PinochetIsMyBro said:
Dukes of Hazard, of course. Also white southern pride(Texan here).
creager91 said:
Not trying to offend anyone here but the South seceded because of racism. You're flying the flag of the soldiers who fought and died so they could keep "ownership" of another human being. I know many Southerners try to say the Civil war was not really about racism and I don't know what your education has taught you, but slavery was the driving force behind the South Confederacy.
Is that what they're teaching in schools these days? So very, very sad. I think a quote from Ulysses S. Grant is in order. "If I thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission and offer my sword to the other side"
The war arose out of cultural differences and issues of secession. The only person you're kidding is yourself if you think the average Northerner cared about slaves in the South. It also had very little to do with why the South fought(it was merely one of the many irreconcilable differences between the two sides). It was widely known on both sides that Lincoln had no intention of banning slavery. Abolitionists were a radical fringe minority at best.
I have done some further research and have discovered that my information about the civil war was not quite incorrect but it wasn't the full truth. While I will admit the issue of slavery itself was not the cause at the beginning of the war. The major causes were economic differences and states rights as has been stated by so many of you. I will say however that the South's economy was based on 2 things, cotton and cheap labor (slaves, indentured servants etc.). And the North was based on using the cotton to create a finished product thus two cultures were born.
The States Rights was more about nullification than it was about slaves. In fact I'm willing to admit that this part had nothing to do with slavery. They wanted to have the ability to nullify a federal law if the state agreed that it was not beneficial or fair. While this in theory would leave no power to the federal government it would allow a state to protect it self from a law that may have negative effects to their economy or lifestyle.
Slavery was the next biggest issue. to claim otherwise is foolish. With the political debate that surrounded slavery since 1820 the abolitionists had plenty of time to grow from a small minority into a driving force. Just to clarify the Missouri Compromise was in 1820, this allowed every state from the Louisiana Purchase that was formed below the 30'30" line to have slavery with Missouri being a toss up and I think we all know how the Kansas-Missouri rivalry started albeit not until many years later but we're getting there.
In 1846 David Wilmont put forth the Wilmont Proviso, this would ban slavery in the new lands. This proviso WAS shot down but only after long viscous debates and the Northern States willingness to compromise with the Southern States was to avoid secession. As the Southern states were repeatedly threatening to secede. Speaking of Compromises the Compromise of 1850 which allowed California to enter as a free state, D.C. abolished, New Mexico and Utah were allowed popular sovereignty, Texas gave Mexico some land back and the South got the Fugitive Slave Act.
The Fugitive Slave Act made it illegal for any officer of the law to not arrest a runaway. This became the most controversial part of the compromise and INCREASED the numbers and efforts of abolishment
Finally in 1854 was the Kansas Nebraska act. The Simply allowed popular sovereignty in the states of Kansas and Nebraska. Politically it was a numbers game, the side that had the most states for or against slavery would have more political power and Missouri who had chosen slavery started pouring into Kansas in order to sway the vote toward slavery. These Border Ruffians as they were called came in with violence and thus "Bleeding Kansas" happened. This was such a political debate (tat is slavery was) that even on the floor of the Senate a fight broke out between the antislavery Charles Summer and South Carolina senator Preston Brooks.
The growth of the abolition movement was another key cause, this was fueled by the Dred Scott case, the fugitive slave act and Uncle Tom's Cabin.
And yes Lincoln did say that, but what politician has truly never told a lie? A driving factor for the South to secede was their belief that Lincoln pro abolishment and in favor of Northern rights. Hell 7 states seceded BEFORE he was elected.
Whats actually comically ironic about your Ulysses S Grant quote is that Robert E. Lee believed slavery was evil. http://www.civilwarhome.com/leepierce.htm this letter has his opinion on slavery. The reason the Lee fought for the South was because Virgina was his home and that was who he was loyal to but he left in a very honorable and polite manner after he turned down the opportunity to lead the Northern armies. It wasn't even until late 1863 that Lincoln went to Grant.
By the way this was Grant's stance on Slavery in 1878: http://www.granthomepage.com/grantslavery.htm
And although he was not an abolitionist before the war he WAS against slavery expanding which is why he joined the Union.
I remember learning about all this 3 years ago when I was in my AP history class, I should have paid more attention so I wouldn't have come off ignorant and saved myself the research. I would actually like to hear your reply as I'm interested in your stance and your right to hold an opinion, as long as we can keep it civil (no pun intended) I'd like to continue the discussion.
