Nick News says the Alamo was all about slavery

[kjm]

Nope: like I said in your post you provided numbers and I did not argue with them. I accept them as true. By your own numbers the number of slaves only slightly more than doubled in that time while the population made huge gains. I am not surprised by this being that most established slave owners would have no need to run to Texas and fight Indians, Mexicans and suffer the conditions of the Republic when they already were wealthy enough to own slaves to begin with. Because of Primogenetre a common practice in the South, perhaps a few folks were given a slave as a part of their inheritance and the may have brought the slave to Texas as was the case of WB Travis who brought one slave, but as for a large migration of slaves coming into Texas, I doubt that happened during the period of the dispute. More than likely it happened after statehood when things were settled enough yet land was still profitable.

Perhaps you're not taking into account the true conditions of Texas of 1836-1840 which were highly primative. It wasn't Richmond Virginia. It was Texas.

 

[novus collectus]

There was still a growth in the numbers of cotton growers and they used slaves for labor more than anything else on a cotton plantation. Yes they had primitive conditions and yes there was less incentive to bring their valuable slaves to a primitive area, but they often did not bring a bunch slaves to start their cotton growing but they bought their slaves from the slave dealers that had either shipped in the slaves, brought them in from Bay island in the Gulf, or walked them across country from breeding states (like Md and Va). The 1% figure is pure fallacy and there was a noticable percecntage even when you count the indians and hispanic Texicans into the population figures.

By your own numbers the number of slaves only slightly more than doubled in that time while the population made huge gains.

One of us is reading the numbers wrong. I said that from one source I cited that the ratio of the non-slave population to the slave population in Texas was 1 slave for every 6 non-slaves. The numbers I quoted said that the ratio went up to 1 slave for every 4 nonslaves. I said the opposite.

I also say that your claim of 35 times increase in population in 2 years is impossible and to then have them leave just as quickly as they arrived is, to me, preposterous.

I understand how it is to be proud of your home state and to think that the heroes we grew up idolizing were saints or near perfect, but part of progress is to face the awful truth (Santa Claus isn't real scenario). If we allow ourselves to ignore the truth when it is in front of us or to refuse to look for it when we have an opportunity, we will continue to fall prey to the history revisionists.

The South has been a victim of revisionism for years and it has evolved into a situation of denial akin to the people that refuse to believe the holocaust ever happenned or the people in Germany who have grown up learning that it was just 1% of the population that were Nazis and the Jews were "removed" because Germany had to defend itself from colonial England .

 

[kjm]

uh- what "truth" are you speaking of? That the Alamo was indeed about slavery? I guess I just always grew up thinking that we shouldn't place modern moral judgements on the people of a completely different culture and a different time and place when at that time they were the world's foremost minds who developed a system that enabled a people to live a lifestyle unimagined in the history of human kind.

I guess I was wrong, and we should look at all of the accomplishments of Washington, Jefferson, Lee (both of them), and others through the lens that they were afterall slave owners and that Jefferson in spite of his quaint little document did have sex with one of his slaves, and that Washington waited until his death to free his slaves and I even heard a rumor that he even (gulp!) made a batch of whiskey or two. I should remember the superiority of the North who did not start the war by invading the south somewhere around the Mannassass Junction, they were forced to invade because they cared so much for the negro slave but failed to mention it significantly for two more years. They had no ulterior motives driving them such as access to cotton, raw materials, ship-building and the like.

I already know them and if you will read earlier in this thread you will see that I already pointed out that Lincoln was a bigot and that it was not everyone in the South that fought for the right to keep slaves, but it was most .

Wow! You're making a pretty big statement there. I'm sure that the Southerners who in their minds had legally succeeded from their former Union, weren't fighting because an large Army of aliens were holding a fort in the South Carolina harbor that belonged rightfully to the South, nor were they defending their homes and families from an invading Army hell-bent on the destruction of their crops, homes, and way of life. Nope- they were simply fighting to promulgate an institution that the vast majority of them would never have enough money to ingage in.

