American Civil war Books from the Southern Perspective

Oct 2018
19
Virginia
#1
The winner writes the history and that is the view we are all given. So here are a sample of some books from the southern perspective that will leave you asking, why was I not told that before? why was I lied to? Found on Amazon

Lincoln


Lincoln As He Really Was
The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War
Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe
Forced into Glory: Abraham Lincoln's White Dream
Dismantling the Republic



The South / Confederacy / States Rights


The South Was Right!
The Confederate Constitution of 1861: An Inquiry into American Constitutionalism
From Founding Fathers to Fire Eaters: The Constitutional Doctrine of States' Rights in the Old South
Redeeming American Democracy: Lessons from the Confederate Constitution
Nullification: Reclaiming Consent of the Governed
Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century



Slavery


Myths of American Slavery
Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Slavery
A South-side view of slavery;
South Carolina Slave Narratives: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project 1936-1938
Georgia Slave Narratives: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers' Project 1936-1938
Everything You Were Taught About American Slavery is Wrong, Ask a Southerner!



Pro South Book Publisher for many more books

http://www.shotwellpublishing.com/
https://www.searavenpress.com/southern-civil-war-books.htm
 
Jan 2019
44
Belgium
#2
I’m new here and I don’t know if we can speak here about the subject or only about the book.
In the doubt, I write…
And sorry for my english...

The question of the slavery is (for me) one knot of the affair, the other knot is the industrialisation of the North.
The real causes of the war are (for me) these;
The south couldn’t have a customs duty because in this case they couldn’t sell its cotton to Britain l
The north must have a big custom duty because in other case, it’s industrial activity would be killed by the British industry before it be born…

But we can say things like this at the public.
It’s better to speak about slavery and do in sort that nobody couldn't have the bad idea to compare the status of the slave at these of the english worker of this time .


The price of a slave was about that of a worker.

But there are some important differences:

a) you must pay in one time theirs salary of a whole life
in other side ,in this time of heavy inflation,it’s a good placement

b) they must left at your service ; he didn’t can leave you for another employer
therefore ,you know with certainty how many workers you will have for the next harvest.
(the work is not complex ,but the gesture must be well done,and it need an apprentischeship

c) after it’s working life, in case of illness or injuries, you didn’t must take care of it… but If you don’t, you’ll be looked upon as a bad man
 
Last edited:

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,341
Republika Srpska
#3
Do those books claim that the South fought for anything other than slavery? Because if they do, they are not historical books, but Lost Cause propaganda.
 
Likes: Futurist
Jul 2016
8,388
USA
#4
Lost Causer: "The war was about state's rights!"

Everyone else who isn't obsessed over a 150 years old war : "Okay. Which right are the state's wanting to protect?"

LC: "Uhhh...that's immaterial. But it was definitely about preserving state's rights!"

Everyone Else: "Fine, we got that. But which right was in jeopardy of being oppressed? The right to own another human?"

LC: "Uhhh...doesn't matter. The federal government has no say in state's rights!"

Sadder too, secession didn't even start when Lincoln actually banned slaves, he didn't have the chance, it took him just being elected president for the secessionist movement to start, as the fear (and certainty) over what would happen with abolitionists in the White House and controlling Congress was enough to drive southern politicians to break the union. Whose articles of succession nearly all specifically named the right in question they wish to protect: the right to preserve the institution of slavery, from which the Southern economy, especially their power elite, were utterly dependent on.
 
Jan 2019
44
Belgium
#5
In fact nobody don't care about the slaves .
The slaves were a war weapon : without slaves the south would die ....
Lincoln didn't say that the slaves were free ,he said that the slaves FROM THE STATES IN REBELLION AGAINST UNION(an not others slaves) will be free ...
 
Jul 2016
8,388
USA
#6
In fact nobody don't care about the slaves .
The slaves were a war weapon : without slaves the south would die ....
Lincoln didn't say that the slaves were free ,he said that the slaves FROM THE STATES IN REBELLION AGAINST UNION(an not others slaves) will be free ...
In fact nobody don't care about the slaves .
The slaves were a war weapon : without slaves the south would die ....
Lincoln didn't say that the slaves were free ,he said that the slaves FROM THE STATES IN REBELLION AGAINST UNION(an not others slaves) will be free ...
Lincoln didn't have the ability or power to free all slaves at the time he did it. He did have the ability to do it against rebellious states, which is why it happened to them. It was a political gesture anyway. By 1865 he was able to get a formal Amendment to the Constitution passed.

