Is Davis a traitor; or, Was secession a constitutional right previous to the war of 1861?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Freedom! self reliance : One Thread
The complete book is online and very interesting reading.
-- TomK(mich) (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 21, 2002
My friend's (homeschooling) children asked me who Robert E Lee was the other day. We had quite a discussion about the great Southern heros and states rights. No I do not believe that slavery was right, and I'll be first in line to defend anyone from discrimination and abuse. However, that was not the real reason for the war! The war was about states rights and slavery was the excuse given to justify what the north did to the south. One of my young friends told me that his history book said the war was fought over slavery, so I told him that history books tend to be written by whoever won the war, right or not. I don't know if I convinced them, but I did at least get them to thinking!
I'm downloading the book to read later. Thanks
-- kim in CO (email@example.com), April 22, 2002.
Kim, a very good book that explains all of the Civil War lies is "The South was Right". In this day and age if you want the truth you have the means to search it out. My folks told me that when they were in the public schools the history was taught that it was about the secession and not about slavery. That is NOT what I learned in PS.
-- Doreen (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 22, 2002.
From what I was led to believe , the Rockerfellas printing companys have a monopoly on history book publications that are used in public schools in the U.S. . I was also under the assumtion that the civil war was triggered by a tobbaco tax.Tobbaco as with cotton, could only be grown in southern states.The south was getting rich from the tobbaco and cotton sales. Atlanta was becoming a wealthy and powerful city.It was becoming the New York City of the South . Wall-street might have been threatened by the wealth of Atlanta.It was burnt down. So a tobbaco tax was made to keep the south from getting too powerful.The slaves were the ones who grew , tended, and havested the cotton and tobbaco.They were the back bone of the southern wealth . So slavery was made the issue of the war to distract the majority of Yankees and disguise the true motives of the war and lead the Yankees to think they were fighting for freedoms when in reality it was like the Boston tea party all over again.Unfair taxation. And so the Confederate States of America , like the original 13 colonies ,tried to break off from the mother land and fight for Independence.Tobbaco is sill unfairly over taxed to this day.
-- SM Steve (email@example.com), April 23, 2002.
Another thing that isn't mentioned often is that the Northerners were not all in favor of the war. In fact, if it had not been for the fact that our great American hero, Abraham Lincoln, had ordered that Irish immigrants be seized and pressed into the service of the military as soon as their ships landed, the North would have run out of men to serve them. The Southerners were killing off Northerners at a much higher rate than the Northerners were killing off the Southerners. Hang on Folks, Dixie's Risin' again. The Southern Party is beginning to make great inroads in local politics, and has candidates on the ballot in Texas for state offices. And lest anyone here begin to shout "Racists!", let me point out that there are both black and white candidates running on the ticket.
-- Green (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 23, 2002.
All of the above seems pretty accurate, except I would add that the North could not have survived without the south's raw products for their manufacturing. You can't grow cotton in NYC. If the south had seceeded successfully, Lincoln knew that trade with the south would have been difficult at best. Suddenly what the north had always gotten from the southern states would be subject to tariffs. This would have put northern manufacturers out of business. It is interesting to note that at the end of the war there were far more dead northerners than there were southerners, and yet the south lost.
Little bit Farm
-- Little bit Farm (email@example.com), April 25, 2002.
Do you really think the north couldn't have survived without the natural resources of the south?? I think that it is worth noting that the great industrial countries, like Germany and Japan, usually don't have many natural resources. This was also true during the civil war. Britian was the industrial powerhouse even though they had to ship raw materials thousands of miles to their factories. The furnaces of the industrial revolution were built on coal, not cotton. (I will admit that the secession of the south really screwed the textile industry)
About the casualties-- in both WWI and WWII the allies had more casualties than the axis powers, yet they still won. The north could afford to have higher casulties because it had more people.
The south didn't have a chance in a protracted struggle. In a war of attrition, the country with less people loses.
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), January 30, 2003.
What a crazy website. The North won. Get over it. The South took a lickin it's never quite recovered from. The South is still whining over it, too. What a bunch of whinos.
-- Mister Poopy (Poophead@aol.com), March 24, 2003.
come on rednecks do it again invade my grand state of pennsylvania and see what happens this time.
-- Chris (email@example.com), April 04, 2003.
why dont the two of you seriously grow up. why not read up on both the north and the souths points of view, instead of just assuming one side automatically, yeah i live in the north but i dont agree with everything that went on during lincoln's presidency. He lied to the public just like todays government and sent his troops clueless on to what they were even fighting for to battle. Why not allow some grey area in your opinion and become more educated on your opinions? It might help you out just a bit especially if youre going to defend your state and your position. Loves! - Alicia
-- Alicia Holmes (firstname.lastname@example.org), May 18, 2004.
Davis was not a traitor, he was a hero, but he was not necessary the best choice for president of the south. He did suffer under the unfair comdemation of all the yankee scum for two years without charges or even a trial until the gutless yankee scum had to turn him lose. I admire the man for his strong stand againest adversity but I also believe it was mainly his and the confederate congresses fault that the Confederacy failed. Slavery Was is and will forever be a dead issue. Let it go!!!!!!
-- John "Dixie-Lover" Williams (email@example.com), June 10, 2004.
yankees are big time sissies and whiny cry babies, america rests on the firm foundation of the south !!!!!!!
-- mike (firstname.lastname@example.org), July 05, 2004.