There is a difference between revision and seeing history from a different viewpoint. I mean- after all- G. Washington was leading a criminal rebellion against a mother-country that brought nothing but prosperity to the 13 colonies. He simply didn't want to pay taxes right? When England invaded (probably over slavery), they should not have fought at all to defend their homes and families.

Makes perfect sense to me coming from somebody who isn't a mason but speaks in absolutes about them, isn't a southerner but speaks in absolutes about them, isn't a Texan, but knows all about the Texas revolution, isn't a Catholic but speaks in absolutes about them too.

The South has been a victim of revisionism for years and it has evolved into a situation of denial akin to the people that refuse to believe the holocaust ever happenned or the people in Germany who have grown up learning that it was just 1% of the population that were Nazis and the Jews were "removed" because Germany had to defend itself from colonial England

I think that just proved it a bit more since I've lived in the South exclusively and in all my life I have never met a southerner who denied the existence of slavery. Many even believe it had something to do with why the North won the war (however not why the war was started).

The Northern states have never engaged in revisionist history. After all- we inbred, tobacco drooling, banjo playing, knee-slapping, jug-sipping rednecks who can barely spell, have to have something to keep our otherwise dark history in the closet, so we engage in revisionism!

How we find time to do any of it is incredible since we're all riding around on horseback with crosses to plant in people's yards and light up and ropes to use in the nightly lynching! By golly- now I understand why you believe that the North was morally superior to we inbred southerners.

The Texas revolution WAS all about slavery, as was the fight at Plum Creek, and the defense of Richmond, the Indian Wars, and the Spanish-American War, the Mexican American war, WWI, WWII, Viet-Nam, Grenada, Dominican Republic, The PGW I, Somalia, and Afghanistan! I see the light and I will try to remember my place on this board whilst around my superiors. Now excuse me while I go off and make my 2:00 cross burning.

Post script: I forgot that the PGW I and the PGW II, Somalia, and Afghanistan were actually not about slavery, but about the Bushes making their Texas oil buddies rich. Saw it on CNN- sure did!

 

[univtxattorney]

Now excuse me while I go off and make my 2:00 cross burning.

When did that get changed to 2:00? Why wasn't I notified?

 

[univtxattorney]

First of all Univxattorney let me say that I did not read one of your quotes.

So then why criticize my post? If you aren't going to take the time to read, then don't bother criticizing what I have to say.

I already know them

How can you know that you know them if you didn't read them? You must have super powers!

it was not everyone in the South that fought for the right to keep slaves, but it was most .

I'd like a source on that one.

This sounds to me like they did not care about states[sic.] rights nearly as much as they were white supremascists [sic.] who wanted to keep the black race subjugated (preferably as slaves). This is definetly[sic.] not the only example since there is[sic.] plenty of newspapers at the time that said the same thing that convinced the Southerners to fight with the slave owners so that they did not have to be equal to a free black man

It's funny how in one breath you can say that Lincoln was a bigot and in the next say how everyone in the South was a white supremacist. The general attitude in the country at the time was that blacks were inferior. Look for examples of bigotry, and you will find them--North and South. Point being, it doesn't mean that the South was fighting solely to keep the institution of slavery any more than it means that the North was fighting to end slavery. You are buying in to the kindergarten view of the civil war. When you grow up, you see that it wasn't so cut and dry. And in case you missed 20th Century history in high school, bigotry and resistance to black equality wasn't settled with the civil war--not even in the compassionate and morally-superior North. Since you already know all the quotes of the time, you can skip this one. However, Lincoln wasn't for equality either. He said:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races — that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race

Sounds pretty white supremacist to me... I don't understand what you mean to say by quoting one southern politician as saying he wasn't for equality when the President of the Union was for equality either. So what does that mean? How do you reconcile that with your kindergarten view? You seem to want to paint groups with a broad brush. In this single post, you have done it to the Masons and to the South (and to Texas in particular). You ought to do more research before you make such broad claims about which you have no data.

