• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The Civil War and the New Breed of Carpetbaggers

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
History books in elementary school teach a lot about the issue of slavery and how it applied to the Civil War, but the fact is that slavery was not the real issue. The real reasons are taught somewhat in high school history books, and quite extensively in college textbooks.

The main issue that led to the Civil War was states' rights, not slavery. The fact that George Washington had slaves, and even the wife of Abraham Lincoln had slaves. The fact that slavery did become a real issue just before the war, and during it, is a good thing, because chattel slavery was, and still is, in some parts of the world, one of the most viscious, vile, and evil concepts in the history of man.

No, the real issue was states rights, and many thousands died on both sides of this debate. History books show the South as being justly defeated, and many history books show the South as the villians, but are those history books correct? I would say no, they are not. The South saw the United States as a loose confederation of states, with the Federal government having power in only things that the states saw as beneficial to have in common, such as the coining of money, a national army to repel invaders, although the states maintained their own militias too, and other common interests too. Of couse, slavery was an unfortunate part of states rights too, but the cotton gin had been invented, and the South's perceived need for slavery was now dying.

The heart of the matter goes to the 10th amendment. Read it carefully. It tells us that ANY rights and responsibilites that the Constitution does NOT EXPLICITLY give to the Federal government belong to the states and to the people. The South lost a war trying to uphold this amendment, and in resisting what they saw as the tyranny of the North.

When the war ended, the carpetbaggers came to the South and literally forced themselves on the states and on the people, holding rigged elections, and running corrupt regimes. The black population was cynically used against the people of the South to cement the North's hold on those states. The monster known as the Ku Klux Klan appeared during that time, attacking the black population, when they should have been attacking and killing carpetbaggers instead. Their blind hatred of the black population was to give most of the South a huge black eye, which still persists in the minds of many to this day. Needless to say, Federal power over the states continued to grow.

Over the years the Democrats, used crisis situations such as the great depression to tighten the yoke of Federal government on the states and on the people, that is, until a Replican backlash put Ronald Reagan in power. Reagan did not do a lot to alleviate the Federal government's hold over the states, but his rhetoric of personal rights and responsibilities gain a significant foothold in political discourse, and the 10th amendment became a theme among many traditional Conservatives.

At this point, let me make something clear. In many areas of discrimination against blacks, the Federal government was right to step in, because it is the job of the Federal government to ensure that the rights of US citizens are not violated. However, show me where it says in the Constitution that the Federal government has the right to intervene in the economies of states, and make the many rules they order the states to follow regarding highway funds, education (except to demand equality of schools), law enforcement, and other areas which clearly belong to the states.

The 10th amendment today is once again under assault by a new breed of carpetbagger, known as Neocon. They preach limited Federal government, but their words are not matched by deeds. And why not? Many Neocons were originally from the North, having moved to the South to gan the power they were seeking. The Bush family from the Northeast, steeped in Harvard and Yale traditions, are one such example, and there are others. If you look at their deeds and not their rhetoric, it is plain to see that their plan for limited Federal government does not exist. To the contrary, during their reign of power, they have made the Federal yoke on the states all but supreme.

Many people talk today about the possibility of a second Civil War. I maintain that they are wrong. I believe the Second Civil War has already been fought, and once again, the South was defeated.

Final note: I am originally from the North (Michigan, actually), and having been from there, I grew up in an atmosphere of discrimination against Southerners in general. After moving to Texas, I found out how wrong I was about people in the South. The most important thing I learned down here has to do with the Confederate flag. It did get hijacked by rasists, but that is not what that flag originally stood for. Its not the rascism - Its the tradition. So I have no problem at all with those who choose to fly the Confederate flag. Those who fly it out of tradition, and not rascism, are, in my honest opinion, some of the most patriotic Americans in existence. They still believe in what America SHOULD stand for. Freedom of states and individuals, and not the Communistic notion that a large and powerful bureaucracy, known as a centralized Federal government, should dictate their lives.

