Time Magazine:"the REAL reason for the Civil War was to end slavery"

[Hkindiana]

Accoeding to the April 16th TIME magazine, the Civil War's TRUE cause was to end slavery. That is also what our kids are taught in public schools: "The civil war was fought because the northern states wanted the southern states to stop slavery".

Correct me if I am wrong, but the Civil War started in 1861, and the emancipation proclamation was issued in 1863, and it ONLY freed slaves in the SOUTH, an area the Union had no control over.

How does THAT translate into the REAL reason for the Civil War being about ending slavery?

 

[bulldog]

I believe it was about states rights vs. federal.

 

[Hkindiana]

I believe it was about states rights vs. federal.

That's "old school" (and the TRUTH) but that is no longer in the history books.

 

[bulldog]

Well this strong central government is certainly working out great is'nt it?

 

[Lucas156]

**** time magazine they are a bunch of idiots I never read that ****.

 

[Benny]

This is brand new information that has never been discussed before.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Accoeding to the April 16th TIME magazine

Not just according to TIME magazine but according to history (1808, Missouri Compromises, Kansas-Nebraska, Bleeding Kansas, Dred Scott, John Brown, the Fugitive Slave Law, inter alia), the CSA's Constitution, the proclamation of successions hanging in Southern museums, Confederate leaders, the warnings of Southern leads who stood against the Civil War (e.g. Sam Houston), Confederate philosophers and writers (before 1861 there was a very popular book in the South which laid about a Southern victory in the war for slavery), Yankee writers (Lincoln called the author of Uncle Tom's Cabin the woman that explained the Civil War).

the Civil War's TRUE cause was to end slavery

Absolutely not, the cause of the Civil War was to preserve slavery. White supremacy and slavery were the Cornerstone of the CSA, just like Vice President Stephens declared in his famous speech.

but the Civil War started in 1861

The Civil War started in Kansas in the 1850s--the killings, rapes and arsons were not about tariffs or "state's rights", but about slavery.

and it ONLY freed slaves in the SOUTH, an area the Union had no control over

Ummm, better review those battlefield maps. The Union Army had control over large sections of the South at the time. Wherever the Union Army was slaves flocked because they knew it represented freedom.

believe it was about states rights vs. federal

As the Confederate politicians told us, it was about a state's right to allow slavery.

That's "old school" (and the TRUTH) but that is no longer in the history books.

No, it is revisionist history by the Lost Causers, lead by Early, who had to come up with a better reason for the war than to preserve slavery.

The old school reason was slavery, that then transformed in order for Southern whites to be accepted into Northern society again.

Remember what Robert E. Lee said in church after the war when the black man came up for communion?

 

[huntall50]

Kirk you are the MAN, I respect you a great deal for your objectivity and insght into the various topics, don't always agree with everything but respect that you have a open mind to TRUTH an gravitate toward it. There's not many that I would say this about but I thank GOD for your voice in this forum!!!

To everyone else you have two ears, two eyes and one mouth use them accordinginly!

 

[redneckmedic]

Kirk, that is a well made argument.... I didn't know the answer to your question at the end, so I looked it up.....Here is what I found...

It's a lovely story: the worshippers at St Paul's in Richmond, one Sunday in June 1865 were shocked when a black man went up to the front of the church to take communion after the service. Then up went Robert E Lee, and people thought he would usher the black man away. But instead he kneels beside the black man, encourages the rector to get on with communion, and thus accepts the black man as an equal under God.

It is in Winik's April 1865, and in Flood's book on Lee's last years, and all over the Internet. But did it really happen? The documentary evidence is rather thin. The earliest source I know of is an article in 1905, in Confederate Veteran. Its not in Freeman's 4 volumes of the life of Lee, nor in RE Lee Jrs memories of his father.

Then to add to the confusion, the 1905 article seems to have a quite different interpretation of what happened.
Quote:
"NEGRO COMMUNED AT ST. PAUL'S CHURCH," CONFEDERATE VETERAN, 13 (AUGUST 1905): 360. "Col. T. L. Broun, of Charleston, W. Va., writes of having been present at St. Paul's Church, Richmond, Va., just after the war when a negro marched to the communion table ahead of the congregation. His account of the event is as follows:

Two months after the evacuation of Richmond business called me to Richmond for a few days, and on a Sunday morning in June, 1865, I attended St. Paul's Church. Dr. Minnegerode [sic] preached. It was communion day; and when the minister was ready to administer the holy communion, a negro in the church arose and advanced to the communion table. He was tall, well-dressed, and black. This was a great surprise and shock to the communicants and others present. Its effect upon the communicants was startling, and for several moments they retained their seats in solemn silence and did not move, being deeply chagrined at this attempt to inaugurate the "new regime" to offend and humiliate them during their most devoted Church services. Dr. Minnegerode [sic] was evidently embarrassed.