 

[Unique 5.7]

novus collectus et al - start out by googling: tariffs South North France. Throw in some variations such as Industrial Revolution, grain, or tobacco. Look through the sites and you will learn that emancipation of slaves was only for rebelling states. Delaware was the last slave state. There are explanations how the south would give up slavery with a full treaty with France and England. A lot of the material can be learned by looking at economics papers examining production, exports, tariffs, industrial revolution. You may want to dismiss "The South Shoulda Won the War" sites, but their is good verifiable material in them. Please don't get me wrong people, I find racism to be anathema and for that reason people should see what culpability the North had in the institution of slavery. Let's see WHEN was the Emancipation Proclamation delivered? 1860? Nope, 1863!And what true purposes did it serve. One was to keep England and France out of the war, that is for sure.

 

[novus collectus]

Let's see WHEN was the Emancipation Proclamation delivered? 1860? Nope, 1863!And what true purposes did it serve. One was to keep England and France out of the war, that is for sure.

Let me start from the end first (I see a lot has happenned whil I slept). Lincoln proposed the Emancipation Proclamation in mid 1862 and a preliminary proclamation was released in Sept. 1862. Doesn't make it a cause of the North from the beginning but I just wanted to point this out.

start out by googling: tariffs South North France. Throw in some variations such as Industrial Revolution, grain, or tobacco. Look through the sites and you will learn that emancipation of slaves was only for rebelling states. Delaware was the last slave state. There are explanations how the south would give up slavery with a full treaty with France and England. A lot of the material can be learned by looking at economics papers examining production, exports, tariffs, industrial revolution.

Lincon was a bigot , but he was also anti-slavery and the South knew it, and Europe knew it. He made the Proclamation for purposes of winning the war, but he also did want to see the end of slavery. You googled tarrifs but you did not post them. Yes there were tarrifs since America started, but the tarrifs were reduced in the years before the war and it would be hard to prove that it was the cause of the Civil War (unless you use pro South websites).

How can you know that you know them if you didn't read them? You must have super powers!

You obviously did not catch the sarcasm...or you are using sarcasm the same way I did. I read just enough of each quote to recogize them.

I'd like a source on that one.

Give a few minutes to respond to the other stuff first and I will get back to this in a couple of minutes.

It's funny how in one breath you can say that Lincoln was a bigot and in the next say how everyone in the South was a white supremacist. The general attitude in the country at the time was that blacks were inferior. Look for examples of bigotry, and you will find them--North and South. Point being, it doesn't mean that the South was fighting solely to keep the institution of slavery any more than it means that the North was fighting to end slavery. You are buying in to the kindergarten view of the civil war. When you grow up, you see that it wasn't so cut and dry. And in case you missed 20th Century history in high school, bigotry and resistance to black equality wasn't settled with the civil war--not even in the compassionate and morally-superior North. Since you already know all the quotes of the time, you can skip this one. However, Lincoln wasn't for equality either. He said:

Yes Lincoln was a bigot , no he was not really a supremasist. Lincoln was anti-salvery and he was not an abolitionist. He was the candidate for a party that was made up of anti-slavery people and abolitionists, for the most part. He had made anti-slavery speeches calling for the end to slavery 4 years previous. You accuse me (in a round about way and IMO) of looking at things in a cut and dry way or in an uninformed way, but you just used the cut and dried method right there. The North wasn't fighting for black equality (except the abolitionists), if you apply the term "bigot" by using todays standards then they were all bigots (except the abolitionists). The South did use the fear of equality of blacks, the end of the institution of slavery, and the end to their social structure that ending slavery was viewed to be an important part of, to start the war (and to secede) . I will provide sources.



