Slashdot Mirror

That doesn't sound right, but I don't know enough about the Civil War to dispute it.

Na, just kidding.

South Carolina

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. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

Mississippi

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. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin

Louisiana

As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery.

Alabama

Upon the principles then announced by Mr. Lincoln and his leading friends, we are bound to expect his administration to be conducted. Hence it is, that in high places, among the Republican party, the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as it change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new principles, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions—nothing less than an open declaration of war—for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and. her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized

...The Battle of Bull Run.

The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States

http://www.civilwar.org/educat...

The specific primary issue was whether or not slavery would be prohibited in new territories when they became states, changing the balance of power between slave-holding and non slave-holding states. Prior to the election of Lincoln, the balance was maintained by inducting one non slave-holding state and one slave-holding state at the same time (paired statehood grants).

The South was not fearful of the existing slave states losing their slaves, they were fearful in a change in relative power between the two power blocks, and the election of Lincoln made this inevitable.

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation was in fact a punitive action relative to the secessionists only, and only applied to the ten states then currently in rebellion. It is widely regarded as the proverbial "straw that broke the camels back", and was issued under the president's war powers, and thus necessarily excluded those areas not in rebellion. In other words, of the 4 million slaves currently held at the time, about 1 million of them were *not* freed by the proclamation, as they were within states not in open rebellion.

But nice try on your straw man argument.

Note: as a technical note, free persons who commit criminal acts *could* in fact be made slaves today through court action, since you may deny someone their liberty through due process of law. We just don't use this particular loophole within our justice system.

The flag only represented treason when the South lost. Up until then it represented freedom from the oppressive North, a North that wouldn't let them govern themselves how they saw fit.

I can't believe we're still dealing with this strawman. I also can't believe you don't see the irony in your own statement. The people of the south wanted "freedom" to deny freedom to others, and you're OK with that?

When some folks finally got enlightened enough to realize that the ownership of human beings is just plain WRONG, a majority of the citizens of the US (which is how our representative democracy works) convinced their legislators and President that "how they saw fit" should be outlawed. They way we effect change in this country is through legislation. If an Army base were to be attacked today for the reasons that Fort Sumter was shelled, we'd call it terrorism. So, yes, the flag was treasonous on the day it was created, and continues to be so because of the "ideals" it represents.

The southern states only considered this "oppressive" because an end to slavery meant lower profits for slave-owners. This is clearly outlined in their secession statements.

In every declaration of secession, slavery was given as the first and most prominent reason for secession.

That is a blatant lie, and judging by the fact you didn't link to the declarations that deny this claim, you damn well know it's a lie.

http://www.civilwar.org/educat...

Yeah, did you read the link you provided? Because every single quote that ShanghaiBill used is contained on the page you provided.

In every declaration of secession, slavery was given as the first and most prominent reason for secession.

That is a blatant lie, and judging by the fact you didn't link to the declarations that deny this claim, you damn well know it's a lie.

http://www.civilwar.org/educat...

In their own words... slavery... blame it on your schools, but you're still wrong. Look it up in your own state houses - these words are in those documents housed therein.

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

Really? Why does this say differently? http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

Read this. Then say "gee, I was wrong! there it is in THEIR OWN words!!!"

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

Then, down south, your own states say your history books are stinking piles of crap. Or you are misremembering what those books say:

Please read this: http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/declarationofcauses.html

Look for a tie in. It's easier to squeeze it in the nonprofit sector.
I did the exact opposite of your question (leveraged other skills to get into development), but I suppose the concepts are the same. I have a dregree in history from Penn State, but since I was wee ittle I've been tinkering with computers. Hell, I broke the computer so many times when I was little my Mom had to have her company's tech guy come out and lock it down so I couldn't screw it up again.

At this point - pretty much 15 years later (8-23) - I'm an experienced network admin and web developer regardless of whether or not I've had formal instruction in them (I took Intro to C++ at Penn State before getting forced out of the Computer Science program due to low grades - I went and got myself addicted to a MUD. But that's a differnet story. Heh.)

Anyhow. My specialization in history? The US Civil War. My job? I'm the one man IT department for these guys.

Yeah, I'm the one man IT department for a nonprofit. Network admin, IT, webmaster, how to do something neat in MS Office explainer, copy machine fixer...you name it, I do it ;)

PS: http://www.civilwar.org/