There are many aspects to what I have posted in this thread, and maybe I tried to take on too much at one time. I hope that everything I posted did not significantly detract from the main theme - That a Federal government with unlimited power is the ultimate tyranny to the American way of life.

Final final note - I am first one in this forum. I finally broke a cherry. :)
 
Last edited:

realist

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
danarhea said:
History books in elementary school teach a lot about the issue of slavery and how it applied to the Civil War, but the fact is that slavery was not the real issue. The real reasons are taught somewhat in high school history books, and quite extensively in college textbooks.

The main issue that led to the Civil War was states' rights, not slavery. The fact that George Washington had slaves, and even the wife of Abraham Lincoln had slaves. The fact that slavery did become a real issue just before the war, and during it, is a good thing, because chattel slavery was, and still is, in some parts of the world, one of the most viscious, vile, and evil concepts in the history of man.

No, the real issue was states rights, and many thousands died on both sides of this debate. History books show the South as being justly defeated, and many history books show the South as the villians, but are those history books correct? I would say no, they are not. The South saw the United States as a loose confederation of states, with the Federal government having power in only things that the states saw as beneficial to have in common, such as the coining of money, a national army to repel invaders, although the states maintained their own militias too, and other common interests too. Of couse, slavery was an unfortunate part of states rights too, but the cotton gin had been invented, and the South's perceived need for slavery was now dying.

The heart of the matter goes to the 10th amendment. Read it carefully. It tells us that ANY rights and responsibilites that the Constitution does NOT EXPLICITLY give to the Federal government belong to the states and to the people. The South lost a war trying to uphold this amendment, and in resisting what they saw as the tyranny of the North.

When the war ended, the carpetbaggers came to the South and literally forced themselves on the states and on the people, holding rigged elections, and running corrupt regimes. The black population was cynically used against the people of the South to cement the North's hold on those states. The monster known as the Ku Klux Klan appeared during that time, attacking the black population, when they should have been attacking and killing carpetbaggers instead. Their blind hatred of the black population was to give most of the South a huge black eye, which still persists in the minds of many to this day. Needless to say, Federal power over the states continued to grow.

Over the years the Democrats, used crisis situations such as the great depression to tighten the yoke of Federal government on the states and on the people, that is, until a Replican backlash put Ronald Reagan in power. Reagan did not do a lot to alleviate the Federal government's hold over the states, but his rhetoric of personal rights and responsibilities gain a significant foothold in political discourse, and the 10th amendment became a theme among many traditional Conservatives.

At this point, let me make something clear. In many areas of discrimination against blacks, the Federal government was right to step in, because it is the job of the Federal government to ensure that the rights of US citizens are not violated. However, show me where it says in the Constitution that the Federal government has the right to intervene in the economies of states, and make the many rules they order the states to follow regarding highway funds, education (except to demand equality of schools), law enforcement, and other areas which clearly belong to the states.

The 10th amendment today is once again under assault by a new breed of carpetbagger, known as Neocon. They preach limited Federal government, but their words are not matched by deeds. And why not? Many Neocons were originally from the North, having moved to the South to gan the power they were seeking. The Bush family from the Northeast, steeped in Harvard and Yale traditions, are one such example, and there are others. If you look at their deeds and not their rhetoric, it is plain to see that their plan for limited Federal government does not exist. To the contrary, during their reign of power, they have made the Federal yoke on the states all but supreme.

Many people talk today about the possibility of a second Civil War. I maintain that they are wrong. I believe the Second Civil War has already been fought, and once again, the South was defeated.

Final note: I am originally from the North (Michigan, actually), and having been from there, I grew up in an atmosphere of discrimination against Southerners in general. After moving to Texas, I found out how wrong I was about people in the South. The most important thing I learned down here has to do with the Confederate flag. It did get hijacked by rasists, but that is not what that flag originally stood for. Its not the rascism - Its the tradition. So I have no problem at all with those who choose to fly the Confederate flag. Those who fly it out of tradition, and not rascism, are, in my honest opinion, some of the most patriotic Americans in existence. They still believe in what America SHOULD stand for. Freedom of states and individuals, and not the Communistic notion that a large and powerful bureaucracy, known as a centralized Federal government, should dictate their lives.