As far as my kindergarten view- There is a huge difference between Lincoln's wanting to end slavery and an abolitionist wanting equality. Who is using a broad brush? You say I did not do any research? How about you going down to your local place of historical documents in Texas and read the Southern newspapers from the months and years preceding the war and the many many editorials, politicians' speechs, politicians' correspondence, and reports of rallies that said the fight was for the continuation of slavery or the subjugation of the black race. I have not read many, but I have read other peoples work that was vetted and has stood up to peer review, that did read those newspapers and documents. At least I read a few for myself to see firsthand a sample of what was said by the reputable sources.
Just because two dozen professors from the South have tried to rewrite the cause of the Civil War does not mean that there are hundreds of researchers, historians, and other Southern professors who say the exact opposite.


Now kjm your next.

 

[kjm]

Unique: Interesting take on the Emancipation Proclamation. I'll look into that. I always saw it as a recruiting tool to give the war a moral cause other than an economic one. This next one is guaranteed to spark debate but here I go with my unproven belief:

After getting whooped in battle after battle by a smaller, poorly armed force in a conflict that should have been over after the first engagement, recruiting numbers fell dramatically. It is hard to fill an army when you're losing, and I imagine that folks in New York probably thought they were losing compared to where they should have been. I'm not sure about the riots where they lynched blacks, but depending on the date, it might support my THEORY.

Giving the war a moral cause helps and this was a handy one laying around for years. The South didn't need a moral cause. They were invaded and felt their homes and families depended upon their sacrifice. Southern Culture would not have allowed a fit, young man stay back while homes are threatened. Slaves and old men protected the homestead, young men went off to fight.

I think the Emancipation Proclamation was a tool for recruiting since after all, it did not emancipate the slaves in Maryland, Kentucky, or West Virginia. Just my two cents.

 

[novus collectus]

First kjm, do you ever sleep?!?! I spent most of yesterday and into the night trying to keep up with your posts so that I can debate them (I even skipped my classes today to debate you on this).

uh- what "truth" are you speaking of? That the Alamo was indeed about slavery?

If you go back and look at my posts you will see that I never said that the Alamo was fought by the defenders over slavery for the most part and the few that did (if there were any) had little to do with it. The truth I was alluding to was the one farce that the Civil War was fought for anything other than for the preservation of slavery. The states rights were to keep slaves. The claims made during the war of North's persecutions mostly did not arise until after the purposes of secession were already made and they were unsupported propaganda for the most part (or in total). I am however saying that the force behind the Texas independence was influenced or promulgated by pro slavery. The people in the Alamo probably never knew of this force, but it existed at the same time and did supply the independence cause with money, supplies and political support.

I guess I was wrong, and we should look at all of the accomplishments of Washington, Jefferson, Lee (both of them), and others through the lens that they were afterall slave owners and that Jefferson in spite of his quaint little document did have sex with one of his slaves, and that Washington waited until his death to free his slaves and I even heard a rumor that he even (gulp!) made a batch of whiskey or two.

He grew weed too (seriously, he did). But basically, yes we have to take everything into consideration before we idolize someone. It is possible to admire Hitler for his economical accomplishements (which he wasn't really responsible for IIRC) while still despising his actions. Hitler is a bad example though because he wasn't a "victim (or prisoner) of his time period" as the saying goes. Washington and Jefferson did show a sense of humanity towards negroes and they Washington did want slavery to end someday. Even Jefferson realised his contradictions in personal correspondence on occassions. (btw, they don't know if it was Thomas J. or his brother who slept with Sally Hemmings).

I should remember the superiority of the North who did not start the war by invading the south somewhere around the Mannassass Junction, they were forced to invade because they cared so much for the negro slave but failed to mention it significantly for two more years. They had no ulterior motives driving them such as access to cotton, raw materials, ship-building and the like.

