Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It's always best to stick to those. If it helps at all the mixup is overwhelmingly popular. The Civil War just happens to be the only American History I'm even vaguely interested in.

 Frazzled wrote:
It was the truth

Keep telling yourself that. After all, the Republican party is paying people to revise the history books to state exactly that.

Even though they, and you, are just lying to yourselves like a drug addict in denial.

 Melissia wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
It was the truth

Keep telling yourself that. After all, the Republican party is paying people to revise the history books to state exactly that.

Even though they, and you, are just lying to yourselves like a drug addict in denial.

...I bet you don't even get what makes that hilarious. The Republicans, who are supposed to be reviving the fight for states rights are paying people to rewrite history to books to say the Republicans squashed states rights, the South secceeded and then Republicans victoriously crushed the states who wanted states rights. Please go on.
States rights were indeed an issue a cited issue in the seccession of several of the states and has been a cited cause of the Civil War from the day it happened. The only rewrite of history would be to say states rights weren't among the primary causes of the war.

 AustonT wrote:
States rights were indeed an issue

I never denied that.

I deny the blatant lies that claim that slavery wasn't a major issue.

Not that you care, go on, keep ranting, it's amusing in a very sad way.

Melissia wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
It was the truth. It was about state's right. Howver the leading driver and state's right they were talking about what their ability to have slaves. So yes, at its bone it was about slavery and the whole agricultural culture around that.

We have to remember people were killing each other in Kansas ( and a lesser extent Missouri) over slavery.

State's rights had come up many times, but slavery was the issue that started the killing. In the end it took a holy war to free a people.

Keep telling yourself that. After all, the Republican party is paying people to revise the history books to state exactly that.

Even though they, and you, are just lying to yourselves like a drug addict in denial.

Melissia wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
States rights were indeed an issue

I never denied that.

I deny the blatant lies that claim that slavery wasn't a major issue.

Not that you care, go on, keep ranting, it's amusing in a very sad way.

ORLY because that looks like exactly what you said here I have a piece of advise for you: Look at your post. Back to mine. Back to yours NOW BACK TO MINE. Sadly, it isn't mine. But if you stopped trolling and started posting legitimate crap it could LOOK like mine. Look down, back up, where are you? You're scrolling through the thread, finding the ones that your post could look like.
You should stop trolling Mel, you said so yourself.

 Melissia wrote:

 AustonT wrote:
States rights were indeed an issue

I never denied that.

I deny the blatant lies that claim that slavery wasn't a major issue.

Not that you care, go on, keep ranting, it's amusing in a very sad way.

Reported for comparing me to a drug addict especially when my posts noted slavery being the primary "right" being discussed. IN your haste to condemn someone for...something... you overlooked that. I'll help refresh your recollection:

It was the truth. It was about state's right. Howver the leading driver and state's right they were talking about what their ability to have slaves. So yes, at its bone it was about slavery and the whole agricultural culture around that.

We have to remember people were killing each other in Kansas ( and a lesser extent Missouri) over slavery.

State's rights had come up many times, but slavery was the issue that started the killing. In the end it took a holy war to free a people.

Actually she never denied that State's Rights were an issue. It may have been implied, but she's claiming that people are making it out to be purely about State's Rights, which is false, when in fact slavery was a major issue.

Mentality and perception from the 1800's is a bit different compare to today

You can continue down that line of reasoning and apply to it everything. You can even extend that to cultural differences.

 AustonT wrote:
ORLY because that looks like exactly what you said here

You are wrong.

Since you are not actually going to bother reading the conversation that was had, I'll help you.

It was claimed that slavery wasn't a major issue, but that states rights was the primary reason. It follows, then, that if states rights actually was worth a damn to the confederate states, then they wouldn't have banned states from making slavery illegal-- that would have trampled on states rights. However, they banned states from making slavery illegal.

Therefor, the argument that states rights was anything more than a poorly made cover story behind their desire to keep slavery legal is bogus and flawed. Quod erat demonstrandum. I have no doubt that many people cared fervently about states rights; more fool to them. But they abandoned states rights immediately after secession, so it obviously wasn't that important to them compared to slavery.