There are many aspects to what I have posted in this thread, and maybe I tried to take on too much at one time. I hope that everything I posted did not significantly detract from the main theme - That a Federal government with unlimited power is the ultimate tyranny to the American way of life.

Final final note - I am first one in this forum. I finally broke a cherry. :)
I feel that the end of slavery expedited by the civil war should be the focus, and not on what the government did to the south, over-stepping it's rights, I guess is the argument? because where would our country be now if the south had succeeded? I don't know too much about the 10th amendment, but I'll look into.
 

t125eagle

Active member
Joined
Sep 15, 2005
Messages
384
Reaction score
7
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
suceeded in what? the war/ the slaves would have been freed. I believe Robert E Lee would have seen to that. The states would hold more power.
 

realist

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
t125eagle said:
suceeded in what? the war/ the slaves would have been freed. I believe Robert E Lee would have seen to that. The states would hold more power.
So you think in the south being defeated we all lost something, more power to the states that is? Maybe you or someone else can explain what we actually lost due to the south's cause being defeated? I'm sincerely curious what was at stake as I don't know too much about the reasons for the war except the usual position to free the slaves and preserve the union.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
realist said:
So you think in the south being defeated we all lost something, more power to the states that is? Maybe you or someone else can explain what we actually lost due to the south's cause being defeated? I'm sincerely curious what was at stake as I don't know too much about the reasons for the war except the usual position to free the slaves and preserve the union.
Yes, actually what was lost was the soverignty of the states themselves. The winners of the Civil War believed in the power of a centralized Federal system of government, while the South believed more in the rights of the states.

Some aspects of this discussion are moot points of course. The Federal government was correct in sending troops to Mississippi and elsewhere during the 1950's and 60's because those states were violatiing the Constitution - mainly the 14th and 15th Amendments. Where the Constitution defines the rights of the Federal government, it is correct to take power. However, ANY POWER, RIGHT, OR OBLIGATION NOT EXPLICITLY GIVEN TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY THE CONSTITUTION BELONGS TO THE STATES, AND TO THE PEOPLE.. This is laid out in no uncertain terms by the 10th Amendment.

1) Sometimes the Federal government usurps the power of the states directly, by imposing unconstitutional laws, such as the Patriot Act.

2) Sometimes the Feds indirectly intervene in an unconstitutional matter by withholding funds collected in the form of taxes in order to bring the states into line. A perfect example of this is funding for highways. States which do not obey Federal rules and regulations can have their funding withheld, even if those Federal rules conflict with those of the states. This amounts to coersion, and is also unconstitutional.

The reason, of course, that the Feds get away with it all is because the legislators we send to Washington are nothing more than jellyfish who have no morals, and who see reelection as more important than defending the Constitution of the United States. But who put them there? We the People, thats who, and the ultimate blame is ours. But when people cant even take a few minutes to get away from their reality TV shows to go out and vote, we all end up getting the government that we deserve.

In short, people just dont give a damn anymore, and it is this trait that is the biggest threat our form of government. America as we know it is at a crossroads, and in the end, the people will either demand better or, before we realize what is happening, America will one day be over, in the blink of an eye.
 

realist

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2005
Messages
107
Reaction score
0
danarhea said:
Yes, actually what was lost was the soverignty of the states themselves. The winners of the Civil War believed in the power of a centralized Federal system of government, while the South believed more in the rights of the states.

Some aspects of this discussion are moot points of course. The Federal government was correct in sending troops to Mississippi and elsewhere during the 1950's and 60's because those states were violatiing the Constitution - mainly the 14th and 15th Amendments. Where the Constitution defines the rights of the Federal government, it is correct to take power. However, ANY POWER, RIGHT, OR OBLIGATION NOT EXPLICITLY GIVEN TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BY THE CONSTITUTION BELONGS TO THE STATES, AND TO THE PEOPLE.. This is laid out in no uncertain terms by the 10th Amendment.

