Nick News says the Alamo was all about slavery

[Hugh Damright]

I now feel confident that the C.War was fought over slavery from the Souths perspective

I have studied this long and hard, and I believe that the South fought to preserve self-government and constitutional government.

 

[novus collectus]

I have studied this long and hard, and I believe that the South fought to preserve self-government and constitutional government.

Did you read the actual newpapers in the South from the year leading up to the war? Correspondence of the politicians? Not a challenge and just curious. The book "Apostles of Disunion" was written by a Southener who grew up thinking the same way and had been taught in his schools in the South that it was to preserve self government. He found that it was a fight for self government so they could keep slavery. One of the ways he came to this conclusion was he went to the archives and pulled actual correspondence of the fomentors of rebellion and he put four of them in his book. Newspapers from that time are a very good source for the purpose of the South as well.

Meek and Mild,
What I am accusing the Southeners of doing when it comes to slightly modifying history is about the same thing that Nickolodeon did. The main purpose of the C. War was for the preservation of slavery first and the fight for states rights was the mechanism and not the initial purpose. It seems that that part was conveniently forgotten or overlooked when they teach it in Southern colleges (and a couple of Northern colleges who hired a biased proffessor). The same thing IMO about the Alamo has happened. Although there were outside forces that were for the expansion of slavery to Texas and there may have been a few fighting there for that very reason, it was a few out of hundreds. There were many there fighting against Mexican oppression and for their freedom and had nothing at all to do with slavery. Just as states rights was a side bar to the cause of the C. War, slavery was a small side bar to the fight at the Alamo.

 

[ahenry]

MeekandMild,

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.

The Texas revolution wasn’t about American expansion and it wasn't a prelude to the War Between the States. It was a revolution against the despotic gov’t Santa Anna had created. Moreover, it was a revolution that involved several other Mexican states, none of which had any American ties. Once Texas became its own Republic, the manifest destiny of America was expressed in their “wooing” of Texas for statehood. At that point, slavery in Texas did become a very important issue, not before then though. In support of this assertion, look at the Conventions of 1832 and 1833. Moreover, look at the Declaration of Independence signed at Washington-on-the-Brazos in 1836 as well as the one signed in 1835. Each of these documents and conventions mention some of the problems Texas was beginning to face, and there were common threads in all of those documents. The only one that even mentioned slavery was the Convention of 1833 (which Sam Houston was a delegate of), which actually passed resolutions prohibiting African slave traffic. The constitution proposed by that Convention actually provided for universal suffrage. There is nothing factual to support the assertion that the Texas Revolution had anything to do with slavery, and Nick News’ assertion that it did, is nothing but a cheap attempt to influence the minds of children that are at an age too young to think critically for themselves.

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.

As I said above, the Texas revolution was not about American expansion. Suggest you might consider reading some of the writings of those actually a part of the Texas revolution. Those of Stephen F. Austin are a great place to start.

 

[MeekAndMild]

That will teach me to argue against somebody's religion on TFL. Have a nice day.

 

[Silver Bullet]

You jumped off the deep end.

 

[cuate]

Remember Goliad! Remember the Alamo!

Studied Texas History in School. Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna suspended the Mexican Constitution of 1824 I think it was, enraging the anglo Mexicans which were just gringos in Santa Anna's eyes.

Long live the memory of General Sam Houston and his Texian Army who defeated the Mexicans at San Jacinto and
clubbed, bayonetted and put to the sword every enemy in sight long after the battle ended in remembering Santa Anna's orders to slaughter Texians in Goliad and the Alamo.

Not one word about the institution of slavery in the Texts.
Sorry to disapoint the twisters of history but the truth will set you free, enemies of the truth are slaves to liars.

 

[ahenry]

That will teach me to argue against somebody's religion on TFL. Have a nice day.

Is anything that I said incorrect? If it is, by all means let us know...

 

[novus collectus]

How about this

good people of Maryland, Y’all ain’t the South, stop thinking you are.

 

[ahenry]

Tell me again, which side of the Mason-Dixon line is Maryland on? As I said before, I don’t wish to offend any of the good Marylander’s. Every single one I’ve ever met has been nice as can be. I still stand by my factual assertion that Maryland is not part of the South. It was never part of the South, and it isn’t a part of the South today. Its not incorrect for me to make that point.

