snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > History

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09 January 2011, 08:21 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,652
Read This! Five myths about why the South seceded

As the nation begins to commemorate the anniversaries of the war's various battles -- from Fort Sumter to Appomattox -- let's dispense with some of the more prevalent myths about why it all began.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...010703178.html
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09 January 2011, 12:45 PM
Brad from Georgia's Avatar
Brad from Georgia Brad from Georgia is offline
 
Join Date: 21 June 2000
Location: Snellvile, GA
Posts: 13,185
Default

Being from the deep South, I know some of the real reasons for secession:
  • Abraham Lincoln smelled funny.
  • In the Senate, the Senators from the North used to giggle whenever one of our boys would say "Y'all."
  • It was all about breakfast. Came down to scrapple vs. grits.
  • The Devil made us do it.
  • We still insist there should be a "p" in "Fort Sum(p)ter."
  • We got sick of furriners calling us "Yankees."
  • Oh, and slavery.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09 January 2011, 03:01 PM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,654
Icon23

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad from Georgia View Post
  • It was all about breakfast. Came down to scrapple vs. grits.
Now I see why it lasted so long and killed so many. Darn you, Brad, now I want some scrapple and grits! And some hardtack...
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09 January 2011, 05:33 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,504
Default

Scrapple? What good Yankee eats scrapple? I learned about scrapple from my Kentucky-born dad, which makes it border state food at best.

On a more serious note, I'm glad to see articles like this being written. I'd be even gladder if I thought they'd be widely read and the content absorbed and understood.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09 January 2011, 05:41 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,652
Jaded

If you're going to write an article covering "Five myths about why the South seceded," you should probably start out with five myths about why the South seceded, not three. The last two entries really don't have anything to do with that topic; they're just ancillary slavery-related issues.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09 January 2011, 05:56 PM
JoeBentley's Avatar
JoeBentley JoeBentley is offline
 
Join Date: 23 June 2002
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 21,796
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad from Georgia View Post
It was all about breakfast. Came down to scrapple vs. grits.
I'm reminded of the Onion headline "Mason-Dixon line renamed Ihop/Waffle House Line."
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09 January 2011, 09:09 PM
Auburn Red's Avatar
Auburn Red Auburn Red is offline
 
Join Date: 13 June 2010
Location: St. Louis area, Missouri
Posts: 2,140
Ponder

So the South seceded because they......wanted to? Is that the message that this article is trying to convey?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09 January 2011, 09:11 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,504
Default

It's attempting to debunk the idea that secession was not about slavery. It absolutely was.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10 January 2011, 03:24 AM
Nick Theodorakis Nick Theodorakis is offline
 
Join Date: 05 November 2005
Location: Fishers, IN
Posts: 6,657
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lainie View Post
Scrapple? What good Yankee eats scrapple? I learned about scrapple from my Kentucky-born dad, which makes it border state food at best. ...
Scrapple is popular in Pennsylvania. Maryland, too, but it's arguable if you would call Marylanders "Yankees."

Nick
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10 January 2011, 03:44 AM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is offline
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 74,504
Default

Another border state. And the Maryland state song was definitely not written by a Yankee:

Quote:
The despot's heel is on thy shore,
Maryland, My Maryland!
His torch is at thy temple door,
Maryland, My Maryland!
Avenge the patriotic gore
That flecked the streets of Baltimore,
And be the battle queen of yore,
Maryland! My Maryland!
The despot referred to was Abraham Lincoln.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10 January 2011, 04:17 AM
Nick Theodorakis Nick Theodorakis is offline
 
Join Date: 05 November 2005
Location: Fishers, IN
Posts: 6,657
Default

Pretty sure that Pennsylvania is scrapple "ground zero," though.

Nick
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10 January 2011, 05:35 AM
Malruhn Malruhn is offline
 
 
Join Date: 28 November 2003
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 7,854
Default

The first point - slavery rather than states' rights - is interesting... considering that the "right" in question was slavery. The Northern states didn't like them owning slaves - for either the moral OR economic reasons - and the Southern states didn't want to stop. It WAS states' rights - over the ownership of slaves.

It's like saying that WWII was fought over the popularity of schnitzel versus hamburgers. Sure, it MAY have been, but both are total misrepresentations.

The South didn't want to give up their slaves... which was (at the time) their right. The North - headed up by the Feds - argued with that right.