1) Sometimes the Federal government usurps the power of the states directly, by imposing unconstitutional laws, such as the Patriot Act.

2) Sometimes the Feds indirectly intervene in an unconstitutional matter by withholding funds collected in the form of taxes in order to bring the states into line. A perfect example of this is funding for highways. States which do not obey Federal rules and regulations can have their funding withheld, even if those Federal rules conflict with those of the states. This amounts to coersion, and is also unconstitutional.

The reason, of course, that the Feds get away with it all is because the legislators we send to Washington are nothing more than jellyfish who have no morals, and who see reelection as more important than defending the Constitution of the United States. But who put them there? We the People, thats who, and the ultimate blame is ours. But when people cant even take a few minutes to get away from their reality TV shows to go out and vote, we all end up getting the government that we deserve.

In short, people just dont give a damn anymore, and it is this trait that is the biggest threat our form of government. America as we know it is at a crossroads, and in the end, the people will either demand better or, before we realize what is happening, America will one day be over, in the blink of an eye.
Interesting points. I wonder if too much power given to the states would of led to greater problems compared to a centralized federal system of government with all of it's flaws?
 

t125eagle

Active member
Joined
Sep 15, 2005
Messages
384
Reaction score
7
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
interesting thought. impossible to tell, i think.
 
H

HTColeman

danarhea said:
History books in elementary school teach a lot about the issue of slavery and how it applied to the Civil War, but the fact is that slavery was not the real issue. The real reasons are taught somewhat in high school history books, and quite extensively in college textbooks.

The main issue that led to the Civil War was states' rights, not slavery. The fact that George Washington had slaves, and even the wife of Abraham Lincoln had slaves. The fact that slavery did become a real issue just before the war, and during it, is a good thing, because chattel slavery was, and still is, in some parts of the world, one of the most viscious, vile, and evil concepts in the history of man.
Actually, it was about slavery. It started out on a political discussion on whether the new territories in the west would be allowed to have slaves. Abraham Lincoln, in the eyes of southern elite politicians, was a threat to slavery, therefore their economic system. You can also look at the southern states' declaration of immediate causes and see that slavery was a main issue. The issue of states' rights revolved around slavery. I posted this in another thread.

South Carolina, http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm

"...non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions,[...]they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery[...].They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes"

"A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery."

Georgia, http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

". For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. "

"The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen."

"The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees in its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers." (referencing the Northern States)

Missisippi, see link above

"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun."

"That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove. [...] It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion. [...] It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst."

These Declarations consistently refer to the two sides of conflict as "slave-holding states" vs. "non-slave holding states". The basis of the why the war began was slavery.
danarhea said:
No, the real issue was states rights, and many thousands died on both sides of this debate. History books show the South as being justly defeated, and many history books show the South as the villians, but are those history books correct? I would say no, they are not. The South saw the United States as a loose confederation of states, with the Federal government having power in only things that the states saw as beneficial to have in common, such as the coining of money, a national army to repel invaders, although the states maintained their own militias too, and other common interests too. Of couse, slavery was an unfortunate part of states rights too, but the cotton gin had been invented, and the South's perceived need for slavery was now dying.

The heart of the matter goes to the 10th amendment. Read it carefully. It tells us that ANY rights and responsibilites that the Constitution does NOT EXPLICITLY give to the Federal government belong to the states and to the people. The South lost a war trying to uphold this amendment, and in resisting what they saw as the tyranny of the North.
Whether the South had a right to secede, yes, I believe they did. But they did it to preserve their economy, i.e. slavery, not because of a loose confederation of states, they supported that states had more power, hence they wanted states rights'. Also, the cotton gin actually increased slave labor. It allowed plantation owners to produce more cotton fiber = more money. As a result they needed, or wanted, more slaves to harvest more cotton for more cash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_gin

