2112 Shares

Oddly enough,i stiill don't get it?

Oddly enough,i stiill don't get it? Topic: Authors writing about the south
June 17, 2019 / By Joan
Question: the other day i had random thoughts while listening to the report that the UN security council ok'd foreign intervention in the sovereign state of libya.FLASHBACK to the civil war;the primary basis for the south's decision to secede was state's rights(or rights of the citizen) as opposed to the rights of the state/nation as a whole.i remember quite clearly as a student in elementary school that "our" founding fathers had a)petitioned King George as their head of government to alleviate their fiscal problems b)the king refused and imposed even more stringent conditions on the colonies c)the colonies exercised their "right to self government" and revolted. FAST FORWARD to the 1800's the concept of casting off the yoke off authority's oppression(ie self rule;revolution,etc)was cut down by the Union forces of the civil war...(at this point i considered the civil war a double standard on the part of the Federal government)(plus,my teacher reasoned,given historical reasoning the south would come rushing back to the Union because Mexico would seize an opportunity to regain land and glory and thus the Confederate States would plead for citizenship of its people/annexation of their land to avoid the grip of the Mexicans(remember they lacked the finances of Northern States,no money no war!) Moving ahead we come to the Civil Rights era of the 20th century where we know there flagrant abuses of citizens by the government (Dr.Martin Luther King anyone?) and despite calls for change it took (as percieved by me) the death of Pres.Kennedy for us to shape up a bit and stop mistreatment of "our" citizens.Coming to our current timeline the middle east has in a very short period of time gone through the upheavals many predicted that would happen in California during the 80's and 90's.My questions are: 1)why did the Union deny the Confederacy their right to self rule,when the founding fathers fought for this? 2)the way minorities were treated in America back then,did it warrant UN intervention?(think of Iraq and compare) 3)would the US have accepted UN consensus? 4)my father said the constitution supercedes the UN in our country,but why isn't this so in other countries?(think of the no-fly zone,legality and right to impose rules on sovreign states) 5)i admit Ghaddafi is morally wrong but he is the government of his country,and can stop protests and the such that "threaten nstional security,can't he? 6)why should the world's problems be foisted on the "leader"?
Best Answer

Best Answers: Oddly enough,i stiill don't get it?

Frederica Frederica | 3 days ago
Your premise has several major flaws, and is a reflection of the historical revisionism that surrounds the issue of the Civil War. That revisionism is called The Lost Cause Myth. It depends on the notion that the South fought for states rights. They did not. In fact, the South seceded because they no longer had the political power to suppress states rights in the West. The South controlled US politics for most of the Antebellum Period, not the North. They dominated the executive and the legislative branches of the government. While they did, they used the full force of Federal power to preserve and expand the institution of slavery, against the wishes of Northerners and Westerners...AND...to meddle in affairs of those regions in regards to the issue, in the form of Fugitive Slave Laws. Those laws forced Northern and Mid-Western states to submit to armed incursions, by Southerners recovering their human "property". It also required Northern law enforcement to assist, these armed bands of slavers. In the 1850's, the citizens of KS, voted (overwhelmingly) to join the Union as a free state. Southern politicians used their influence to have that constitution nullified. When it was overturned, Southerners sent armed militias into KS, in an effort to force the issue. The US Secretary of War, during this period of border warfare, was a Southerner who believed that territories were SUBJECT to the Federal Government, as dictated by the states. His name...Jefferson Davis. The Republican Party was founded to combat this kind of abuse of power by Southern states. In fact, the first Republican Pres. candidate was not a Yankee. He was a Southerner, of modest background, who had moved West to California, and did not want the evils of the plantation economy, exported to the West. His name, John C. Fremont. Another huge hole in your premise, is the notion that the South would be invaded by Mexico, and come running back into the Union. The South planned to invade Mexico, and Cuba and annex them into the CSA. In fact, some in the Confederate government dreamed of forming an empire that reached into Central America. The war was not fought over tariffs, or taxes. South Carolina Congressman Lawrence Keit, made that clear when he stated in a speech, that the South, did not come to the issue of secession over the tariff, but rather the question of slavery. The secession declarations of Southern states, the Cornerstone Speech, and the CSA's Constitution, all support this stance. "the South fought on account of the thing we quarreled with the North about. I never heard of any other cause for quarrel, than Slavery". John Singleton Mosby...CSA If the war was fought over unfair taxes, then it stands to reason, that frontier territories, and Northern and Midwestern states with agrarian economies, would have sided with the CSA. They didn't. They fought with the Union. If the war wasn't about slavery, why is it that every state that joined the CSA, was a slave state? If the war was about states rights, why did the CSA try to force Unionist areas of the South, such as East TN, West Virginia, Northern AL & MS, into the Confederacy, instead of letting them form their own states, and remain in the Union? Check out the books "Bitterly Divided, The South's Inner Civil War", and "Lies Across America, What Our Historical Sites Get Wrong". Both books are written by Southern authors, and document a different Southern perspective of the CW. They are slanted a bit to the Left, but they are historically accurate.
👍 234 | 👎 3
Did you like the answer? Oddly enough,i stiill don't get it? Share with your friends

