Why do so few blacks study the civil war?

[Hanny]

Well...wasn't the whole "North-South competition" started because of slavery? Especially when it came to admitting new states into the union.

No, while Uk colonies in a Union together thy all had slavery, when they formed the AoC the Articles were first drafted in 1777, slavery was still legal in all of the member States. By the time they were ratified in 1781, only two states had begun the abolition of slavery (Pennsylvania & Massachusetts).

See D Scott rulling Congress had no authority to limit slavery in the Union.

[Matthias]

No, while Uk colonies in a Union together thy all had slavery, when they formed the AoC the Articles were first drafted in 1777, slavery was still legal in all of the member States. By the time they were ratified in 1781, only two states had begun the abolition of slavery (Pennsylvania & Massachusetts).

See D Scott rulling Congress had no authority to limit slavery in the Union.

Wow, citing Dred Scott as your support...

Anyways, glad you see it's about slavery now.

Whether you think it was "legal" by the standards of the time is irrelevant (and completely subjective).

The point is that it was all about slavery, an institution which we understand in this modern day to be horrible on a multitude of levels. You have slurped down the revisionism of the old south lock, stock, and barrel. Hopefully with some facts being presented to you, you can at least begin to accept reality. Not sure how else to do it.

I have a relative that fought for the Confederacy. Am I proud that he fought for the side trying to preserve slavery? No. But I can still be proud of my heritage in general, and it's not like I'm going to judge them the same way either (they were rather ignorant in a lot of ways back then). It's not an either or. You don't have to make up some fantasy history to take pride in your identity. It's doing history and one's ancestors a disservice to whitewash it and them.

[Hanny]

Wow, citing Dred Scott as your support...

Anyways, glad you see it's about slavery now.

Whether you think it was "legal" by the standards of the time is irrelevant (and completely subjective).

Already posted that the USSC rulled in D SCott that slavery exists over the entire Union, and cannot be limited by Congress. USSC is the highest court, and what it rulled, and the law is still a mystery to you.

The point is that it was all about slavery, an institution which we understand in this modern day to be horrible on a multitude of levels. You have slurped down the revisionism of the old south lock, stock, and barrel. Hopefully with some facts being presented to you, you can at least begin to accept reality. Not sure how else to do it.

All your posts are fact free.

I have a relative that fought for the Confederacy. Am I proud that he fought for the side trying to preserve slavery? No. But I can still be proud of my heritage in general, and it's not like I'm going to judge them the same way either (they were rather ignorant in a lot of ways back then). It's not an either or. You don't have to make up some fantasy history to take pride in your identity. It's doing history and one's ancestors a disservice to whitewash it and them.

Your *version* of history is a fantasy version.

[Matthias]

Already posted that the USSC rulled in D SCott that slavery exists over the entire Union, and cannot be limited by Congress. USSC is the highest court, and what it rulled, and the law is still a mystery to you.

And the USSC has since said Dred Scott was wrong, that they, the highest court in the land, were wrong. The law is always a mystery, because it's completely subjective and changes.

All your posts are fact free.

I have given you multiple links to evidence showing that slavery was the main cause of the war. Historical documents form the secessionists themselves especially. Modern historians, by enormous consensus, know it was slavery from studying this evidence. The revisionist history you believe in is itself documented, quite nakedly, as a way to make the south look not so bad in the eyes of history (which happens in every war where there is a "loser"). After all that, if you can't face the facts, then it is simply from willful ignorance. Some say ignorance is bliss, and for those willfully so, they must believe it.

Here, just to reiterate, is Mississippi's declaration of secession:

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/missi...eclaration.asp

In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.

Do you really want to live in fantasy land forever?

[Hanny]

And the USSC has since said Dred Scott was wrong, that they, the highest court in the land, were wrong. The law is always a mystery, because it's completely subjective and changes.

fact free, 1856 USSC rulled that there cannot be a geographical limit to slavery in the Union, 1860 secession and 61 WBTS, post war the 13th ends slavery, the court adopts this new national policy. It does not change the facts, you know thee things you unware of.

I have given you multiple links to evidence showing that slavery was the main cause of the war.

No. There was no WBTS untill Sumpter, all the second wave went over coercion, the first wave went over a number of issues, inc slavery.http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=R...ed=0CGsQ6AEwCA

Try a book not the first link you found on the net, which btw list the Constitutional breaches of compact that D Scott concerned itself with, that allow secession as a legal remidy/

Historical documents form the secessionists themselves especially. Modern historians, by enormous consensus, know it was slavery from studying this evidence.