When the war ended, the carpetbaggers came to the South and literally forced themselves on the states and on the people, holding rigged elections, and running corrupt regimes. The black population was cynically used against the people of the South to cement the North's hold on those states. The monster known as the Ku Klux Klan appeared during that time, attacking the black population, when they should have been attacking and killing carpetbaggers instead. Their blind hatred of the black population was to give most of the South a huge black eye, which still persists in the minds of many to this day. Needless to say, Federal power over the states continued to grow.
The KKK was actually a political terrorist group that was supported by the White Southern Democratic party, the major party of the South (or rather the supported party, not the party in power). To say that they were extremeties would be an error, many supported the KKK. In fact they made a movie glorifying the KKK called "Birth of a Nation". It depicts blacks as stupid and corrupt members of gov't, and whites as poor victims to the blacks tyranny. Then the KKK is shown as a knight in white robes to come and 'free the south'. It was a widely supported ideal. However, I won't deny the corruption in northern gov't imposing on the south. But I will say that such corruption was in both political parties not just the north. In fact in the Compromise of 1877, when the north ended Reconstruction, the White Southern Democratic party became more corrupt, killing more blacks if they tried to use their civil rights such as voting. Both parties exploited the general public.
 
Last edited:

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
realist said:
So you think in the south being defeated we all lost something, more power to the states that is? Maybe you or someone else can explain what we actually lost due to the south's cause being defeated? That's an easy one, why is it that your state cannot designate it's own drinking age? Why is it that the federal government can pass laws that don't necessarily facilitate a particular states needs yet conform to a general idea of one or two states with a powerful lobby group? the answer, because the last time a region exercised it's will to seceed it was conquered by a declaration of war and forced back into the Union, this was the very thing the federal government needed to assert more power over the states
I'm sincerely curious what was at stake as I don't know too much about the reasons for the war except the usual position to free the slaves and preserve the union.
Slavery was actually not the main issue as stated to the populace, the North as I understand it had two big problems, if the South would have seceeded successfully it would have essentially been it's own North American nation, hence, it could set it's own trade and interstate commerce rules, since the South was responsible for most of the agriculture it could then dictate a higher price to the North over hard feelings caused by the initial rift. Problem two was that the North wanted the South to become more industrialized, which we didn't want to do, but naturally, if we seceeded then the North would not have that leverege over us. I could be wrong about two, but northern problem one makes too much sense.

- I will say that the ONLY good thing to come out of the civil war was an end to slavery in our nation, it did bring us closer to the concept of all men created equal under the eyes of the law, but I worry greatly about the precedence of federal power set in motion by Lincoln.
 

LaMidRighter

Klattu Verata Nicto
DP Veteran
Joined
May 19, 2005
Messages
30,534
Reaction score
10,682
Location
Louisiana
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
HTColeman said:
Actually, it was about slavery. It started out on a political discussion on whether the new territories in the west would be allowed to have slaves. Abraham Lincoln, in the eyes of southern elite politicians, was a threat to slavery, therefore their economic system. You can also look at the southern states' declaration of immediate causes and see that slavery was a main issue. The issue of states' rights revolved around slavery. I posted this in another thread.
I think your right in the way of coorelation HT, in other words, I firmly believe that slavery was used as a political tool by the Union, naturally we messed up in the South by utilizing slave labor and it's appalling, but I sincerely believe that the war was a trade barrier issue, naturally if the war was based on economics as I believe, then slavery was still a big issue and directly tied into the economic portion of the actual reasoning behind the war, but not exactly the main issue.





Whether the South had a right to secede, yes, I believe they did. But they did it to preserve their economy, i.e. slavery, not because of a loose confederation of states, they supported that states had more power, hence they wanted states rights'. Also, the cotton gin actually increased slave labor. It allowed plantation owners to produce more cotton fiber = more money. As a result they needed, or wanted, more slaves to harvest more cotton for more cash.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_gin
No argument there, you pretty much got that one absolutely. I will say however that federal expansion is one nasty side effect, naturally I would not say that the South should have won on the slavery issue, I just hope for the countries sake that the ever expanding federal government eventually goes on a diet.
 
Top Bottom