You make me laugh. The South broke the law as it existed at the time and if there was any question about the legality of their actions to secede, then the Supreme Court had not supported it yet (and no I cannot recall or cite the case from the 1850's right now) or they did not have a chance to decide before the South started hostilities (Fort Sumpter was federal property any way you look at it IMO). At most it was a grey area, but even if it had any legal merit, it was a huge stretch (and no, I am not a constitutional lawyer either).
As far as the mention of slavery not coming for failing to mention it significantly for two years: you are ignoring the fact that the South thought that it was the republican's purpose to free the slaves at all costs and this is why they wanted to secede. Yes there was a frustration because they were having political troubles getting the spread of slavery into the new territories and they felt that they were losing support in Congress for the institution, but it was for the institution of salvery and everything else was secondary like states rights and tarrifs.

nor were they defending their homes and families from an invading Army hell-bent on the destruction of their crops, homes, and way of life. Nope- they were simply fighting to promulgate an institution that the vast majority of them would never have enough money to ingage in.

Regardless of what happened after the war started (for purposes of this part of the debate) the war was started for the continuation of the institution of slavery and the lifestyle associated with it.
Now I already said that 25% of the population owned slaves and I reread the source and I found that it was really 25% that was "directly" involved in institution of slavery (and not owners ), but the source also states that the aristocracy (through relatives, themselves, and related buisiness owners) was almost completely for slavery and the protection of it. There was a portion of the farmers thought that although they could not afford slaves, they might get enough to do so someday.

There is a difference between revision and seeing history from a different viewpoint. I mean- after all- G. Washington was leading a criminal rebellion against a mother-country that brought nothing but prosperity to the 13 colonies. He simply didn't want to pay taxes right? When England invaded (probably over slavery), they should not have fought at all to defend their homes and families.

Seeing thing from a different viewpoint will happen no matter who we are, but this is also how revisionists get a foothold.

Makes perfect sense to me coming from somebody who isn't a mason but speaks in absolutes about them, isn't a southerner but speaks in absolutes about them, isn't a Texan, but knows all about the Texas revolution, isn't a Catholic but speaks in absolutes about them too.

First of all I grew up in Md and although I do not think of myself as a Southerner, I grew up in the South (or next to it). Also, my father was a Virginian and it is something he said that got me started on this 25 year kick in the first place. I am not a scholar, I am not a Mason, expert, Catholic, or a Texan. But I do admit it when I am wrong and it is funny that the only reason you can use those facts against me is because I freely admitted it. You still have not explained to me where you got the idea about the Texas population between 1836-1838 and between 1831-1850. Are you afraid to admit even once that you may be wrong on something because you are afraid it shows weakness and that someone may use it against you? Are you insecure?

The Northern states have never engaged in revisionist history. After all- we inbred, tobacco drooling, banjo playing, knee-slapping, jug-sipping rednecks who can barely spell, have to have something to keep our otherwise dark history in the closet, so we engage in revisionism!

Happens in the North all the time.....and it is still wrong. I believe in the truth no matter how painful (even if the truth proves me wrong).

 

[novus collectus]

I think the Emancipation Proclamation was a tool for recruiting since after all, it did not emancipate the slaves in Maryland, Kentucky, or West Virginia. Just my two cents.

It had the opposite effect on the white recruits in the North East and that is one reason why they rioted (I think there were a few of them). It may have helped with the North's recruiting of black soldiers though.

The main effect that the Emancipation had, was to get anti-slavery England and France to end their support of the South. England and France were buying the cotton for their cotton mills and supplying money for the Southern cause before the proclamation.

 

[novus collectus]

Souces:

Jefferson Davis. "An Address to the People of the Free States by the President of the Southern Confederacy." 5 January 1863. Richmond Enquier Print.

Charles B. Dew. 2001. Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commisioners and the Cause of the Civil War Charlotsville, Va: University Press of Virginia

John Hope Franklin, Alfred A. Moss Jr. 2000.From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African Americans New York: Mcgraw Hill

"Skeptic". 2002. vol. 9 No. 3. pages 60-66 They list 37 sources of their own for this article.