We found more questions related to the topic: Authors writing about the south


Frederica Originally Answered: Oddly enough,i stiill don't get it?
Your premise has several major flaws, and is a reflection of the historical revisionism that surrounds the issue of the Civil War. That revisionism is called The Lost Cause Myth. It depends on the notion that the South fought for states rights. They did not. In fact, the South seceded because they no longer had the political power to suppress states rights in the West. The South controlled US politics for most of the Antebellum Period, not the North. They dominated the executive and the legislative branches of the government. While they did, they used the full force of Federal power to preserve and expand the institution of slavery, against the wishes of Northerners and Westerners...AND...to meddle in affairs of those regions in regards to the issue, in the form of Fugitive Slave Laws. Those laws forced Northern and Mid-Western states to submit to armed incursions, by Southerners recovering their human "property". It also required Northern law enforcement to assist, these armed bands of slavers. In the 1850's, the citizens of KS, voted (overwhelmingly) to join the Union as a free state. Southern politicians used their influence to have that constitution nullified. When it was overturned, Southerners sent armed militias into KS, in an effort to force the issue. The US Secretary of War, during this period of border warfare, was a Southerner who believed that territories were SUBJECT to the Federal Government, as dictated by the states. His name...Jefferson Davis. The Republican Party was founded to combat this kind of abuse of power by Southern states. In fact, the first Republican Pres. candidate was not a Yankee. He was a Southerner, of modest background, who had moved West to California, and did not want the evils of the plantation economy, exported to the West. His name, John C. Fremont. Another huge hole in your premise, is the notion that the South would be invaded by Mexico, and come running back into the Union. The South planned to invade Mexico, and Cuba and annex them into the CSA. In fact, some in the Confederate government dreamed of forming an empire that reached into Central America. The war was not fought over tariffs, or taxes. South Carolina Congressman Lawrence Keit, made that clear when he stated in a speech, that the South, did not come to the issue of secession over the tariff, but rather the question of slavery. The secession declarations of Southern states, the Cornerstone Speech, and the CSA's Constitution, all support this stance. "the South fought on account of the thing we quarreled with the North about. I never heard of any other cause for quarrel, than Slavery". John Singleton Mosby...CSA If the war was fought over unfair taxes, then it stands to reason, that frontier territories, and Northern and Midwestern states with agrarian economies, would have sided with the CSA. They didn't. They fought with the Union. If the war wasn't about slavery, why is it that every state that joined the CSA, was a slave state? If the war was about states rights, why did the CSA try to force Unionist areas of the South, such as East TN, West Virginia, Northern AL & MS, into the Confederacy, instead of letting them form their own states, and remain in the Union? Check out the books "Bitterly Divided, The South's Inner Civil War", and "Lies Across America, What Our Historical Sites Get Wrong". Both books are written by Southern authors, and document a different Southern perspective of the CW. They are slanted a bit to the Left, but they are historically accurate.
Frederica Originally Answered: Oddly enough,i stiill don't get it?
1) the South suceeded, broke away forming it's own sovernity...Civil War to free the slaves. 2)UN Formed in late 1940's, Civil War, 1800's 3) & A Vague explanation.... 4) = The United States is a Soveriegn country today, many fear the current Administration will enter into treaties or an agreement to allow the UN courts to oversee theU.S. Courts in Matters reguarding our sercurity, example: talk was they wanted to try him(Bush) for war crimes., if this "contract" is signed by the President , it still must be RADIFIED by Our congress. Thank You Thomas Jefferson. 5) Because he is killing thousands of his own people, they wish to be free. It is our conciencise duty as free people to help them? 6)Which "LEADER"? Obama, Ghaddafi? George Soros,LOL. God Bless America

