My grandfather was in the Confederate Army (I'm 72). He fought in some battles, was captured and finished the war as a POW.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Texas Land Commissioner George P. Bush calls for Conferate Plague to come down

"Conferate Plague?" I mean, I don't know, guys. That sounds pretty bad

I went to the dentist this morning and had some "confederate plaque" removed from my teeth.

At the same time Pat Fallon, a state representative, from Prosper, Texas is proposing a bill to keep city/state governments from spending taxpayer dollars to remove these monuments.
Link

OP...just FYI...your title still says "plague" when I know your intent is "plaque".

If a revolt happens in this great land, it will be a tragedy of unprecedented proportion, but I hope I'm not too old to participate, as I consider myself a patriot. What was it that Jefferson said about the tree of liberty?

ETA:
Bush is a dolt.

Ah, yes, a plaque a group dedicated to rewriting history to suit itself put up in order to honor itself. Getting rid of this crap would be such an affront to decency.

Every time one of these threads is started an argument ensues...sort of feels more like a plague than a plaque.

quote:

Originally posted by sjtill:
Every time one of these threads is started an argument ensues...sort of feels more like a plague than a plaque.

I just asked if it wasn't a revolt and not about slavery, then someone please explain it to me, since it was little known to nearly everyone.

But responses seem like I'm asking Bill Nye about climate change, nothing concrete, lots of smoke and mirrors type thing.

George P. needs a history lesson. Then he should keep his mouth shut.

Ok, if it wasn't a rebellion and slavery had nothing to do with it, educate me, directly here or with links to books / websites / that make the case.

Happen to listen and be convinced.

quote:

Originally posted by Marlin Fan:
George P. needs a history lesson. Then he should keep his mouth shut.

Just like his father...
Haven't we had enough Bushes?

Barbara Bush: We've Had Enough Bushes'

sns3guppy

quote:

The civil war is far more than black and white, and it wasn't fought over slavery, though it was a political hot issue. Slavery was, however, the "cornerstone," and founding premise of the confederacy.

The war was fought because the south attempted to secede and destroy the country, and the north saw it as not only an act of treason, but the loss of the bulk of the national value; the economic base of the nation at the time was found in the south.

There will always be opposing views, but to assert that the confederacy's underlying cause was not to sustain slavery is a bald faced lie, and denies the central premise of the confederacy: to ensure that the black man was recognized as inferior, and to protect the institution of slavery. It's quite clear in the cornerstone speech.

Here is the problem with the idea that "slavery was the central premise" of the Civil War. The Union border states all had slavery during and after the civil war. New Jersey just reclassified slaves as "apprenticed for life" and that did not end until the 13th Amendment. I do believed Delaware never did sign/ratify the 13th Amendment.

And I do hope you know that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation only "freed" the Southern slaves, not the slaves in the Union boarder states or anywhere else in the Union. Also, read Lincoln's letters in which he shares the common (albeit incorrect) belief, of that period, that blacks were inferior to whites. Those letters dont come up a lot in conversation......

Articles of Confederacy specifically forbid secession for the Union but the Constitution did not. Legal scholars, siding with the North, point to the "...a more perfect union..." clause as where secession was not allowed. 620,000 people died based on that clause. Weak sauce as they say.

And I really dont have a dog in this fight, my Great Great Grandfather was a blacksmith for the Union army.

Oh, it's a Bush. What a shock. NOT!

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:

Here is the problem with the idea that "slavery was the central premise" of the Civil War. The Union border states all had slavery during and after the civil war.

My question is if slavery wasn't a central reason for the US Civil War, what would have happened if slavery didn't exist then?

What other grievous oppression were the states that seceded from the Union being subjected to that caused them to leave the Union?

High Taxes? Commerce restrictions? Religious liberties? Representation issues?

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:

Here is the problem with the idea that "slavery was the central premise" of the Civil War. The Union border states all had slavery during and after the civil war.