Encyclopedia Britannica . 1970. Vol 22. pages 618-647

Encyclopedia Britannica Almanac 2003. 2002. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.

Secondary Sources: My History Proffessor.

 

[kjm]

No Novus, I rarely sleep.

Seeing history from a different perspective does not start revisionism. I think what most people think is revisionist is simply a different view.

When I read Enrique De la Pena's "In Texas with Santa Anna" I was looking for a Mexican take. In most cases, the first revision of history is the most inaccurate and it is only later revisions that start moving towards the truth. Colonel de la Pena was trying to keep his country whole.

I guarantee you that WB Travis had a different reason for being in the Alamo than did James Bowie. Juan Seguin had motives that differed from Sam Houston. The reasons people fight in wars are so different from man-to-man that you cannot paint a conflict broadly by saying it was about X.

Succession was not illegal as it wasn't mentioned as a forbidden practice in the Constitution (see the 10th amendment). If the Union was voluntary, then participation was. Many of these issues were decided by force of arms because the actual law was so fuzzy.

Now that the Jim Crow days passed, and the war is long behind us, I believe we're getting better takes on that history today that they were the year after. People have less and less emotional stake in the telling of history. Still there are some things that didn't change in most retellings.

Lee had slaves through Martha Custis. He never personally owned them. Lee also didn't own a house (again- Arlington was owned by Martha Custis). If Lincoln did anything he prolonged the conflict by being overly involved. He fired commander after commander which didn't leave much room for a learning curve. If you look at the senior commanders in the South, they generally were the same at the end as they were at the begining. Jefferson Davis understood that people learn from mistakes and so when Jackson made mistakes, he learned from them. When Lee made mistakes he learned from them. They weren't perfect commanders, but they were more experienced than anything the North could throw at them because I can think of five supreme commanders of the Northern Forces while the South generally had only one. That's not revisionist.

The reason Lee is to be revered is his surrender more than his fighting abilties. History teaches us to do the right thing. President Davis was wanting to go into a Guerrilla war which would have exponentially increased the bloodshed and caused more harm than it was worth. Lee recognized that winning the war wasn't worth the pain it would cause and surrendered. By surrendering his army, it made it easy for others to surrender. That is why I revere Lee.

I revere WB Travis not because he was a slave owner who ran off on his wife and child, but because when he said he'd die like a soldier who never forgets what's due his honor, he did. Even by Mexican accounts, he was killed while manning a cannon on the wall fighting to the bitter end. Because Mexican and Anglo accounts say the same thing, we can be more certain that this is how the thing went down.

 

[novus collectus]

If Lincoln did anything he prolonged the conflict by being overly involved. He fired commander after commander which didn't leave much room for a learning curve. If you look at the senior commanders in the South, they generally were the same at the end as they were at

IMO it was Lincolns lack of willingness to fire the poor comanders like McLellan (sp?) and Burnside sooner and not because he didn't give them a chance. Another reason is that there were few good academy officers left since most of the best ones went South.



I revere Lee as well and I respect Travis for the same reasons you do .

 

[ahenry]

First of all I grew up in Md and although I do not think of myself as a Southerner, I grew up in the South (or next to it).

My wife was friends with a girl from Maryland and she had the same views on the War Between the States and also thought of herself as having grown up in the “South”. I’ve never been able to figure that one out. I guess people in Maryland have misplaced guilt over which side they came down on in the war. I actually did grow up in the south and my family actually did fight for the South,* actually both sides, and at the risk of offending the good people of Maryland, Y’all ain’t the South, stop thinking you are.


Regarding the causes of either the Texas Revolution or the War Between the States, I don’t really care to convince you one way or the other. We seem to all agree that Nickelodeon was way off base and out of line to push that view on innocent and unsuspecting kids, and that’s all that matters.