General Robert E. Lee was present, and, ignoring the action and presence of the negro, arose in his usual dignified and self-possessed manner, walked up the aisle to the chancel rail, and reverently knelt down to partake of the communion, and not far from the negro. This lofty conception of duty by Gen. Lee under such provoking and irritating circumstances had a magic effect upon the other communicants (including the writer), who went forward to the communion table.

By this action of Gen. Lee the services were conducted as if the negro had not been present. It was a grand exhibition of superiority shown by a true Christian and great soldier under the most trying and offensive circumstances."

 

[eldirector]

Two sides to every story, I see.

 

[Que]

This is why our schools and parents should focus on math and science.

 

[eldirector]

This is why our schools and parents should focus on math and science.

I dunno, Que. History is pretty important as well. The CORRECT version would be swell, too! At the very least, discuss the different viewpoints at the time, so we can learn from them. No sense in repeating some of it (though us humans aren't a very smart lot).

But, yeah, reading, writing, and arithmetic should come first. An OBJECTIVE look at history, government, and such should come second.

 

[Bapak2ja]

The account of General Lee and the Black man taking communion is an example of the challenges of research in any social science. I am posting (in italics below) material I wrote for the Cultural Anthropology course I teach. A colleague commented that her interpretations of events were different than mine. I explained that the challenge is how to interpret an event. The answer is that each observer will interpret it on the basis of her/his own "glasses" (see below for explanation of that term).

One of the greatest weaknesses of social science research (social science includes anthropology, sociology, history, etc.) and theory is that interpretations are made by an observer, but each observer wears a unique set of "glasses" (a worldview, belief system and values developed over a lifetime). These glasses, or frames of reference, serve as a grid for organizing thought and evaluating behaviors (words, actions, gestures, facial expressions, etc.). The actor sends a message. The message is received by another person. (In communication theory, or in linguistics we call them "sender" and "receiver," or variations of those identifiers.) Communication takes place. We cannot guarantee the accuracy of the “receiver.” The sender never really knows if the receptor actually understands the message. Simple things are easy to test. "Pass the salt" is easy to evaluate. "Behold, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world" is not quite as easy.

Two (or more) people observing/participating in the same event can walk away with different interpretations of the event. My frame of reference is vastly different from yours, even though we share a common culture (WASP), a common heritage (middle class America in the late 20th century), and a common deity (Jesus is Lord). Now, if we have such variations in thought while having so much in common, consider how great will be the variations between yourself and an Hispanic neighbor who grew up speaking two languages while participating in an Anglo educational system. Something as simple and basic for you as "God bless America" may have extremely different meanings for your Hispanic neighbor.

This is the essence of cross cultural communication. When the frames of reference are so vastly different, communication is precarious at best. When the frames of reference are friendly, miscommunication can be resolved by simple actions, like "I'm sorry! Did I do something to offend you? Please explain this to me because I do not understand your reaction."

When the frames of reference are hostile, as between an American fireman from Manhattan and a member of al-Quaeda, the opportunity for correcting misunderstandings are very limited. Similarly, interaction between a rich American doctor and a poor American cancer patient can be difficult. The primary cultural barriers are those of status and role—not core beliefs, worldview, and deity, but successful communication is still very difficult because of the cultural presuppositions each brings to the communication task.

My parents were born and raised in central Tennessee, and dad still asserts that the war was fought because the evil Yankees were jealous of the prosperity of the South and wanted to steal their land and wealth. The slavery issue was used as an excuse to invade and plunder the South. I attended "Yankee" schools so I learned the politically correct views taught there. I recognized the difference very early in my educational life, and recognized that I would never be able to reconcile the two views. Dad was convinced of his view, having been trained to it from infancy as part of the "Old South" culture. As you know, no one can tell a teacher anything, and challenging PC beliefs now, with the excessive power and control of the teachers union, will only result in punishment for the student or student's parent. So I held both these views in abeyance, accepting neither one—just being aware of both. I thought dad was an anomaly until I attended a family reunion a couple years ago. I discovered that many of the Old South still hold my dad's view. I was surprised by the passion with which they hold this view. (On a side note, none support slavery. All state it was wrong and needed to end. They contend there was a better, easier way to do it, but the "damn Yankees" chose war so they could plunder the South.)

