Recording of Confederate (General) Julius Howell gives his fist person account of the Civil War.

This is too cool....

It's an actual first person interview with a Confederate soldier as he lays out his experiences before and during the civil war.. he joined the confederacy at 16 , so the General is in parentheses because "general " was an honerary title he was given late in life.

The YouTube video

He is about 101 at the time of the interview in 1947 , but it is too cool to actually hear the voice of someone who experienced it.

There are more and longer recordings appearently, but this one seems to be an overview of his experiences..

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Amazing recording. The old timer seemed to still have his wits about him at 101.
Obviously this is only one man's story or version of the war, but its interesting to note towards the end that he says they didn't fight the war to preserve slavery but it was for states rights.
Which can mean a number of things but the main thing I take from that is,they were concerned about the overreach of the federal government and everyone is aware of how the government wants to control things now.
If somehow that could be proven that's what the Civil War was really about, that would really put a damper on all the racist issues that are going on now.
I was never really interested in the Civil War, I was always more interested in warfare from WW2 on, but I think I am going to look more into the Civil War.

a reply to: RazorV66

At the beginning he clearly states it was over fear that lincoin would "interfere" with slavery...

I haven't listened to it all because I was heading to school, but will finish it later

a reply to: RazorV66

I will be very surprised if he doesn't actually say "the rank and file didn't fight for slavery.."

But the rank and file didn't make any decisions..

Because he clearly states it was over fear of interference with slavery at the beginning.. unless that's what you mean by "states rights.."

Their rights to keep slaves..

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
This is too cool....

It's an actual first person interview with a Confederate soldier as he lays out his experiences before and during the civil war.. he joined the confederacy at 16 , so the General is in parentheses because "general " was an honerary title he was given late in life.

The YouTube video

He is about 101 at the time of the interview in 1947 , but it is too cool to actually hear the voice of someone who experienced it.

There are more and longer recordings appearently, but this one seems to be an overview of his experiences..

Amazing recording. It's interesting to contrast his no-nothing attitude about slavery to people brought to justice during the Nuremberg trials. Even though he was just following orders, so to speak, and was ignorant about the cause of the war, it doesn't give him some kind of moral pass for his culpability for preservation of the disgusting institution of slavery.

He clearly came from a wealthy family. It stands to reason that his wealth was generated by the hard labor of slaves.

He talks of the slaves' children as his playmates. What he doesn't acknowledge is that he had power over them as objects owned by the family. They were his playthings. And after play was over, he slept soundly in his comfortable bed while the slaves' children went back to their shacks. While he was in school, his playthings were toiling in the fields or taking care of the master in the house.

This is history we can learn from. Statues of confederate leaders mean very little.

a reply to: icanteven

I agree with your assessment here. Perhaps that is what needs to be placed upon a plaque and mounted on these monuments. That is turning them into places of learning and truth. Much better to educate than destroy IMO.


Knowledge is power.

Ignorance

a reply to: JoshuaCox

No matter how one feels about this subject, that interview is worth listening to. I would offer my opinion, but as I have already mentioned, refighting the Civil War on ATS is not why I am here.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

He was from the same area that Nat Turner's rebellion happened (Southampton county)
I watched the following footage of civil war vets, great stuff.

a reply to: RazorV66

Surprise , surprise that's exactly what he said...

The individual soldiers didn't fight to keep slavry.. not that the war wasn't started over slavery...

You might appreciate this read then.


www.paulcraigroberts.org...

I'm on a phone so I can't discuss more in depth until later but the author does a good job of asking the right questions.

a reply to: Cancerwarrior

Those are totally debunked propagandists...

There is no question it was fought over slavery..

People like him pretend that since the north wouldn't have invaded to stop slavery, that means that the south didn't rebel for fear of losing it..

Those things can and are both true...

They take the fact the north likes hijack the moral high ground and pretend "they fought a war to end slavery."

When they couldn't care less about the slaves..

So in return the south has decided to pretend it wasn't about slavery at all..

Surprise , suprise. They both are lying...


The civil war (or succession) was caused by a dozen or so southern politicians and businessmen who had plans to reinstate the international slave trade . So they could be who provided the new western states with slaves..