I have studied Texas and early American history from before I was able to read for myself. My parents took the time to read history to my siblings and I, and as we developed our own reading skills they provided a constant stream of literature for us. They hammered into our brains critical thinking skills, and taught us to challenge almost everything. Later in life, it was my pleasure to have the opportunity to study history by attending numerous seminars, taking classes at Jr. colleges all they way up to honors classes at a major university. I had the pleasure of reading the books of, as well as studying under, well known history experts and the more obscure ones. They all had a wide variety of historical viewpoints, some I agreed with, others I do not. I feel more than confident in my views of history, at least when it comes to Texas or Early America. There is one thing I have learned in all this. While debates on history are fun, and I participate in them often, there are two categories of people in a debate like this; those that have a certain level of education and are truly interested in furthering their knowledge, and those that are firmly convinced of their view and nothing you say can change their mind. When you’re debating with somebody in the latter category it doesn’t matter how much you beat them over the head with your facts, you can’t change their mind. As for myself, my time would be better spent beating them over the head with a stick. Since I’m not going to beat somebody over the head just because he is sophomoric, I don’t really see the point in this discussion.




*None of my family ever owned slaves. We must have been another one of those “not everybody fought for slavery but most did” families.

 

[kjm]

Ahenry

Good way to put it. I wish I would have thought of that.

+1

 

[univtxattorney]

Well stated ahenry... I'm done with this topic too...

 

[kjm]

Sorry- but my 1/16th of my family did own slaves and the other 15/16ths were virtually slaves in Europe before they got their smarts on, and came over for the cheap land. Gotta love those krauts!

 

[novus collectus]

kjm,
since you got this thread, for the moment, going again, let me respond to what ahenry said about Md:

I actually did grow up in the south and my family actually did fight for the South,* actually both sides, and at the risk of offending the good people of Maryland, Y’all ain’t the South, stop thinking you are.

There were a lot of people from Md that fought for the South and there were whole regiments from Maryland. A huge portion of Marylanders (maybe but probably not a majority) view themselves as rebels or Southeners and you would most likely agree that they were if you knew them personally. Some of Marylanders in the Southern and extreme Eastern parts even eat grits (whatever the heck grits are, I don't know because my Virginia father never cooked). Many parts of Maryland are close to Southern Virginia and the people are very similar in those spots (with the exception of D.C. beltway). Many Marylanders would take great exception to your statement.

As a matter of fact, some of my best friend are Southeners . One of my Maryland friends and I argue all the time about what caused the war and that is what prompted me to take the history class for that time period. My first question to my (southern raised white) history professor on the first day of class was this very question. This, and the fact that it has been bugging me for 20 or so years, is why I now feel confident that the C.War was fought over slavery from the Souths perspective.

For a while, while growing up, I beleived what some Southerners that had gone to one of the universities to learn this side, that the War was not fought over slavery and was over states rights alone or in the majority. I too repeated this fallacy for a while. When I found out that I was a fool to do so and that I may have been wrong, I would study this on and off for decades before taking a class and previously finding many vetted, reputable sources and a few books as well. I am not an expert and I may even change my view once again before I die, but when I have been fooled and when I have beleived in something later found to be false, I make sure everyone else who has been wrong too knows it. ("nothing worse than a former smoker" analogy)

 

[MeekAndMild]

ahenry, actually this isn't a new opinion and there is significant historical basis for it. In the late 1800's there was a good deal of discussion about the ways that the Texas war for independance, its annexation and the Mexican American war were preludes to the Civil war. Suggest you might consider reading some of the autobiographies of Mexican American war veterans. The first one to read and the best, from a literature viewpoint, is that of President US Grant.

How these wars tie in are easier to understand if you ignore Mexico except as a convenient external object of aggression and focus on the internal US political pressure for free states and slave states to expand their respective spheres of political influence.

 

[Silver Bullet]

The bluenecks don't have any real heroes (other than MLK), so they spend their time trying to run down ours.