Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Killingsworth Court, Formerly The General Forum' started by JurisFrog, Aug 10, 2015.
Can you show me where North Carolina declared slavery as the primary reason for secession?
Thanks for the clarification. I think we would agree that the rank and file Southerners were not primarily motivated specifically by preserving slavery but rather as was said, "The South was their home, it was invaded, they answered the call to defense." However, it was indeed stated specifically in secession documents drafted predominately by the reigning Southern Democrats. Great post on the founders of TCU.
The traitors rebelled in an effort to preserve slavery in the South and with the desire to spread it to the West.
Here's a new video on the issue by the head of the history department at the USMA. It was posted by an online university founded by a conservative Fox News contributor.
Yes, Addison and Randolph Clark fought to defend slavery. They also founded a dynamic university that has changed the lives of thousand of people including myself. Quite simply, the founders were like all of us: people living in a complex (and sinful) world.
Were the Clarks slaveholders?
Took an American history class at TCU from an excellent professor whose name escapes me and who wrote a book and argued convincingly that an often overlooked complicating factor of the civil war was the scots-irish conflict spilling over into the United States. He argued that the typical scot / irish immigrant to the south was protestant while the true irish catholics settled the north and the two groups were quick to pick up arms against one another due to the centuries of conflict.
Well that's all the proof I need. Colonels from West Point are the definitive experts on all subjects, just ask them. No need to move this to the general thread just delete it. This debate is over, 150 years of disagreement gone...and all it took was a five minute video from a West Point Professor.
Funny I just went to the Army War College in this past year to be certified as a Military History Instructors and this ground breaking documentary was not discussed at all.
I did learn it is really disingenuous to look at history and judge its people through modern standards. The class should never feel me outwardly expressing my opinion but I should give them the ability to critically form their own. I do just that, but I am a man of integrity that carries a copy of the constitution, any time I wearing my non dress uniform (more pockets). If I swore I would die to protect the freedom it guarantees, I should probably be able to talk about how we got from crossing the Delaware to the two wars I fought in.
WCJ: Grady McWhiney. While still discussed, his work has received a lot of criticism. Below is from his NYT obit:
"Dr. McWhiney is seen by some as the godfather of what has come to be called the neo-Confederate movement, whose members urge the South to secede once more. The League of the South, which the Southern Poverty Law Center called a hate group, is headed by Michael Hill, a former student of Dr. McWhiney's, and is a very visible part of the movement.
"In 1994, Dr. McWhiney helped found the league and was a director for a few years, but resigned, complaining that it had been taken over by "the dirty fingernail crowd," Dr. Frazier said."
LTR: The colonel is merely stating the view of the vast majority of historians of all political persuasions. The video was posted this week, so it's not surprising that it wasn't discussed in your program. Congratulations on your certification. After six years of study at other universities, I went to TCU for five years to be qualified to teach and research history at the highest level. I currently teach in a history graduate program. Many of our students are active-duty military including some Army War College grads. Please send me a PM if you're interested in furthering your study of history.
Yes, we should not judge historical actors by our modern standards, and I agree that students should be exposed to a variety of interpretations. The instructor, however, should point out when there is one prevailing interpretation accepted by almost everyone within the profession. My post urged readers to consider both the good and the bad of the Clarks' story.
The argument that the Civil War was about anything other than slavery is a product of the Lost Cause myth. Southerners, defeated on the battlefield, won the battle for writing the history. Randolph's memoirs are a perfect example of a Lost Cause explanation of the war. Instead of relying on post-1865 explanations of the war, look at what northerners and southerners said before the war.
Bless your heart...
I liken it to the US soldiers over the past several decades who have willfully fought for world domination and big oil.
Also, I hate traitors and their ilk starting with scoundrels like Adams and Washington.
C'mon YA. This the general thread. This is history and there are many interpretations of it but to tell us to shut up because of recruiting is over the top. My ancestors fought because they were invaded. My great grand father only lived because his big sister knocked a musket out of his hands as the damned Yankees pillaged his farm. He was 11 years old.
The vast majority of those who fought for the confederacy were fighting for their country. They were not of the political class. They were not slave owners. They were farmers and laborers, including free blacks who just knew they were being invaded. They fought and they died by the hundreds of thousands while carrying a flag that has now been labeled a symbol of racist oppression. Their memory and bravery is being desecrated 150 years later by those who have no clue why they fought but pretend they were all racist.