Darlene Darlene
1) the South suceeded, broke away forming it's own sovernity...Civil War to free the slaves. 2)UN Formed in late 1940's, Civil War, 1800's 3) & A Vague explanation.... 4) = The United States is a Soveriegn country today, many fear the current Administration will enter into treaties or an agreement to allow the UN courts to oversee theU.S. Courts in Matters reguarding our sercurity, example: talk was they wanted to try him(Bush) for war crimes., if this "contract" is signed by the President , it still must be RADIFIED by Our congress. Thank You Thomas Jefferson. 5) Because he is killing thousands of his own people, they wish to be free. It is our conciencise duty as free people to help them? 6)Which "LEADER"? Obama, Ghaddafi? George Soros,LOL. God Bless America
👍 100 | 👎 0

Darlene Originally Answered: Oddly enough,i stiill don't get it?
Your premise has several major flaws, and is a reflection of the historical revisionism that surrounds the issue of the Civil War. That revisionism is called The Lost Cause Myth. It depends on the notion that the South fought for states rights. They did not. In fact, the South seceded because they no longer had the political power to suppress states rights in the West. The South controlled US politics for most of the Antebellum Period, not the North. They dominated the executive and the legislative branches of the government. While they did, they used the full force of Federal power to preserve and expand the institution of slavery, against the wishes of Northerners and Westerners...AND...to meddle in affairs of those regions in regards to the issue, in the form of Fugitive Slave Laws. Those laws forced Northern and Mid-Western states to submit to armed incursions, by Southerners recovering their human "property". It also required Northern law enforcement to assist, these armed bands of slavers. In the 1850's, the citizens of KS, voted (overwhelmingly) to join the Union as a free state. Southern politicians used their influence to have that constitution nullified. When it was overturned, Southerners sent armed militias into KS, in an effort to force the issue. The US Secretary of War, during this period of border warfare, was a Southerner who believed that territories were SUBJECT to the Federal Government, as dictated by the states. His name...Jefferson Davis. The Republican Party was founded to combat this kind of abuse of power by Southern states. In fact, the first Republican Pres. candidate was not a Yankee. He was a Southerner, of modest background, who had moved West to California, and did not want the evils of the plantation economy, exported to the West. His name, John C. Fremont. Another huge hole in your premise, is the notion that the South would be invaded by Mexico, and come running back into the Union. The South planned to invade Mexico, and Cuba and annex them into the CSA. In fact, some in the Confederate government dreamed of forming an empire that reached into Central America. The war was not fought over tariffs, or taxes. South Carolina Congressman Lawrence Keit, made that clear when he stated in a speech, that the South, did not come to the issue of secession over the tariff, but rather the question of slavery. The secession declarations of Southern states, the Cornerstone Speech, and the CSA's Constitution, all support this stance. "the South fought on account of the thing we quarreled with the North about. I never heard of any other cause for quarrel, than Slavery". John Singleton Mosby...CSA If the war was fought over unfair taxes, then it stands to reason, that frontier territories, and Northern and Midwestern states with agrarian economies, would have sided with the CSA. They didn't. They fought with the Union. If the war wasn't about slavery, why is it that every state that joined the CSA, was a slave state? If the war was about states rights, why did the CSA try to force Unionist areas of the South, such as East TN, West Virginia, Northern AL & MS, into the Confederacy, instead of letting them form their own states, and remain in the Union? Check out the books "Bitterly Divided, The South's Inner Civil War", and "Lies Across America, What Our Historical Sites Get Wrong". Both books are written by Southern authors, and document a different Southern perspective of the CW. They are slanted a bit to the Left, but they are historically accurate.
Darlene Originally Answered: Oddly enough,i stiill don't get it?
1) the South suceeded, broke away forming it's own sovernity...Civil War to free the slaves. 2)UN Formed in late 1940's, Civil War, 1800's 3) & A Vague explanation.... 4) = The United States is a Soveriegn country today, many fear the current Administration will enter into treaties or an agreement to allow the UN courts to oversee theU.S. Courts in Matters reguarding our sercurity, example: talk was they wanted to try him(Bush) for war crimes., if this "contract" is signed by the President , it still must be RADIFIED by Our congress. Thank You Thomas Jefferson. 5) Because he is killing thousands of his own people, they wish to be free. It is our conciencise duty as free people to help them? 6)Which "LEADER"? Obama, Ghaddafi? George Soros,LOL. God Bless America

If you have your own answer to the question authors writing about the south, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.