Comments on: Obama Sidesteps Confederate Controversy

By: Blake

Blake — Wed, 27 May 2009 11:50:20 +0000

Okay, here is what it is- Texas became a State in 1845- the Mexican- American war came about because of ambiguity about where the actual border was. Texans said the Rio Grande river, the Mexicans claimed the Nueces River. The M-A war was a boundary issue. True the inequity over slave/ non slave states began with Texas’ entry into the Union, it continued with the Missouri Compromise, where Missouri was slave state, but Kansas, next to Missouri, was a free state, so as to keep the balance.
I am a sixth generation Texan- I DO know my state’s history- that was one thing they used to teach, and now no longer do.

By: Randy

Randy — Wed, 27 May 2009 04:13:39 +0000

I kind of agree with you. Slavery in the U.S. itself is a complicated issue, starting way before the Civil War. It really is also a disservice to the actual history of the Civil War to paint the North as the heroes that freed the slaves simply because it was the moral thing to do. We are agreed that it was a stupid war. It’s actually sad that that’s what it took to end the injustice of legal human slavery in the U.S.

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Wed, 27 May 2009 01:51:25 +0000

Yes but the Alamo occurred in 1836 and then Texas won its independence, It pushed to be a state and then the Mexican American war broke out. The battles trouble with Mexico led to Texas statehood and other events followed.

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Wed, 27 May 2009 01:48:36 +0000

Well slavery was perceived as a state’s right. I never said that was it entirely, just that it was the major issue. Lincoln might have disliked slavery but he did not care how it played out as long as he could bring the union back together. He said we could have all slave states, all free states, or some slave and some free as long as the Union was brought back together so he really did not view it as a deal breaker.

He released the slaves to ruin the CSA and win the war.

There were a lot of reasons and yes the 3/5 was part of it but the north was more heavily populated and the Congress continually trampled on legislators from the South. I think it was a stupid war but it happened and we can’t change that. I would like to have seen the issues including the end of slavery come about in a peacegul manner but that did not happen and a lot of people lost their lives.

By: Randy

Randy — Wed, 27 May 2009 01:14:18 +0000

Big Dog,

So far I think you are the closest. I am not going to claim to be an expert on the complexities of the U.S. Civil War, but as any good southerner (especially one that was born in Vicksburg!) I have read my fair share of the history. You have to remember that the Confederates were very federalist in their own right. One of the big issues in Lincoln’s campaign was the limit of the expansion of states where slavery was legal to only states where it already was legal. The imbalance occurred regarding the three fifths clause, in which each slave was given representation as three fifths of a person, but they weren’t allowed to vote. This allowed for white southern plantation owners to have much greater representation in the Federal U.S. government.

The issue gets even more complicated the more you dig into it. To say it was simply about state rights though does as much a disservice to the actual history of events as saying it was all about slavery.

By: Blake

Blake — Wed, 27 May 2009 00:23:45 +0000

That last reason was the clincher- to have northern a**holes think that they knew more than thepeople at the state level, was too much to take. Keep in mind, back then most from up north had never been south. This was as distant to them as Africa, and the south resented people with an elitist attitude telling them what to do, especially as the south was supplying the north with raw materials for industrialization. And actually, Texas was admitted as a state in 1845, and the war wasn’t until 1849, to settle the boundary of Texas/ Mexico, and stop the raiding parties of Mexicans who were stealing livestock.
There has always been a crime problem on the border, but it was much less when we were allowed to hang them.

By: Big Dog

Big Dog — Wed, 27 May 2009 00:14:26 +0000

The Mexican American war eventually led to Texas becoming a state and it would be admitted as a slave state and that upset the balance of slave and non slave.

There were many issues that led the South to secede. Commerce, crops, the industrial north and the feds usurping state’s rights.

By: Blake

Blake — Wed, 27 May 2009 00:12:10 +0000

Pray tell, Randy.

By: Blake

Blake — Wed, 27 May 2009 00:10:56 +0000

The biggest problem with people today is that they want to marginalize the men who fought for the South, although they were every bit the patriots the men from the north were, and should be honored as such. The fact that we as a nation got through this war, and remained intact is a testament to our flexibility and grit.
For anyone to attempt to demean these men (or the Blacks who fought in this war also) is a shame and a blot on their character, not that of the men who fought.

By: Blake

Blake — Wed, 27 May 2009 00:06:03 +0000

Precisely- as it had seceded from the union, (as it allegedly had the right to do), the north occupying Ft. Sumter, which was now South Carolina’s fort, was an aggressive act of war.
So technically the north began the war.