Wrong.

The revisionist history you believe in is itself documented, quite nakedly, as a way to make the south look not so bad in the eyes of history (which happens in every war where there is a "loser"). After all that, if you can't face the facts, then it is simply from willful ignorance. Some say ignorance is bliss, and for those willfully so, they must believe it.

Fact free.

[IronBrig4]

Actually, there has been a continuous attempt by some Southerners and modern libertarians to whitewash Civil War history so the CSA comes off as an innocent victim. The only "historians" who stubbornly continue to attempt to rehabilitate the CSA are generally Lost Causers, old-school white separatists, or extreme libertarians who advocate Quebecois independence and that sort of thing. Notice that the vast majority of so-called historians who defend the CSA aren't even historians. In fact, their only qualifications are being members of the SCV or League of the South. Hell, my dissertation chair who specializes in military history at Texas A&M refers to the Civil War as "The Great Slaveholders' Revolt." I like the sound of that but prefer to call it "War of the Southern Hissy-Fit."

Anyways, back to the matter at hand, I would say relatively few black historians tackle the Civil War because there are relatively few black historians in general. Black historians did not begin to appear in appreciable numbers until the 1960s.

[Hanny]

Black historians have led the way in calculating the mil participation ration of Negroes, free and slave, in CS States, there contribution has been of great value.

[Matthias]

I present a document saying why Mississippi seceded, written by secessionists, and the response?

"Wrong"

Can't argue with stupid.

[Hanny]

I present a document saying why Mississippi seceded, written by secessionists, and the response?

"Wrong"

Can't argue with stupid.

Try a book not the first link you found on the net, which btw list the Constitutional breaches of compact that D Scott concerned itself with, that allow secession as a legal remidy.

Facts, and your inabilityof of how the law works, no material breach, no recourse to secession. Refernce to the material breaches, as listed by USSC, allow secession.

[IronBrig4]

Black historians have indeed been of great service. I'm just saying they're outnumbered by their white colleagues.

Sure, try for secession. But at the end of the day political power and legal justification comes out the barrel of a gun. I believe it was Pompey who once said, "Do not quote the law to us. We carry swords."

[Hanny]

Black historians have indeed been of great service. I'm just saying they're outnumbered by their white colleagues.

Sure, try for secession. But at the end of the day political power and legal justification comes out the barrel of a gun. I believe it was Pompey who once said, "Do not quote the law to us. We carry swords."

Nope political rights, as enumarated in a written constitution, do not require force to validate the excercise of those rights.

Pompey was refering to once the ram touches the wall, the rules of war allow a sack of a city, had he ment sessio, which is where the origin of secession comes from, he would say it is a lawful right of citizens to be governed by consent, or to withdraw by sessio.

[athanaric]

History isn't black or white, and neither is the study of history. If somebody's theses and professional opinions are influenced by skin colour (their own or other people's), they're not historians.

why are most people of german descent so racist?

Source? Let me guess: your arse?

germany was a power for like 75 years, that was pretty much it

Relevance to the thread?

[Robertclive]

lol why are we having this argument? Slavery in the south was strongly racially based, so arguing it was just purely economic is bs. Next, realize that the southern states dreamed of making a tropical based slave empire in South America. Could they have done this with the North, no. Last, here's a part of the ordinance of secession from Texas.

She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association.

[I WUB PUGS]

Well...wasn't the whole "North-South competition" started because of slavery? Especially when it came to admitting new states into the union.

It was the clout given through politics. I'm not going to agree that slavery had to be spread like it was some all encompassing racial ideology, like Victorian White Man's Burden. Extending slavery to the new states would enable southerners to have a common bond with those states economies which would get them all voting along the same lines.

The competition was still primarily a Federalist vs Anti-Federalist. Slavery (ie ECONOMICS) were a way of ensuring at least political parity between the two sides. By the mid 19th century the Federalists were trying to push for central tax collection and massive infrastructure expansion. Half of the country was just sitting there waiting for the government to help. The south wanted to keep it a "gentleman's game" where wealthy land owners would get first pickings on land in the west and they blocked the income tax and railroad initiatives.

