the south was right!

[trythebill]

has anyone read this book yet?

i just started reading it and i must say that although it appears preachy and emotional it is nothing if not amazingly eye-opening.

[CloudNineGT]

You might want to tell us what the hell your talking about. The south said and did a lot of things, and still is. Hell, you didnt even define the title of the book, but I assume it is "the south was right!" as thats all I have to go on.

[trythebill]

the south was right! by James Ronald Kennedy, Walter Donald Kennedy

link

[POOPERSCOOPER]

Tell us about it

[trythebill]

from what i have read (70+ pages) it tries to show that the north has perpetuated the myth that the war was about higher morals on the side of the north in regards to slavery. it shows a mass amount of evidence that the north illegally invaded the south and that they did this not to stop slavery but capitalize on the resources and economy of the confederacy.

these figures/facts/views are given (not verbatim but close enough for government work):

-70-80% of confederate soldiers did not own slaves and from letters and interviews later told they were not fighting for slavery but for the sacred right of self-government and liberty.

-the south had the 3rd largest economy in the americas and europe.

-the south had a 10% higher per capita income than every state west of new york and pennsylvania.

-lincoln harbored white supremicst views. i.e. in a 1858 debate he stated: "...i am not, nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in anyway social and political equality of the white and black races...i am not in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them them to hold office, nor to intermarry white people; and i will in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races...i, as much as any other man, am in favor of having superior position assigned to the white race"

-invasion of the south was done not for high moral principles but for greed and fear of economic loss. (this is elaborated on in great detail in the book)

-neither the south nor europe was responsible for the slave trade as we know it, it was founded and developed by the arabs and the berbers and even practiced by africans who enslaved and owned their enemies.

-racial integration was more common in the south prior to the war, white and black worked alongside each other and there was no fear that the blacks would push the whites out of the labor pool as they feared in the north.

-as defined a union is brought about by an act of choice, of free association. union cannot be created at the point of a bayonet, defining america as "united states" is as much a misnomer as calling the forced soviet cohesion of poland a union.

-the civil war as defined by historians was not in fact a civil war, for there were no two factions attempting to gain control of one government. it is more correctly label the "war for southern independence."

-the invasion of the south was illegal and they had every right to cecede from the union to self-govern themselves if they pleased

the book is kind of preachy and has some bullshit in it like "yankee propaganda" and purported "yankee myths in the classroom" but once you get past the first few pages it is very interesting.

there is a shitload more but i don't feel like typing it. i know this board fucking loves dissenting opinion so i figured at least one of you goons had read this.

[Bleusilences]

Yeah we all know that, freeing the slaves was the EFFECT of the war not the CAUSE. It's like iraq you know , the cause of the war in Iraq was to kill saddam hussein, found the so call weapon of mass destruction and to get their hands on some petrolium.

[Franz Schubert]

shows a mass amount of evidence that the north illegally invaded the south and that they did this not to stop slavery but capitalize on the resources and economy of the confederacy.

That's bullshit. The north didn't illegally invade the south... the south illegally seceeded from the union, and Lincoln acted to preserve the unity of the country.

-lincoln harbored white supremicst views. i.e. in a 1858 debate he stated: "...i am not, nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in anyway social and political equality of the white and black races...i am not in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them them to hold office, nor to intermarry white people; and i will in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races...i, as much as any other man, am in favor of having superior position assigned to the white race"

What point of the authors does this prove?

[Wolfman Walt]

Ok two questions, how exactly WAS the south right? And why is this new information to you? Didn't you stay up during 11th grade american history?

[jetbaby]

-70-80% of confederate soldiers did not own slaves and from letters and interviews later told they were not fighting for slavery but for the sacred right of self-government and liberty.

-the south had the 3rd largest economy in the americas and europe.

-the south had a 10% higher per capita income than every state west of new york and pennsylvania.

-lincoln harbored white supremicst views. i.e. in a 1858 debate he stated: "...i am not, nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in anyway social and political equality of the white and black races...i am not in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them them to hold office, nor to intermarry white people; and i will in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races...i, as much as any other man, am in favor of having superior position assigned to the white race"

-invasion of the south was done not for high moral principles but for greed and fear of economic loss. (this is elaborated on in great detail in the book)

-neither the south nor europe was responsible for the slave trade as we know it, it was founded and developed by the arabs and the berbers and even practiced by africans who enslaved and owned their enemies.

-racial integration was more common in the south prior to the war, white and black worked alongside each other and there was no fear that the blacks would push the whites out of the labor pool as they feared in the north.

-as defined a union is brought about by an act of choice, of free association. union cannot be created at the point of a bayonet, defining america as "united states" is as much a misnomer as calling the forced soviet cohesion of poland a union.

-the civil war as defined by historians was not in fact a civil war, for there were no two factions attempting to gain control of one government. it is more correctly label the "war for southern independence."

-the invasion of the south was illegal and they had every right to cecede from the union to self-govern themselves if they pleased

You do realize that the whole "TEH CIVAL WAR WUZ 4 FREE SLAVERIES" is a kids tale, right? Read a modern collegic or even high school level text book. It was over preservation of the union, protection of resources, investments, economy, etc.

The south fought for democracy and the right to choose what they wanted. It is also a well documented fact that A. Lincoln was a racist and that about 5% of southerners owned something like 99% of slaves. They didn't fight, just as Bill Gates won't fight our wars. The poor man went out and defended his home for God, freedom, and the right to choose.

-the civil war as defined by historians was not in fact a civil war, for there were no two factions attempting to gain control of one government. it is more correctly label the "war for southern independence."

