Why did the south secede?

d-ray657 · #1 01-10-2011, 09:10 AM

As long as we have no controversial matters to deal with today, I thought I might post to this column from the WAPO. The author even managed to bring up the Bush tax cuts, in an interesting analogy. One passage struck me the most though:

Quote:

[In 1860] Slaves were worth more than all the manufacturing companies and railroads in the nation. No elite class in history has ever given up such an immense interest voluntarily.

Regards,

D-Ray

merrylander · #2 01-10-2011, 09:24 AM

According to that same column the south also accounted for 75% of exports. But then history is always being revised.

finnbow · #3 01-10-2011, 09:27 AM

It is certainly modern day Southern revisionism to assert that the Civil War was about states rights and not slavery. Just like in modern day politics, one tends rationalize or impute higher ideals to those on their side.

noonereal · #4 01-10-2011, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d-ray657

As long as we have no controversial matters to deal with today, I thought I might post to this column from the WAPO. The author even managed to bring up the Bush tax cuts, in an interesting analogy. One passage struck me the most though:

Regards,

D-Ray

Well that side racked me for minute (Great read thanks) but now I am back

merrylander · #5 01-10-2011, 09:35 AM

Back in the day indigo was a big time product that unfortunately grew in swampy areas. It was near about impossible to hire people to work there due to the high death rate from swamp fever (probably malaria).

piece-itpete · #6 01-10-2011, 10:08 AM

This shows how craptacular our school history teachin's is.

Every serious book on the Civil war I've read makes it clear - the south decided to cede over the coming end of expanding slavery into new states. They considered it a line drawn in the sand.

The only plank of the new republican party was no expansion of slavery into new states.

Pete

Charles · #7 01-10-2011, 01:16 PM

[QUOTE=d-ray657;49683]As long as we have no controversial matters to deal with today, I thought I might post to this column from the WAPO. The author even managed to bring up the Bush tax cuts, in an interesting analogy. One passage struck me the most though:

That was an interesting analogy. I also found the fact that his co-author wrote "The Confederate and the Neo-Confederate Reader" to be interesting as well.

But I would expect nothing less from an article written by a couple of nuvo Damnyankees.

I can tell you why the South seceded, and it's a simple concept. They didn't like a bunch of Damnyankee uplifters butting into their business.

I guess some things never change.

Chas

JJIII · #8 01-10-2011, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles

I can tell you why the South seceded, and it's a simple concept. They didn't like a bunch of Damnyankee uplifters butting into their business.

I guess some things never change.

Chas

Whoop! There it is!

Charles · #9 01-10-2011, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JJIII

Whoop! There it is!

How about some good ol' South of the Mason Dixon music?

It was quite popular with the Democrats back about 1870.

http://gosong.net/download/W5nPjMMHD...IM_A_GOOD.html

Chas

noonereal · #10 01-10-2011, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles

How about some good ol' South of the Mason Dixon music?

It was quite popular with the Democrats back about 1870.

http://gosong.net/download/W5nPjMMHD...IM_A_GOOD.html

Chas

most excellent