Basically, southern politicians were anti-progressive. They were holding this country back and it wasn't just from a moral POV about slavery. These people were preventing the settling of the west. This, as I have now cited 3 times was remedied almost immediately upon the vacancy of the southern seats in Congress. We got an income tax, we got land grants to individual farmers, we got railroad expansion. The income tax was billed as "necessary" to fight the war, but it had been brought up numerous times in Congress before the war.

Basically what the war boils down to is decades of Anti-Federalists blocking initiatives to move this country forward. They certainly reaped what they had sewn. As has been pointed out they controlled Congress and the Presidency for most of our history and now the North had surpassed them in population so they had lost the House and Lincoln was finally the President that the country needed to put these people in check. The freak out over the states being admitted was that the south could keep the Federalists from doing anything by blocking it in the Senate. But, the south lost the Senate before the war due to being outmaneuvered in "state pairings". However they could still lobby the President with their slave monies to keep us stuck in neutral. Once Lincoln was elected, it was game over. Lincoln had made it clear from his earliest politics that he had no love for the anti-progressives. He wasn't an abolitionist, he wanted the slaves sent back to Africa. Lincoln more than anything was a Westerner. Westerners more than anyone had suffered at the hands of the southern Anti-Federalists.

And thank god things went the way they did. But had they not, we'd just have a third world south. But hey, Mississippi is pretty close still.

Edit: I'll clarify with a summation. Pre-1858 the Southerners could rely on holding the House and the Senate, and the Presidency. In 1858 the Republicans gained 26 seats while the Democrats lost 49. Only 120 seats were need for a majority and the Republicans could easily make an alliance with the 19 seat Opposition Party to get more than 120. In 1858 Minnesota was added to the union giving 2 more Senators to the North (California had technically given the "Free" states the edge in 1850, but had agreed to send one Pro-Free one Pro-Slave Senator). In 1860 (end of) Lincoln was elected and that meant the south would have lost all 3 and be doomed. That meant that just 4 years before the Civil War, the South held all of the political power. They had seen what was to come in 1858 with what the Republicans put forward, only the Presidency had kept the South relevant. The election of Lincoln was the end of the game.

Calling the ACW "The War of the Southern Hissy Fit" is more than appropriate. That is exactly what it was. PROGRESS WILL NOT BE STOPPED! And please for the love of accuracy and inclusion, please address that the war was not fought over just slavery. So much more was at stake!

[Col. Tartleton]

Well of course, but why refer to them as 'property', which dehumanizes them even more than the word slave? Because it's a very poor and sad argumentative tactic for apologetics about secession in the Civil War, which want to avoid the fact that this was a heinous institution.

Because they weren't people. They were livestock. If you can't understand that, how are we going to discuss this topic. Slaves are not people. They are not citizens. They are humans which serve in the same role as other animals. Historically there are laws regulating slavery, however there are also laws regulating other livestock welfare and trade.

Black people aren't slaves and slaves aren't black people. (Well they are obviously according to our views, but that's not what we're discussing.) There were black people in the south, they were not slaves. There were black people in the north, but they were not slaves either. There were slaves in the south, and they weren't people. Black people were lower on the hierarchy than white people, but they were people.

Ultimately, it was about losing money from slavery being abolished, though not entirely so, the fact that it would disrupt the racial caste order and society in general was a very large fear as well.

As it should be. How could you not fear a post slave order as a white person?

Even if you recognize that you did in fact do something wrong to said people, you're still not going to be okay with them taking their vengeance on you.

Uhh, it isn't now is the point. I call the practice of slavery disgusting, I didn't call slaveholders from back then "evil" (yet ANOTHER freakin strawman). Your relativism argument is old and tired. It's OK to say slaveholding is a disgusting, bad practice and fully realize it was once normal. That's not a disconnect. This is very simple stuff!

You aren't even willing to understand their world view, so obviously it is a disconnect.

You guys need to learn how to argue before attempting to engage in apologetics.

We both believe this practice was wrong. Thus in order to try to discuss this properly, I need you to join me in taking certain things we disagree with as a given. Foremost among them, is that slaves are not people.

[I WUB PUGS]

You know, when I was studying history at FSU; btw I'll state again that it is a top tier institution concerning the study of the ACW just to toot my own horn, we were taught of another sort of "Historical Revisionism". See Revisionism actually has a good name nowadays, like we're trying to revise history by picking apart fallacies in old research. At FSU we were drilled with the belief that in order to understand history, you must put yourself in the minds of those you were studying.