My question is if slavery wasn't a central reason for the US Civil War, what would have happened if slavery didn't exist then?

What other grievous oppression were the states that seceded from the Union being subjected to that caused them to leave the Union?

High Taxes? Commerce restrictions? Religious liberties? Representation issues?

I normally avoid discussing issues like this on the internet fora but that is an interesting question.

I'd also be interested in hearing an answer to that.

quote:

Originally posted by RHINOWSO:

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:

Here is the problem with the idea that "slavery was the central premise" of the Civil War. The Union border states all had slavery during and after the civil war.

My question is if slavery wasn't a central reason for the US Civil War, what would have happened if slavery didn't exist then?

What other grievous oppression were the states that seceded from the Union being subjected to that caused them to leave the Union?

High Taxes? Commerce restrictions? Religious liberties? Representation issues?

There are libraries full of books and articles relating to this topic so hard to put it in a post.

As much as it was about "slavery" it really was about "power" between the southern slave states and the non-slave states (some of which, just renamed it to become "free") and the expansion of the US.

It was representation, it was State Rights, it was all of it. It is also good to go back to the origination of the US, it was a "Union" of states, not a "Nation" per se. That was the original idea. So as the Federal Government become more powerful, states got angry. South was not the first states to attempt secession.

The American Civil War was fought about states rights. States' right to have legal slavery, that is. Fervent abolitionists in New England elected congressmen who called for the abolition of slavery. Newspapers called for the abolition of slavery. Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote a popular book; "Uncle Tom's Cabin" that further fanned the flames in the north. A collision course was set. Somebody had to yield.

States Rights:
I had a HS history teacher in early '60's Mississippi (we called him "bug-eye Johnson") when States Rights (with capital letters) was a big topic. He explained that the civil war settled that question: states rights are granted by the federal government and they will send an army to make a state kneel.

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
So as the Federal Government become more powerful, states got angry.

One of the primary rules of life: Nobody likes being told what to do.

I have to agree with sns3guppy. On December 24, 1860, the delegates to South Carolina's secession convention adopted and published the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union. This document, even more than Alexander Steven's Cornerstone Speech, spells out the reasons why South Carolina seceded from the Union. It's meaning could not be clearer:

"But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

"These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction."

quote:

Originally posted by Southflorida-law:
There are libraries full of books and articles relating to this topic so hard to put it in a post.

As much as it was about "slavery" it really was about "power" between the southern slave states and the non-slave states (some of which, just renamed it to become "free") and the expansion of the US.

It was representation, it was State Rights, it was all of it. It is also good to go back to the origination of the US, it was a "Union" of states, not a "Nation" per se. That was the original idea. So as the Federal Government become more powerful, states got angry. South was not the first states to attempt secession.

I understand that it was about power to govern and make laws - but even that relates to slavery, how slaves were counted for representation of slave states in government, and if the federal government would move to abolish slavery.

Also a big topic was expansion of the Union westward and if those states would be "slave" or "free" states, because looking forward that could tip the balance of power in the Federal Government one way or the other.

But the "States's right" that they were most concerned about was slavery in slave states and its enforcement (or lack thereof) of runaway slaves in free states.

Again, it's very hard to see a reason for the US Civil War if you take slavery away and make it a non-issue.

But again, I'm certainly willing to listen to a compelling argument about how that's not the case, simply make it or point me in the right direction to read about it.

Slavery was the abortion issue of the time. Nobody was neutral.

The Civil War has been called a “Conservative Revolution.” The South was fighting to maintain its way of life. The end of this culture was in sight.

The North and the West had the population and wanted industrialization. There would be no more Slave States. The land wasn’t there. Kansas and Nebraska had been decided as Free States. It was guaranteed that protective tariffs would be passed.

The House Of Representatives had long been dominated by the North and West. As more states entered the union, the Senate would be dominated by Free States.

Were the South to become its own nation, it would be agrarian and trade with nations such as Great Britain would be free and open.