Four of my gg-grandfathers fought for the Union. None for the Confederacy. At least two were wounded. A gg-uncle died suppressing the insurrection. Why don't we hear more descendants of Union soldiers talking about heritage?
There's plenty of evidence showing that Washington and Adams rebelled for freedom. Regardless of why they joined the Confederate forces, your ancestors fought to defend human bondage. 100 percent different reason to rebel than the Founders.
I would be interested to hear of your thoughts on North Carolina. This video greatly oversimplifies the complexity in that state's secession. Can you point to a place in which slavery was ratified as the primary reason for secession by the state of North Carolina?
And some of my ancestors played major roles in the underground railroad in both the North and South. Yep, some of them were outright lawbreakers, and good for them. I probably had ancestors who fought on both sides. I wouldn't be shocked if I learned that I had family who profited off of slavery, but there is none of which I am aware personally.
You're right. The war was complex, but I will not submit that allying with the Confederacy simply boiled down to fighting to defend human bondage. Lincoln took action against South Carolina following their secession and push for control of Ft. Sumter. He and the Union were equally the aggressors. They could have let the South go, and they didn't.
While I certainly don't agree with seceding to maintain slavery, I do believe that all states at the time were within their rights to secede. Texas certainly was. Referring to the South as traitors is inflammatory. They believed it to be within their rights to secede from the Union.
Don't get me started on Sherman. The Union had plenty of sins of its own. Thank God slavery was eliminated. At least something good came from that terrible war.
"The slavery question is the cause of all this trouble," Mary Jeffreys Bethell, Rockingham County, North Carolina,
April 29, 1861
Texas did not have the right to secede. See the explanation in Texas v White (1869)
Why is it so important to many of you to believe that the Civil War was about an issue other than slavery? It has nothing to do with current partisan politics.
I abhor the practice of boiling all conflict down to single cause. Most often, it's a gross oversimplification of reality. In this case, had Lincoln simply allowed the initial 9 secessions to proceed, several states probably would have remained in the Union - Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas. Lincoln wished very much to preserve the Union as it was, however.
What the Supreme Court decided in 1869 was not applicable in the early 1860s. The decision treated the matter retroactively, but that is not the same thing as a legal clarification by the court in the early 1860s or before. And, note the 5-3 vote. Even in a post-Civil War, pro-Reconstruction era, there was dissent over whether or not secession was legal. (As a side note, imagine what the Supreme Court vote might have been in Lawrence v. Texas several decades before that landmark decision. In fact, the court overturned its previous ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick from 1986, just 17 years prior. Political climate and social change do affect Supreme Court decisions!) The fact of the matter is that there was debate over whether states could legally secede. Let's take a look at one president's thoughts on the matter:
“To shew the absurdity — Congress have the right to admit new states. When territories they are subject to the laws of the Union. The day after admission, they have the right to secede and dissolve it.”
Andrew Jackson to Martin Van Buren, 25 December 1832
Bassett, Life of Jackson, II: 579-580
Next, regarding the question of slavery being the driving force in North Carolina, consider the words of Zebulon Vance and Jonathan Worth:
Meanwhile, Unionism in the state crumbled. Congressman Zebulon Vance, a western Unionist, was gesturing to the heavens “for peace and the Union of our Fathers” when someone handed him news of Lincoln’s call for troops. “When my hand came down,” Vance recalled later, “it fell slowly and sadly by the side of a secessionist. I immediately, with altered voice and manner, called upon the assembled multitude to volunteer, not to fight against but for South Carolina.”
As the state prepared for its May 20 convention, there was much anxiety but little public debate. “I tremble for you and for myself,” Jonathan Worth, a state senator, wrote to his son. A conservative raised a Quaker, Worth refused to attend the convention but acceded to its results. “Peaceable secession would soon annihilate slavery. War, long continued, will ruin every peaceful citizen and end in the total overthrow of civil liberty and the abolition of slavery….I think the South is committing suicide, but my lot is cast with the South.”
I agree that boiling it down to slavery is incorrect, and as I said before if it wasn't slavery, it very well might have been something else, especially considering ho the US was viewed at the time. But it didn't, and slavery being the proximate cause can not be ignored either.
To be fair, he looks really smart.
For me personally it's because my ancestors who fought for the South said as much in both oral and written family histories. Hopefully you're rational enough to grant me this latitude and not categorically call them liars.
I found this statement from Lincoln interesting
On Aug. 22, 1862, President Lincoln wrote a letter to Horace Greeley, abolitionist editor of the New York Tribune, that stated: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.”