"History is written by the victors." Just as the "American Revolution" was a war for independence. America won, so they can call it whatever they damn well want. Do you think that it would've been the American Civil war after D.C. was burned to the ground and the rest of the U.S. cried for mercy and Europe swept in to claim everything not in southern possession? (see maxamillion and Napoleon III. they had fun times in mexico).

-the invasion of the south was illegal and they had every right to cecede from the union to self-govern themselves if they pleased

Right and wrong. While we would like to think yes, the answer is no. Just as "free speech" doesn't mean I can run around the white house screaming "Kill Bush dead! Join the revolution!" without severe reprecussion. It's in the Constitution that you can't leave and that the president is bound, hell or high water to prevent a split.

Oh, and the per capita was due to the fact that hundreds of thousands of jobless europeans were hopping ship into new york. They had no jobs, thus no income. The needed jobs? They joined the army, see New York draft riots.

[Lunchmeat]

Didn't you stay up during 11th grade american history?

I'll vouch for that. Finished the Civil War a month or so ago.

[trythebill]

what point of the authors does this prove?

it makes more sense when you read the whole thing, it's part of a tirade to dispel the "myth" that lincoln was a champion of equility and freedom for everyone.

the south illegally seceeded from the union, and Lincoln acted to preserve the unity of the country.

how could the south seceed from something that is supposed to be voluntary? formed by an act of choice?

Ok two questions, how exactly WAS the south right? And why is this new information to you? Didn't you stay up during 11th grade american history?

i never said they were, i'm just reporting what i've read. it's new information to me because our studies of the civil war in school were severely lacking to say the least.

[trythebill]

whole post

that's why i brought it up, i am pretty much ignorant of the whole civil war and figured some of you are fairly smart and would provide feedback/new information.

[Franz Schubert]

how could the south seceed from something that is supposed to be voluntary? formed by an act of choice?

Look, I didn't write the fucking constitution, I'm just telling you what it says.

[Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD]

how could the south seceed from something that is supposed to be voluntary? formed by an act of choice?

Look, I didn't write the fucking constitution, I'm just telling you what it says.

i always wondered the same fucking thing but the issue is never addressed. the civil war section of my OAC history went into all the reasons but it never actually addressed the issue of how you can justify war because states left a union that they voluntarily joined.

[Franz Schubert]

The reason is that Lincoln made the decision. He wisely decided that the union couldn't survive if anyone could simply leave if they disagreed over certain policies. Most of the rest of the country wanted to ignore the issue, and let the south seceed in order to avoid the inevitable war.

Lincoln had some major fucking balls.

[Mandalorian FaLLouT GoD]

The reason is that Lincoln made the decision. He wisely decided that the union couldn't survive if anyone could simply leave if they disagreed over certain policies. Most of the rest of the country wanted to ignore the issue, and let the south seceed in order to avoid the inevitable war.

Lincoln had some major fucking balls.

and he got shot watching a play for it. americans seem to think JFK was great too but when you actually look into the persons character you realize they were useless bastards.

[jetbaby]

that's why i brought it up, i am pretty much ignorant of the whole civil war and figured some of you are fairly smart and would provide feedback/new information.

And hopefully I provided you with some information. Whoever wrote that book is just trying to make a quick buck off people who didn't pay much attention in their high school US history class (for American's, hell if I know what foreign schooling encompasses).

how could the south seceed from something that is supposed to be voluntary? formed by an act of choice?

Look, I didn't write the fucking constitution, I'm just telling you what it says.

i always wondered the same fucking thing but the issue is never addressed. the civil war section of my OAC history went into all the reasons but it never actually addressed the issue of how you can justify war because states left a union that they voluntarily joined.

They voluntarily joined into something that says that they cannot leave.

[Anthony]

Does this seem not a little out dated a topic to anyone else? Both north, and south comitted injustices. The north stole from the south, or "liberated", whichever you wish to say, and the south held slaves in a fassion that was a travisty. At least the Egyptians cared for their slaves. See how I did that? Working irrelivent facts into an outdated argument.. it's like arguing that fallout was the best game ever... it was the best game of it's TIME, no doubts here.. but we have to move on, just as we must move on from this issue, no? But, I'll let you keep arguing.. you shouldn't have taken the time to read this.

[CloudNineGT]

Why is there no X button?

History doesnt matter because it already happened.

[jetbaby]

Does this seem not a little out dated a topic to anyone else? Both north, and south comitted injustices. The north stole from the south, or "liberated", whichever you wish to say, and the south held slaves in a fassion that was a travisty. At least the Egyptians cared for their slaves. See how I did that? Working irrelivent facts into an outdated argument.. it's like arguing that fallout was the best game ever... it was the best game of it's TIME, no doubts here.. but we have to move on, just as we must move on from this issue, no? But, I'll let you keep arguing.. you shouldn't have taken the time to read this.

Travesty? Not caring for? Do you realize that the African slave population in the United States is the only slave population in the recorded history of mankind that has a slave population that shows positive growth on its own (i.e. without constant influx of new slaves)? When was the last time you saw a slave race become the societary equals, if not betters due to reverse racism and "repaying" of "debts."

On a slightly different note, so, according to you we shouldn't examine history, we shouldn't look back on our pasts because it's all said and done? The books are written, so why question right? All hisotry is irrelevant. I see. I'll remember that next time I talk to someone who survived the Bataan Death March, the Jewish internment camps, the rape of Nanking, et cetera, et cetera ad nauseum.

Arguing that Fallout is the best game ever has no comparison. That is complete personal belief. New games come. Some good, some bad. However, when the sun rises tomorrow morning, over 600,000 people are still dead and buried because of the American Civil War or the Southern War for Independence. That doesn't change. There won't be an "American Civil War II: Bid for Freedom" sequel to be deemed "better" or "worse" by personal enjoyment.