 

[novus collectus]

I am sorry Ahenry but you should pull out a map and read a history book on this one. The Mason Dixon line used to be the demarcation between North and South and Md is South of it. As a matter of fact, the Mason Dixon line isn't even in Md anymore and is a few hundred yards in Pennsylvania. If you read my third post back in this thread you will see my take on it. In short, there were about half of the population who wanted to join the confederacy, there were a number of regiments that fought for the South that were made up entirely of Maryalnders, there is a huge number of people who call themselves rebels to this day that live in Md and there are many sections of Maryland with people you would easily feel at home with. If Md was never part of the South, then Lincoln was assasinated by a Northerner.
Yes the people that live in Baltimore are no where near what you would call Southerners. But you travel 10 miles South of the city and you find people that talk with a Southern drawl, eat grits, and think just about the same way you probably do.
But Baltimore is a city just like many cities. Almost every person (less than a dozen) I have met from Dallas that had grown up there I had thought they were Northerners until they told me where they were from. Of course this does not mean that most people from Dallas are just like Northerners just like the few Marylanders you have met means that all of Md is a bunch of Northerners.
I am sure that there are more than a few Marylanders on this forum here that would take great offense at you calling them a Northerner. (there are more than a few here on TFL).

If you want to call me a Northerner, then go ahead because I call myself a Northerner and I would like to think I grew up in the North. But the painful (to me) truth is that Maryland is part of the South and always has been.

 

[MeekAndMild]

Is anything that I said incorrect?

The Texas revolution wasn’t about American expansion and it wasn't a prelude to the War Between the States.

I don't need you to waste your time lecturing me so like I said before, have a nice day. Best to not argue religion here. You might try reading Grant's analysis of the Mexican American War even though it isn't among the holy books of Secular Texism.

 

[Silver Bullet]

Is this another hit-and-run ?

 

[Fred Hansen]

Tell me again, which side of the Mason-Dixon line is Maryland on?

The south side, but truthfully I would laugh at any Marylander that thought themselves southern.

 

[Lawyer Daggit]

I do not know why America keeps beating itself up over the slavery issue. While in no way condoning slavery, the life of the slave was really no worse than that experienced in the working class slums in britain where children worked 16 hours a day for a pittance and were old and worn out by their late 20's. Similar conditions applied generally in european factories.

 

[joab]

So Novus
let me see if I understand this correctly...
Lincoln,

the man who said
“My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it.”
And waited 2 years after the war started to free the slaves,

appointed slave owning generals,

many of whom did not free their slaves until after constitutional amendment made slave owning illegal for all of America, not just in sections of the south as the EP did,

to go to war against a non slave owning general,

who was in fact strongly opposed to slavery and publicly stated "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil" and who immediatly upon inheriting slaves began freeing them before and during this war

To fight a war against slavery

sorry for the spacing, it's hard to properly format a run on sentence on these forums

 

[Lawyer Daggit]

Joab, I agree with you- I do not think the war was about slavery, but agree that it was caught up in the issues- essentially you were dealing with two societies- an North that was more industrial and a South that had an agricultural society that had slaves- these two societies sought different things from government- ie South wanted cheap imports North protection for its industries etc- created an environment where South wanted to split.

Few people really cared about the issue of whether Slaves were free or not from a voting perspective.

 

[joab]

Wars are very rarely fought for the reasons used to justify them after the hostilities are over

I am always suspicious of anybody that claims to know the one defining reason for any war

I would love to be around 50 or 100 years from now to read about The War for Iraqi Liberation

 

[novus collectus]

Joab,
Read the thread because I already addressed this (I made a few mistakes too, so maybe you shouldn't read it )

The war was fought over states rights and it was complicated. What so many forget (or choose to ignore) is that it was fought over states' rights to KEEP slaves. Lets be a little realistic here. If it was about the tarrifs alone, would there be seccession? if it was industry vs. agriculture alone, would there have been a seccesion? Unlikely but...maybe. The point is that there was not a serious call for seccession until there was a political party and their candidate who were anti-slavery that became prominent federal politics. When they won the presidency, there was a call for the right to keep slaves and a call for seccession to do so. There were many many many many many many many many newsparer articles and speeches made at the time that expresses the South's desire to keep slaves and that is what the war was about. It may have not been the only thing that led up to the war, but if the institution of slavery was not threatened, then there would have been no seccession of all but maybe one or two states ten years later (number of states and the number of years is a personal estimate but the claim remains about the "no seccession").It was fought over slavery from the South's perspective. (and by the way, which generals do you claim owned slaves until the end of the war? If you say Grant, then you are wrong.)

Fred Hansen,
I would love to be there when you laugh at them to their face too.

 

[joab]

If you say Grant, then you are wrong.)

The Grant family owned slaves inherited from his father in-law he did not free those slaves until after the end of the war and the 13th amendment. He holds the distinction of being the last president to have owned slaves.
Sherman was also a slave owner.
And slavery was legal in New Jersey at the time.
There were black slave owners in the South at the time of the war, what was there position?
About 75% of southerners did not own slaves, did they go to war to protect the rights of the rich minority?
The Coinfederate constition banned the importation of slaves, the American constitution did not.
The EP did not abolish slavery it simply freed the slaves in the seceding states, not all of America.
There were desertions in the north after and because of the EP
Jeff Davis said that no matter the outcome slavery would eventually end. Did he go to war over a dying ideal?


