we Southerners invented the very FIRST SUBMARINE? They just raised it not long ago from the depths of the sea.

My first post summed it up in total...GREED! But it was NOT the Greed of the South.

 

[Mike McK]

Originally posted by Doug Stevens:
My son recently asked me if I sided with the North or the South during the War between the States.

Exactly how old are you, anyway?

Mike

 

[The Galatian]

Although my favorite southerner to support the Union was George Thomas, one of the finest generals in the northern ranks. He's never got the recognition he deserved.

Yes, I agree. Thomas' greatest hour was when COnfederate General Hood "besieged" him in Nashville. Thomas calmly got his green recruits trained, equipped them for a long march, and then came out after Hood.

Hood's troops were still running when they got to Mississippi, with Thomas' boys hot on their tails. At the end of the chase, Hood had no army.

Thomas was a modest, unassuming man, but relentlessly interested in one thing; winning the war. Thank God he was on our side.

The south had a long tradition of military service in the Army, much as the North had a strong Naval tradition. Men like Thomas filled the gap in professional officers in the north until men like Grant could rise to command.

Not many people know that Lee was offered command of the American army. He thought about it, and concluded that if he had to be disloyal to the United States or to Virginia, he'd be loyal to Virginia.

Thomas had the same dilemma, and chose to be loyal to America. Both men followed their sense of what was right.