Lincoin had promised to make all new states free states.. which would steal the slave state majority and hypothetically give the federal government the political will to abolish slavery..

Something there was zero will to do nationally..

So the " fire eaters" hyped up succession and (I think) set Jeff Davis and other figure heads up as scape goats to take the blame if it failed.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Who has debunked them, you?

Merely for discussing a view that is much more complex than your narrow minded "slavery was the cause no question".

It was one of the political causes, but it was by no means the catalyst.

If that's true, then it should be easy for you to find me an account of a single southern soldier saying he fought the north to keep slavery.

Read about the Corwin amendment.

Or don't, just say "it's been debunked" so you can not upset your worldview.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

It was over states rights. The southern states wanted to keep slaves AND freely negotiate their own international cotton business deals without federal government interference. The Union was mostly concerned about being shut out of the cotton money. The Emancipation Proclamation wasn't written until after war started.

a reply to: SouthernForkway26

I'm sure losing 1/3rd of US sovereign territory wasn't an issue at all...

a reply to: Cancerwarrior

Because it is common knowledge amongst historians and there is an iron clad paper trail...

That wasn't ancient Egypt..it was 150 years ago.. all the politicians who actually orcastrated succession left letters and gave speeches and such..

EVERY SINGLE states articles of succession clearly state that it was to protect slavery and ensure the white mans supemecy..

Not a random soldiers letter...

The confederacies official statements..


It was "states rights" has WAY less nuance than the truth...

A group of southern elites planning on restarting the international slave trade so that they could personally profit..

Not the whole south..

Just them...

It was maybe 2 dozen politicians and southern aristocracy..

It doesn't matter what any southern soldiers said... they didn't have any say so...

They are soldiers , not the politicians who started it.......

Every war the rank and file fight for a bajillion different reasons..

But there is almost always a hand full of people who actually made the call..

There are countless letters of soldiers saying they are fighting to maintain the supremicy of the white race...

Not that the North disagreed... it's just the south had been bamboozled and were just pawns in a power play..

Not by Lincoln...

By these guys..

en.m.wikipedia.org...





Man you guys are great at making arguments to things I have never said...or things that are irrelevant..


That is like asking an American soldier why they are fighting in Iraq.... how many answer proudly to help secure American access to the worlds oil reserves.....

You'll have a couple say it sarcastically. Mad that's the case, but....

I thought it was very clear that Abraham wanted 3/4th income tax from the south. Or the Morill Tarrif Act? Among MANY, MANY other Tarrifs that was an out right rip off.

"On Dec. 25, 1860, South Carolina declared unfair taxes to be a cause of secession: "The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths of them are expended at the North." Mrs. Grants Memoirs.

I thought Abraham Lincoln said in his first inarguable speech: "I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so,"


I thought south suceeded because of crooks from Wall Street and unfair taxes. That most were Irish Immigrants who was casted out because of racism to live among Indians in harsh mountain environments.

I thought war was to "Unionize" the South because they did not have a right to suceed, when clearly you can. Look at California after getting throttled over Hillary's defeat.

As a Southern, it's common acceptance that Wall Street, Central Banks, High Interest lending, IRS, and Federal Reserve are very bad, very destructive. I don't think anyone I know would shed a tear here if IRS and Federal Reserved was abolished and wall street collapsed tomorrow. I bet if we woke up and found out we should pay 3/4ths of our wages to group crooks, you'd start another civil war and the south would rise again.

The Union, however, needs that. I don't want to speak for South, but I think most of "Northern Jobs" relies on totally screwing someone over. I have friends in North, but it's every year some big "Yankee" company is F'n over some little man somewhere... South has ALWAYS shared a different view.. we just happened to also own slaves.

Which all the North did was create segregation, only freed a portion of slaves, caused the South to collapse and be some of poorest people in America up until Kennedy came around. They moved slaves to the Midwest so they could cause MORE REVENUE into the Union. Abraham even offered to end war and keep slaves.. however South continued to press the attack.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

The Corwin amendment was passed in March of 1861. This amendment guaranteed constitutional protection of slavery, that it would never be able to be abolished.