How is this NOT about states' rights?
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10 January 2011, 12:02 PM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,890
Default

According to the article, the Southern states didn't want the Northern states to have the right to abstain from any participation in slavery. They wanted Northern states to return escaped slaves, and they wanted to bring their slaves with them when they traveled North. If it truly were about states rights, they would have supported the right of each state to abstain from or participate in slavery as decided by the citizenry of that state.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10 January 2011, 02:25 PM
Johnny Slick's Avatar
Johnny Slick Johnny Slick is offline
 
Join Date: 13 February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 11,628
Default

Right. In fact, Lincoln won the 1860 election because the Democrats split on states' rights issues - Stephen Douglas, who had debated Lincoln across Illinois in 1858, was an advocate of "popular sovereignty" (that is, of letting the territories decide whether they wanted slavery or not) faced off against John Breckenridge, whose opinion was basically to just make all the new territories below the Mason-Dixon line slave-owning regardless. If memory serves, these two factions had their own conventions and everything, and given that Lincoln scored barely a third of the vote (there was a 4th contender that year who ran for the "Free Soil" party), it's pretty obvious that he wouldn't have won, and the war might have been delayed another 4 years, had the Northern and Southern Democrats not split.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10 January 2011, 04:28 PM
Jay Temple's Avatar
Jay Temple Jay Temple is offline
 
Join Date: 25 September 2003
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 9,104
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderwoman View Post
According to the article, the Southern states didn't want the Northern states to have the right to abstain from any participation in slavery. They wanted Northern states to return escaped slaves, and they wanted to bring their slaves with them when they traveled North. If it truly were about states rights, they would have supported the right of each state to abstain from or participate in slavery as decided by the citizenry of that state.
States' rights means that, for example, Missouri can let 16-year-old marry and not cousins, while Arkansas can let cousins marry but not 16-year-olds.* It doesn't mean, and never has meant, that Missouri can refuse to recognize the Arkansas marriage of two cousins, and Arkansas can refuse to recognize the Missouri marriage of two 16-year-olds.

* purely hypothetical. I don't know either state's laws.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10 January 2011, 04:53 PM
ASL's Avatar
ASL ASL is offline
 
Join Date: 04 July 2003
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 5,752
Read This!

What about the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution? Of course then there's that whole Defense of Marriage Act thing... Did that ever get ruled unconstitutional?
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10 January 2011, 05:01 PM
wanderwoman's Avatar
wanderwoman wanderwoman is offline
 
Join Date: 29 December 2004
Location: Elkhart, IN
Posts: 7,890
Default

But in addition, there was this:

Quote:
In addition, they objected that New England states let black men vote and tolerated abolitionist societies. According to South Carolina, states should not have the right to let their citizens assemble and speak freely when what they said threatened slavery.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10 January 2011, 05:38 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,652
United States

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Slick View Post
If memory serves, these two factions had their own conventions and everything, and given that Lincoln scored barely a third of the vote (there was a 4th contender that year who ran for the "Free Soil" party), it's pretty obvious that he wouldn't have won, and the war might have been delayed another 4 years, had the Northern and Southern Democrats not split.
Not so. Lincoln totaled considerably more electoral votes than the other three candidates combined, all from free states. His 40% of the popular vote would still have placed him in the White House even if the other 60% of the vote had all gone for a single Democratic candidate.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10 January 2011, 05:57 PM
Johnny Slick's Avatar
Johnny Slick Johnny Slick is offline
 
Join Date: 13 February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 11,628
Default

Huh. I stand corrected. It looks like in a way the Dems splitting might have headed off a larger issue with the electoral college, as Lincoln got more than 50% of the vote in most every Union state (he did lose New Jersey) and overall would have only lost Oregon and California (at the time worth a total of just 7 electoral votes) had Breckenridge, Douglas, and Bell been able to pool their votes. That would have left Lincoln with 173 electoral votes to 134 for everybody else. And 39.8% of the popular vote. If you thought 2000 was contentious...
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10 January 2011, 06:15 PM
Cowboy Joe's Avatar
Cowboy Joe Cowboy Joe is offline
 
Join Date: 23 July 2003
Location: Wyoming
Posts: 1,067
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ASL View Post
What about the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution? Of course then there's that whole Defense of Marriage Act thing... Did that ever get ruled unconstitutional?
That is my question too. In Wyoming, they are trying to amend the state constitution to allow Wyoming to not recognize any gay marriage performed anywhere. Huh? Can they do that?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
North vs. South Jersey snopes History 6 04 December 2011 04:52 AM
Disney may reissue 'Song of the South' snopes Disney 78 17 November 2007 09:54 PM
Song of the South snopes Copyright Trap 0 22 April 2007 11:40 PM
Coca-Cola 'Whites only' ad for South Africa Skeptic Business 4 21 March 2007 01:53 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:08 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.