And yes, the war was about slaves. Various southern states published articles of secession, which flat out stated their grievances and why they were removing themselves from the Union. The cause, when stated, was always slavery.
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#8
I didn't agree : not the slavery for itself but the slavery as economic need !
A semantic difference.


A point; the British banned the international slave trade in 1833. (well, parts of the world covered by their navy) After that time, the Southern US had to breed their own slaves .The result was slaves became much more expensive to buy. Large southern plantations found they had their capital tied to a diminishing asset.

The claims about Lincoln freeing the slaves are largely nonsense. Lincoln had claimed he would not free the slaves if it helped end the war.He was in no way arguing any kind of equality for slaves. The slaves he 'freed' during the war were only those in seceded states, where he had no authority. The slaves remained slaves. It would have been political suicide for him to have even tried to free the slaves in the North. I'm not sure he had the power to do that by proclamation.

I've read a lot of bs by slavery apologists. One classic was the claim that slaves were perfectly happy being slaves. This was discovered by simply asking them.

There is another often used, just as ,absurd, but insidious. : That a meaningful comparison can be made between slaves and say free factory or mine workers at the time.

No meaningful comparison can be made simply because the two groups are not equal:

Slaves were chattel under the law, with no rights. They worked when and for however long their owner decided. A salve owner literally had the power of life and death over his slaves. A slave was not paid. A slave could be sold at any time, away from say wife and children. A slave was not permitted to learn to read. Female slaves were subject to constant sexual exploitation by their owner. (from whence did you think all those light skinned African Americans came? Slaves were also bred, like animals.---I think thats enough to give an idea of the. differences between slave and free workers.
 
Jan 2019
44
Belgium
#9
This discussion is very interressant .



I agree with you for the first part of your answer .
But not for the end of your answer .
It's there that the discussion become "interressant" for a lot of reasons :

a) there was a big difference between the slaves of house slaves "from the house" who were receiving a kind of salary, since many of them were able to redeem their freedom (like European workers who were earning wages at the factory or the mine, but had to pay back to the owner of the industrial precinct who rented their homes and owned all the stores....) and the slaves who were employed in the cotton,who were real "slaves" in common sense of the term.

b) the possibility that a man can be sale without his wife and childrens is real ,but also theorical : in fact this kind of story must have happened very rarely and if it, was made to be "badly seen" by the other planters.

c) the sexual exploitation of the slaves is real... but what about the sexual exploitation of the womans and the childrens at the same moment in the industrial european world ?

d) We must remember too that the end of slavery is too the end of the cares for the slaves old,sick,or injuried .
They were without resources while at the same time European workers were starting to organize themselves into a society of social solidarity (pension, unemployment and healthcare)..
For me it was catastrophic in the both situations without big differences …
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#10
@Ungern

I repeat; the comparison of slaves with worker is fatuous and simply wrong, because the two groups were not the same.

That all of the conditions of which I wrote were not necessarily practised doesn't change the fact that those conditions were real even if not universally practiced

Above all ,a slave was not FREE. If they were looked after so well , why did so many thousands try escape?.

I forgot to mention; slaves could be and were savagely whipped. OK, not by all owners, but owners could if they wished and everyone knew it

" the sexual exploitation of the slaves is real... but what about the sexual exploitation of the womans and the childrens at the same moment in the industrial european world ?"

More nonsense; the two situations are not the same, they may not be compared.. European workers were FREE, and they got paid. They also had rights under the law. The slave had no rights. Plus the level of sexual exploitation European workers was at nowhere near the same level AND was not protected at law; The slave owner had the same kind of rights over his salves a he did his horse and house furniture.

Not entirely sure, bu I think your argument is based on a common logical fallacy, called 'tu quoque'

I'm sure some member more knowledgeable will pull me up if I'm wrong.

Your attempted justification is slavery apologist nonsense. and I cannot support it.


The image below may not have been universal, but nor was it uncommon.

I have nothing further to say on this topic.
 

Attachments

Similar History Discussions