Obviously, the North was not prepared to go to war in order to end slavery when on the very eve of war the US Congress and incoming president were in the process of making it unconstitutional to abolish slavery.

This is absolute total proof that the North wanted the South kept in the Union far more than the North wanted to abolish slavery. Robert E. Lee was offered command first of the Union Army. How can it be that a "Southern racist" was offered command of the Union Army if the Union was going to war to free black slaves?

The real issue was economic as DiLorenzo, Charles Beard and other historians have extensively documented. The North offered to preserve slavery forever, but the North did not offer to give up the high tariffs and economic policies that the South saw as inimical to its interests.

Blaming the war on slavery was the way the northern court historians used morality to cover up Lincoln's naked aggression and the war crimes of his generals. Demonizing the enemy with moral language works for the victor. And it is still ongoing. We see in the destruction of statues the determination to shove remaining symbols of the Confederacy down the Memory Hole.

And also, when you are reading the states articles of seccession, the language of the day was different. People really were not so PC, and saying "slave state" or "free state" was the same as saying "Republican" or "democrat" state today. So when Lincoln outlawed any more states to be "slave" states, in effect, he was saying "no more Republican states". The whole country might as well be Republican then when it came to things like elections and passing laws.

South Carolina saw slavery as the issue being used by the North to violate the sovereignty of states and to further centralize power in Washington. The secession document makes the case that the North, which controlled the US government, had broken the compact on which the Union rested and, therefore, had made the Union null and void.

The secession document reads as a defense of the powers of states and not as a defense of slavery. You can read it here for yourself and see what you think.

teachingamericanhistory.org...

Or, keep posting in your threads about the tired old racist KKK southerner stereotype and ignoring these pesky things called facts.

a reply to: Cancerwarrior

No it isn't proof of anything except the south were easily fooled...

EVERY STATE THAT SUCEDED SPECIFICALLY SAID UT WAS BECAUSE OF WHITE SUPREMACY IN THEIR OFFICIAL STATEMENT OF SUCESSUON TO AMERUCA...




No amount of 3+6= 12 logic undies there OFFICIAL STATEMENTS!!!

The north wasnt comming for slavery, but that doesn't mean the south didn't think they were...as every single state said.....




You should try actual historians and history books, rather than YouTube videos...

a reply to: JoshuaCox

No it isn't proof of anything except the south were easily fooled...

So when presented with facts that say otherwise, you just ignore them. I also see you edited out your first overly emotional response that once again is stated no kinds of counter points or present any evidence at all for your views. I am sorry you are so easily triggered.

The north wasnt comming for slavery, but that doesn't mean the south didn't think they were...as every single state said.....

The other states articles of Seccession were basically copied off of South Carolinas. And if you had bothered to read the link I provided, you would see that its not so black and white (pun intended).

South Carolina saw slavery as the issue being used by the North to violate the sovereignty of states and to further centralize power in Washington.

You should try actual historians and history books, rather than YouTube videos...

You mean like the ones I posted above?

Where did I post a boobtube video and espouse it as fact? Not that it matters, its impossible to hold any kind of intelligent discussion with somebody who is so obviously triggered by any type of challenge to their narrow minded worldview.

As George Orwell said, the best way to destroy a people is to destroy their history. In the US, denunciation of a hate object is a safer path for a writer than explanation. Truth is the casualty.

Your posts are perfect examples of an entire population that has been so dumbed down that they are totally ignorant of their own history.

Apparently, even asians can be racist if they share the same name as a long dead Confederate General.

a reply to: Cancerwarrior

www.civilwar.org...


Here...

This breaks down the causes of session, even including pie charts of each state which breaks down how many times slavery was sited and states rights were sited...


It also includes every states articles of succession AND for some states the causes of succession.. which was a separate document..


For what we are discussing it really doesn't get better than this break down..

Which shows the states rights narrative to be laughable.

Is it intentional progaganda that you only mention South Carolina who ONLY sited slavery 20% of the time, while everyone else sited it as 75% of the reason????

Or was that an accident??