Slavery was about as big an issue as gun control, abortion or stem cell research ( pick one) is today. No war would ever be fought over any of these issues.

If you want a simplistic view of the war, it was fought over the ideal of the supreme power of the federal goverment vs the power of the state to govern itself

 

[novus collectus]

Aw jeez Joab, where do I start. How about here:

The Grant family owned slaves inherited from his father in-law he did not free those slaves until after the end of the war and the 13th amendment. He holds the distinction of being the last president to have owned slaves.

This is part of the revisio0nist history I am talking about. There is a mix of half truths and complete lies. Grant freed the only slave he owned in 1857. The slaves his wife inherited were freed by Missouri law before the end of the war. But this does not change the fact that the South wanted to fight to preserve slavery.

There were black slave owners in the South at the time of the war, what was there position?

I assume you meant to say the "North" instead of the "South"? There position was to preserve the Union, but I am not saying the North fought the war from the beginning for the end to slavery, just that it was the South that was fighting to keep slavery in the beginning of the war, the middleof the war, and by the end it was simple survival. The South was afraid of the anti-slavery/abholitionist Republican party and their anti-slavery candidate taking away the institution.

About 75% of southerners did not own slaves, did they go to war to protect the rights of the rich minority?

Actuall I embarrasingly found out that when I said earlier that 25% of the population owned slaves, I was a little off. It was less. But 25% were directly involved with the economics of slavery and out of those people, they had family and friends in the South that would have supported slave owning "cousin Isiah" from losing his way of life. There was also a lot of Southerners that were not part of the 25% that did not want the negroes free and they were afraid of equality with them and they were afraid they would take more of their jobs being on an equal standing. (of course there were cases where the unfreed slaves took their jobs too). As far as protecting the rights of the rich minority? The governments were either run by plantation owners and their families, or controlled by the plantation aristocracy (except Virginia and Maryland where the many of the slave owners were slave breeders and not plantation owners). Now I admit that there may have been a majority of the Southerners that believed the propaganda and went to fight the war after it started (or believed in patriotism to their state like Lee [I respect Lee too]), but that does not change the fact that the war was perpetrated by the aristocracy to preserve the institution of slavery, the redoerick preceding the war and in the beginning in the newspapers was for the preservation of slavery and continued well into the war, and the demagagues and politicians had made plenty of speeches at rallys to the people that the war was to preserve the slave owning way of life. States rights was not the impetus of the war but the legal mechanism for the cause to keep slaves. and preservation of slavery was the main focus from the beginning.

There is also a lot of correspondence and record of the representatives, or officials, of the origional seccesionist states going to the other Southern states trying to garner their seccession as well. They used the preservation of slavery as the purpose of fighting the war.

The Coinfederate constition banned the importation of slaves, the American constitution did not.

Wrong.

Although the constitution did not ban the importation of slaves, slave importation was outlawed about 25 years earlier. The importation of slaves was an illegal activity ever since even though it occured in New Orleans and Texas until the beginning of the war.

The EP did not abolish slavery it simply freed the slaves in the seceding states, not all of America.

True.
But it did help end the war and although it did not directly free a single slave on January 1 1863 when it took effect (it was proposed by Lincoln over a year erlier and issued around September 1862), it did eventually free slaves in a somwhat indirect way during the war.

There were desertions in the north after and because of the EP

True.
But I am not saying that the war was fough over slavery in the beginning by the North but that the war was fought for the preservation of slavery by the South

Jeff Davis said that no matter the outcome slavery would eventually end. Did he go to war over a dying ideal?

I challenge you to find that quote from a vetted, reputable source. Even if he did say it, then you will find quotes of him like this:"The proper condition of the negro is slavery, or a complete subjugation of the white man". He also said in the same speech that the old Union would be restored with Negro slavery, "the proper condition of all of African descent" nationally accepted [Davis, Jefferson."An Address to the People of the Free States by the President of the Southern Confederacy." Richmond Enquirer Print]

And yes he did join the seccessionist movement and start the war to preserve a dying institution.

Slavery was about as big an issue as gun control, abortion or stem cell research ( pick one) is today. No war would ever be fought over any of these issues.

First of all, the country is a lot more stable now and half of the country doesn't think that it may be constitutional for them to leave the Union (which it wasn't). Secondly, you apparently have no idea the importance of slavery to those states and the importance of the 70 year struggle to keep the institution. It was a huge part of their way of life, their economy, and their social structure. To say that it could not start a war is to believe the revisionists that told you that.

If you want a simplistic view of the war, it was fought over the ideal of the supreme power of the federal goverment vs the power of the state to govern itself

The simplistic view is to ignore the issue of slavery and conviently forget that it was for states rights to keep slaves . Take slavery out of the equation for even 2 years preceding the war, and it would not have happened.