Actions speak louder than words, AustonT.

Wasn't there a bit where a new state was formed that it can choose to be a slave state or not...something that kind of jumped out from high school memories from American History class...

 Jihadin wrote:
Wasn't there a bit where a new state was formed that it can choose to be a slave state or not...something that kind of jumped out from high school memories from American History class...

Yes, there was.

 AustonT wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Per wiki there were multiple national flags. The Stars and Bars was a battle flag - with jived with everything I was taught. And only of the Army of Virignia actually.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flags_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America

Frazz read the first line of "national flags" then scroll down to the pictures.

We were taught the Stars and Bars was the specific one referring to the battle flag. If you disagree then it shall be whippy sticks at ten paces sir. Don't forget a second!

In fact, all four of the states that issue formal declarations of causes for their secession identified the threats to slaveholder rights as the primary cause, to add more to my previous argument. Texas, as a black mark against this great state, mentioned slavery something like 20+ times in its declaration.

And I quote:

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
[...]
That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_texsec.asp

 Jihadin wrote:
Wasn't there a bit where a new state was formed that it can choose to be a slave state or not...something that kind of jumped out from high school memories from American History class...

Yes. Just prior to the civil war at least one territory was given that option: Kansas. It was flooded by fanatics from both sides, and the killing began.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
In fact, all four of the states that issue formal declarations of causes for their secession identified the threats to slaveholder rights as the primary cause, to add more to my previous argument. Texas, as a black mark against this great state, mentioned slavery something like 20+ times in its declaration.

And I quote:

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_texsec.asp

There were more than four states that seceded. Yes, several of them specifically noted slavery and ownership of.

All of them did.

Trying to keep slavery legal was the primary reason for the secession for every single seceding state.

Amend that to trying to keep slavery legal when they thought someone wanted to make it illegal. Prior to the Civil War, the abolitionist movement was rather weak politically at the federal level and free soilers didn't want to make it illegal they just didn't want it spreading to new territories because they falsely assumed all southerners were so blindingly rich that they could buy all the new land and work it with slaves.

The irony is that if the South hadn't seceded, Slavery probably would have remained legal for at as much as another forty or even fifty years in the United States (hell it might have never been made illegal, it would just fall out of use).

 Melissia wrote:
All of them did.

Trying to keep slavery legal was the primary reason for the secession for every single seceding state.

Not West Virginia!

The South might have been trying to keep slaves, but from the stack of Civil War letters I have from one of my family members that fought in it, the North wasn't as interested in freeing slaves as keeping the Union together.
In one of his letters he talks about a conversation he and some others in his regiment had with Confederate prisoners. He said the Confederates were worried about losing their slaves, but were told the Union army (as a whole) didn't care aboit the slaves, but was in the field to keep the south from seceding.
In another letter he compares blacks to rattlesnakes because, according to him, they would get Union soldiers in trouble by trumping up stories against them to their officers.
From my readings of Civil War history, he was far from unique in his views about blacks. When you look at the context of the times,all he really had to go on were travelers tales until he met his first blacks in less than good circumstances, since he grew up in the back woods of Maine.
For myself, I never met a black person until I was 13 and had moved from Maine. Imagine how much more isolated 1860's U.S. Must have been.

 Orlanth wrote:
The Confederate flag is a symbol of a seperateist movement, a short lived nation state and the historical culture of the southern states of the USA that attempted to seceed in 1861.

Then as now not everyone involved would have a particular race agenda, and it is blanket revisionism to suggest that the Union states were fighting for equal rights or a better moral code. This was the 19th century, not the 21st.

I would find it ill indeed if people from the southern states could not celebrate their history and culture by flying the Confederate flag, its not like they are at war with anyone about it. Two write it off as racism is revisionism, ignorance and/or PC propaganda.

To ignore the driving forces of that seperatist movement, and ignore the use of that flag in the racial struggles that continued after the Civil War, however, is to choose to be stupid.


Now, I'm not in favour of banning the flag or anything like that, but there's no point pretending history didn't happen.