You see, two points of view based on different glasses cannot be reconciled. The worldview presuppositions are too deeply ingrained. Which one is correct? Well, the Old South view is right that there was more than one reason for the invasion, and based on subsequent actions, the South was plundered to the point of abject poverty for most of the people in the South. The Yankees did get very rich from the war—both in terms of selling the goods to the Army and stealing land from the Southerners. Facts are there to prove this.

From the Yankee point of view, slavery was ended. Federal power was established. Yankees were firmly in control of the wealth and resources of the nation and were able to keep that wealth in Yankee control.

Bottom line: The victor writes the history. Get used to it. Get over it.

Suggestions:
1. Put the race thing to bed. Stop asking for race on all government, business and educational forms. Judge people by their character and achievements, not their race.
2. End "affirmative action." Let each person stand or fall by his own abilities. End quotas. If the Asians overwhelm the college admissions, then we others must just work harder to compete with them.
3. Teach the superiority of the USA as the last bastion of freedom in the world. Teach citizenship as the obligation of every citizen.
4. Teach the Constitution. Enforce it. Ensure its benefits are granted to all citizens. Deny the benefits that go beyond life, liberty, and justice to non-citizens.

I could go on, but this is enough to light the fires. I have my helmet and fire suit on. Fire away.

 

[eldirector]

Bapak2ja, you deserve WAY more rep for this post than I can send you. Thanks!

 

[grimor]

Five myths about why the South seceded - The Washington Post
6 Civil War Myths, Busted | 150th Anniversary of Civil War | Slavery, Race Relations & Battlefield Medicine | LiveScience

 

[Kirk Freeman]

"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established, exclusively for 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."

This is in the public display at the Bob Bullock Texas State Museum in Austin (a great museum by the way) on the third floor.

The Story of Texas

"State's rights" has become popular as revisionist history among Libertarians and science fiction writers, notably L. Neil Smith, but the Southern States were not shy about wanting to preserve, and expland (West and into places such Cuba), slavery.

Heck, Southerners were prophets for slavery, even invading foreign countries in order to institute slavery (they were called filibusters, spreading the slavery in order to protect slavery in the South), Everyone knows about Billy Walker, right? Invaded Nicaragua, set up slavery and made English the official language.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Walker_(filibuster)

I hate the modern Leviathan of the federal government. It has spilled way out of its banks and is crushing our liberty, intentionally and unintentionally.

However, as much as we should detest the current composition and expansion of the federal government, we should remember why the Civil War was fought and why it is important to remember.

 

[cbseniour]

By 1863 the war was going badly and there were a lot of abolutionists in the north. Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation to rally the base and bring flagging support back to the war effort.
The war was over economic issues as all wars are.
States rights vs. Federal rights was the arguing point.

 

[Hkindiana]

By 1863 the war was going badly and there were a lot of abolutionists in the north. Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation to rally the base and bring flagging support back to the war effort.
The war was over economic issues as all wars are.
States rights vs. Federal rights was the arguing point.

AND, at that point slavery was NOT illegal in all northern states, and Lincoln made a point to NOT free the slaves in the neutral states with his emancipation proclamation.

The point is, slavery was/and is a terrible thing. More southern states allowed slavery than northern states, and the south felt that their livelihood was in jeapardy with all of the northern talk (and action) about freeing slaves. So, slavery WAS one of the reasons for the civil war, but not THE reason for it, as many would like you to believe.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

No other issue dominated the antebellum period like slavery; slavery was central to American politics since 1789. Slavery was THE issue--1808, the Missouri Compromise, the Texas Revolution, Kansas-Nebraska, Dred Scott, Bleeding Kansas, John Brown, the caning of Congressmen on the floor of Congress, the Lincoln-Douglas Debates, the formation of the Republican Party and the demise of the Whig Party was over slavery, the Fugitive Slave Act, and on and on and one.

Slavery was the dominant focus of Southern politics and politicans. Slavery was the focus of the Slave Patrols and secret societies to expand slavery. Slavery was the focus of the Confederate Constitutions and the petitions to secede from the Union. Slavery was central to Southern life and culture.

There was no other issue that dominated politics as did slavery. Sometimes I think the Libertarians believe that slavery was just some random issue picked by the federal government out of the blue so Cheney-Rumsfeld-Bush could use a Haliburton helicopter to fire on Fort Sumter.

 

[E5RANGER375]

Im sure if the founders of these colonies could have seen what slavery would lead to in this country they would have NEVER brought any slaves here.