In short, applying contemporary values to people you were studying was wrong. Slaves were not people. They were beasts of burden. It is important to put yourself in the mind of a southern slave owner in order to understand them. As a southern slave owner it was my duty by God to care for these creatures who were only capable of working the fields. Africans were made to work in the southern sun, they were designed by God for this purpose.

[Matthias]

In short, applying contemporary values to people you were studying was wrong. Slaves were not people. They were beasts of burden.

This strawman is tired and done. I fully understand how some people back then justified slavery. I never said that they should be judged by contemporary standards, or called them evil. And plenty of people, even back then, thought of slaves as people.

Slaves were not people to pro-slavery forces it's true. But they were people to many abolitionists back then. And I bet quite a few slaves thought of themselves as people as well back then. Why you think only the view of pro-slavery people matters when studying history is amusing.

I simply said that the war was caused by the issue of slavery, and it was. You have said that it was about slavery as well, in a hundred different ways. You have said that the consequences of the war would go beyond slavery, well, lots of wars do have consequences beyond their original cause. I was just saying the war wouldn't have even been started if not for slavery.

[I WUB PUGS]

A: You don't know what a strawman is even though you keep using term. There are many simple examples available, you just need to look up the definition. You've consistently used it incorrectly in this thread to characterize any expansion of the topic. No one is diverting away from the issue of slavery, everyone has agreed that slavery was the pivot point of it all, its just that some of us would prefer to have an informed adult conversation about it.

B: Using the views of majority of the people in the country, especially those that owned the slaves to describe how people who owned slaves felt, is well, just basic analysis. How else would I analyze how a slave owner felt? Through the eyes of a 1960s hippie?

C: If you don't want to have a thorough conversation about deep subjects like the ACW then why bother posting? If you just wanted to say "The Civil War was about slavery in its simplest sense" then there isn't a discussion. You've shown your knowledge on the subject to be incredibly basic and you continue to submit the same source concerning the articles of secession. That's fine, clearly that was the point of secession, but to ignore then entire run up to the war and the political climate does not do the topic justice.

D: The only reason why you could possibly maintain such a basic view of the war while maligning any expanded view of the conflict is for pushing some guilt trip on either America as a whole for supporting said institution for so long, or Southerners in general for seceding for the sake of said institution. Which I really don't know why you wold be doing that, there aren't any apologists in this thread, no one has said "slavery was right because that's just how things were, so deal with it", but it is important to understand that viewpoint because that actually was the belief of many people at the time. It doesn't mean I'm apologizing for them, I simply understand where they are coming from. The same way I understand where Nazis were coming from, or Hippies, or Islamic terrorists. Understanding doesn't equate to sympathy. It isn't revisionism to expand on a topic, that's just the natural evolution of a discussion. It isn't a strawman to characterize a slave owner in the same fashion that he and his society would characterize him, that's understanding history from the viewpoint of those you are studying. Which is basic historiography.

I don't know what sort of agenda you are trying to push but I cannot for the life of me see a reason to continue discussing this topic in such simplistic terms as you continue to do. I've not tried to redefine the war. I've tried to get you to see how the institution of slavery impacted the country in broader terms. It wasn't just "oh noez it was the slavereez" as you continue to insist, it was far deeper and important than that.

Who is being an apologist? Who is revising anything? What actual strawman is anyone building and attacking? None of these things are happening, its just that many of us would like to discuss this topic without boiling it down to your three word statement of: "it was slavery"

I was just saying the war wouldn't have even been started if not for slavery.

I'd at least like you to realize that the war was the fruit of decades of Federalist vs Anti-Federalist political warfare.

Slavery and all of its benefits is what gave the South its power. The official eclipsing of that overwhelming power in 1858 tolled the bell for the end of Southern dominance. The election of Lincoln in 1860 was the deathblow. To preserve their power, the South chose secession rather than inclusion in a union that would no longer abide their ridiculous political and economic advantages.

That is the simplest way I can put the war. I will not stoop to your 3 word statement.

[motiv-8]

This thread is a great opportunity for people to be acquainted with this fellow: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Williams

Civil War veteran, officer in the US Army fighting against Emperor Maximilian of Mexico, theologian, historian, state legislator, and human rights advocate in the Belgian Congo. He wrote one of the very first compilations of black military participation in the Civil War, as well as the first history of African Americans.

[I WUB PUGS]

Pffffft, he believed in a higher power. Clearly a nut.