The Confederate States did not fight for the continuation of Slavery

This is quite an interesting Video/recording, done in 1947 by a Confederate soldier who is very lucid for his advanced age. Who fought and lost his horse at Richmond, it looks like he might have inferred that another soldier had actually stolen it. But the Gist is that the South as history tends to let us believed wanted to continue slavery, when in fact legislation was already being drafted to end slavery in the south. Probably because it was becoming uneconomic with the introduction of the traction engine. Then what was the Civil war all about?, according to the guy that was there it was about States rights, opposed to Federal control....interesting .

a reply to: anonentity

Ummm... the entire reason for the existence of the Confederacy was because of slavery. States rights to keep slaves.

You sir are correct it was about states rights and can be traced back to the nullification crisis of 1832 . We came within a hairs breath of the Civil War then over states rights .

a reply to: infolurker

That reminds me of something.

I was listening to a historian talk about the south. He said when you know a little about the civil war that you know it was about slavery. When you know alot you know it was about states rights. When you really study and get a degree in it. You know it was about the states rights to keep slaves.

a reply to: grey580

That was redundant.

You found this profound somehow?

a reply to: grey580

I wonder who would know more about the Civil War? A historian or someone who was actually there?

a reply to: grey580

When you know everything about it and read the thoughts of the common soldiers.

You know it was about states rights period .

The common soldiers were fighting for their states not the plantation owners .


I’m having problems embedding images. But take a look at would Roberty Lee said in his resignation letter.

i.imgur.com...


Robert E Lee‘s sense of duty was to state not nation .

a reply to: Fallingdown

The declaration of secession was littered with one reason... slavery.

a reply to: anonentity

S & F

I watched 11 minutes of the video. At what point does he talk about anti slavery already being adopted in the South?

Very fascinating.

Recorded in 1947 from a dude that was 102 and fought in the civil war. WOW!

A first hand account of something that transpired 160 freaking years ago! When’s the last time you heard that?

a reply to: strongfp

That was the chosen topic not the reason .


Have you done any reading on the nullification crisis? Have you looked into any aspect of what I’ve said or is this just your blind one-sided opinion ?

South Carolina threatened to secede over tariffs. They raised an army to repel federal troops and Congress raised funds for an army to invade South Carolina over tariffs .

Slavery was the topic for the Civil War it wasn’t the reason .

The point of the matter was that the states didn’t want to subject theirselves to the federal government. The Civil War could’ve been fought over temperance or tobacco or any federal decree . because States rights was a kettle coming to boil . And sooner or later it was going to overflow its boundaries .

My understanding is the civil war started over States rights vs Federal control and because Lincoln wasnt even on the ticket in southern states and they rejected his presidency. Also, Lincoln was supposedly originally agnostic regarding slaves and didn't introduce the idea of freeing slaves until over a year after the war began, likely as a strategic move to weaken the South.

The old South, was dominated by Democrats.

Democrats fought to continue slavery.

Democrats fought tooth and nail, against Civil Rights.

Is it any wonder, that Democrats still encourage racial division?

This post is a breath of fresh air!

Thanks for posting OP.

Our U.S. civil war was indeed about states rights. Slavery was a big issue and needed to be abolished. But was not the main event or cause of the rebilion.

The victors wrote the history, as in all wars.

There's a lot, and I mean huge amounts of history that hasn't been taught in "schools" about the war of northern aggression.
The southern states were holding the Federal government to its limited authority and capacities, outlined in the law of the republic.

There were many black Americans that fought for the south. Not because they agreed with C.S.A. but because it was their home. Much like Gen. Lee, "I can not fight against my country, Virginia".

One notable, his name escapes me (Have to dig through my notes). Was a Commissioned Officer of negroid race, a Captain of Cavalry. He and his troop were not considered "uniformed" and were wanted by The US. Army and feared. He was a very skilled, successful leader and Soldier.

I do believe in a "nutshell" slavery was probably the spark. But because history is taught and written by the victor. The present educated "lawyer", "teacher" and other average ignorant folk believe it was "the reason". But wasn't the reason the average "southerner" fought for. The ignorant folks of that time had a better grasp of the laws of our Republic than today.

Not to mention the war being lost by the south, opened the door for the U.S.A Constitution being nothing more than a "general idea" and a "living document" by modern liberal "thinkers". Which totally defeats the purpose of a "constitution".

a reply to: highvein

A hundred and two year old who fought in the Civil War some time in his teenage years. Around eighty five years later he gives an interview and says it was not about slavery. What would you expect him to say? ''My family owned slaves and I am still proud of it?''

Very possibly he and his horse were conscripted to fight in the trenches and only knew that he was supposed to point his gun at the guys wearing blue.

So for me, I would go with the historian who studied that war from top to bottom.

a reply to: anonentity

This is SO cool- thank you for posting it!

I got a 5 on the advanced placement test for american history (and this was in 1993, when the tests were still difficult and students had to actually prove they could think and reason)(if i had to take the test today i wouldn’t even be allowed into the room 😂 ). That was 27 years ago, but one of the few things I still remember from that awesome class is that the civil war was definitely about states rights. All of those soldiers- they weren’t all sons of plantation owners, they were regular common folk. They didn’t want the Fed imposing on their lives.

I could be remembering totally wrongly. There’s that too.

a reply to: KKLOCO

So what if it was and what if I did?

a reply to: highvein

I would say that depends on the questions being asked.

originally posted by: highvein
a reply to: grey580

I wonder who would know more about the Civil War? A historian or someone who was actually there?

That was what the man was told, and/or believed..why then should not the opposition have the same, but differing values from their different perspective. However, the southern states most likely seceded over, 'state rights' for the simple reason of slavery.

a reply to: Fallingdown

The United States is a "Union" of "countries". It always has been. There are reasons many of the states weren't going to ratify the U.S. Constitution unless "The Amendments" were added.

There are reasons the Federal Government's power was limited to "10 square miles" and "federal holding".

There is a reason Pres. F. Roosevelt, along with Congress, had to declare that all U.S. citizens are/were "enemies" of the "state" (U.S.) not (U.S.A). (There is a legal deference)....In order to pass particular "laws". That aren't really "laws" in a constitutional sense.

But all the "enforcerers" ideals. Can be traced directly back to the defeat of Gen. Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia.

The war had very little to do about slavery.
Slavery would've ended eventually on its own.

The monetary system, control, dark plans in high places, confiscation of earnings as if were "income"..

We're all now slaves. If you got the guts to think about it.

a reply to: anonentity

You are right. It led to the freeing of the slaves however, which makes it a moot point.