[CalChris]

The Lost Cause tries to paint the Civil War as about States' Rights rather than slavery. This reinterpretation began immediately after the war, arguably by Robert E Lee himself. The War of Northern Aggression et cetera tries to paint the South as the victims.

This revisionism avoids the text of the Constitution of the Confederate States, the writings of Calhoun, the 1860 census of South Carolina, the secession of the Southern States and the firing on Fort Sumter.

[hackuser]

> This revisionism avoids the text of the Constitution of the Confederate States and the writings of Calhoun and the 1860 census of South Carolina.

It avoids a lot more than that. The Confederacy themselves could have freed the slaves at any time.

[brightball]

Worthwhile piece of history whenever this comes up: http://www.cherokee.org/AboutTheNation/History/Events/Cherok...

6 months in when the south was winning

[chimeracoder]

I'm not sure why that's relevant to the parent comment.

It's also not particularly surprising if you consider the history of the Cherokee specifically (compared to other Native American tribes). The Cherokee tried to have diplomatic relations with the Union (the United States), and the US stabbed them in the back. Of course they'd want to break up the Union - it was the only shot they had at reclaiming their sovereignty.

[brightball]

He mentioned the lost cause narrative being something that was created after the war. That document goes into detail about a whole lot that was going on at the time that fit the "narrative".

Civil War history is a hobby of mine that developed after the flag stuff a couple of years ago. There were so many factors that went into the conflict it's hard to even know where to begin.

Snag a book on the economics of it sometime if you're interested though.

[lern_too_spel]

It's pretty easy to know where to begin: slavery. Just look at the constitution of the CSA, which requires all member states to have slavery. How is that promoting states' rights? Or look at the ordinances of secession: https://www.google.com/amp/s/aliberalthinker.wordpress.com/2.... To say the CSA was mainly formed on any issue other than slavery requires conspiracy theorist contortions.

[CalChris]

> Just look at the constitution of the CSA

Actually, the Confederate constitution was even more hostile on the subject of states' rights than was the US Constitution.

  (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing
      the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp

So if say Mississippi were to suddenly see the light, they couldn't as a state pass a bill impairing the right of property in negro slaves.

[brightball]

It doesn't. It requires nuance and a whole lot of historical context. Slavery was certainly a factor, but it was one of many.

Two small points to get you started.

1. The causes of secession and the cause of the war were not the same thing. The former had many, the latter was entirely economic.

2. Only 4 states even issued declarations. 3 of them were heavily about slavery. The rest require historical context to understand. Slavery wasn't even under threat if states had just hung around. You need look no further than Lincolns inaugural speech to verify that.

[lern_too_spel]

If slavery was one of many factors for secession, why weren't any of those other factors mentioned in the ordinances of secession? Why were all of the seceding states slave states? Of the states who didn't mention a reason for secession in their ordinances of secession, all their governors made statements explicitly naming slavery as the reason (see previous link).

> Slavery wasn't even under threat if states had just hung around.

The Kansas-Nebraska Act threatened to tip the balance of slave states vs. free states, and Lincoln's and the Republican Party's platform of not allowing the creation of any new slave states effectively put an expiration date on slavery in the US. That is why the ordinances of secession mentioned the threat against slavery. Lincoln only stated that he wouldn't directly abolish slavery because the slave states had already threatened to secede if he were elected, citing the belief that he would.

There is no debate among professional historians about the cause of the slave states' secession. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military-jan-june11-civilwar_...

[mannykannot]

Alternative facts have always been appealing to those on the wrong side of right.

[mannykannot]

I hope I have not been misunderstood through my lack of clarity here: I am completely in agreement with CalChris (if you don't like what I wrote for other reasons, fair enough.)