The Confederate States did not fight for the continuation of Slavery

a reply to: KansasGirl

I would probably add that at the time of the Civil War, slavery was becoming an outdated concept, as Mechanization, and mass production would be reducing the number of people needed for harvest. The South being a warmer place altogether would have a far greater agricultural productivity than the Northern States and if left to their own devises could charge what they wanted to feed the North, unless a Federal oversight was enforced. The other factor which comes to mind is the fact of money , Confederate dollar verses the Federal dollar .

a reply to: Fallingdown

I'm sure most soldiers echoed that it was about states rights since that's what their leaders were saying.

And yes it was about states rights. The states rights to own slaves. If you don't believe me you can read the states declaration of secession which clearly talk about their rights to own slaves and why they were leaving the union because their rights to own slaves were being infringed. It's just sickening.

www.battlefields.org...

Mississippi
A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

In war, the victors author their histories to be the noble protectors over the bad men in every war. If it were solely about slavery then slavery would have been abolished in the northern states as well. House servants continued oppressive conditions for many years to come for the northerners. In several diaries published by history clubs in my area of business owners and such were irate about taxation and the rates being hiked to keep pace with the industrialized northern states and occurrences of house servants continued well into the 1920's in the northern states. Just like today opposition to the narrative will result in cities being burned and looted. These dems taking the knee in supposed unity with african americans are the equivialant of Shermans march through atlanta. A criminal who murdered innocents and looted the labors of poor men to make sure no man ever try to be a free thinker again.

a reply to: madmac5150
Yesterday's Democrats, aren't todays Democrats. Anymore than todays Republicans, stand for a Republic.
Democracy never works, because nobody lives by the same standards. A Republic doesn't work because people refuse to live by standards.

That's why the founders put the important elements of "freedom".."into law"! Using words like "shall not be infringed". They knew this/that from history.

Just like the real educated people know the civil war wasn't about "slavery".

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
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.

This comment is pretty ridiculous. Did you listen to the recording? He doesn’t sound like a dumbass, which is what he would have to be if what you postulate is true. Do you think that people were stupid back then? Boys just said “Oh, ok” to whatever they were “conscripted” to do? Didn’t ask any questions, didn’t follow what was going on around them?

He says he wanted to join the army when the war started, but his dad wouldn’t let him because he was just 15.

Why are you so offended by the idea that the Civil War wasn’t fought specifically over slavery?

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: anonentity

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

No.
Learn history .

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Fallingdown

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

No.
Learn history.
US History.

The reason for the Civil War was the fact the North was sending troops into Confederate States and confiscating farmland.

a reply to: tinktinktink

Gen. Sherman was a Soldier, trying to end a war. And he did it well. It worked.
Gen. Lee was a Soldier fighting a war, with what he had.
Lee would've done the same if he could've.

a reply to: murphy22

Your wrong Sherman was a thug who raped, pillaged and murdered his own country men women and children and was labeled a coward by many of the northern states as well as southern states.


educate yourself the difference between a thug and a statesman

discerninghistory.com...

Also remember the victor gets to narrate history to make it less evil on their own part. What is written is only a smidgen of what this monster did.

a reply to: grey580

The "Sovereign State of Mississippi" put that as their "reason". Which wasn't a valid reason by any means.
Slavery, unfortunately was "legal" at the time.
Pres. Lincoln himself is quoted as saying, "If I could save the union without freeing one slave, I would do it".

The "slaves" were a political tool of the time. Which is unfortunate. Much like a few of their ancestors are today. Because very few black Americans have any "slave roots". But yet? Still being used as tools.
Just like every race is now.

Mississippi was defending itself from unconstitutional over reach by the Federal government. Much like, today the gay Mayor of Portland, Oregon is telling the federal police to "go home" or "stay inside" their "federal building", or "leave". "We don't need you".
Same deference, smaller scale.

a reply to: TerryMcGuire

A hundred and two year old who fought in the Civil War some time in his teenage years.

Yeah. The same one that could remember he didn't know what a state was until he was 9, he remembered playing with the "negro children" as he called them, as a child.

Around eighty five years later he gives an interview and says it was not about slavery.

Well his memory seemed to still be intact more so than Joe Biden's, and he experienced what actually happened, and I think what he is saying is the reason the south went to war. State's rights. He even said he sympathized with the slaves, but had to respect the elders at the time, which was accustom in many regions of the country then.

What would you expect him to say? ''My family owned slaves and I am still proud of it?''

I think he was of sound mind when he gave the interview and he was old enough to not care if anyone believed him, so why would he lie about it. You are assuming this man is lying. You may be right, I just don't think you are.

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.

More than possible. That is exactly what happened. He didn't question his elders. He was a Corporal, one step up from a Musician. He didn't have any say in any thing. I think you are right about the point and shoot aspect of his reality at that moment in his long life.

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

A historian will know more about the entirety of the war granted, hind sight is always 20/20, but that man was told State Rights was the reason. Whether it was true or not in hindsight, that is what convinced the very younger version of that old man that the war was just. So I believe he was told that exact reason.

a reply to: murphy22

You didn’t go to the link and look at the other states reasons. I guess their reasons weren’t valid either.

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply to: Fallingdown


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

We all became slaves oh...around 1913 or so...

Our children's, children's children will get the worst of it because they'll have no reference points to complain about. Quite frankly, aside from having your entire existence under a microscope and being given a ration card, they'll probably be quite content.🤷🏾‍♂️😩

a reply to: grey580

It wasn't about "slaves". It was about, right or wrong, "law".
It doesn't matter the reason.
Funny thing is? The war produced the 14 Amendment and opened a new uniformed kind of slavery. Which in effect, allowed the passage of the 16 Amendment and destroyed many legal arguments. Niether being constitutional, but taught as "law".

Before the 14th very few people were "subject's" of the Federal government. The amendments only applied to the states and their citizens. That's why the states limited the "jurisdiction" of the federal government when they (the States) created it!

Now it's backwards. That's what the war was about. Not the idea of slavery. The end of slavery was the best thing that came out of the war. But was a happy byproduct. Not the reason.

a reply to: grey580

Yes very interesting declarations, but they also say that as independent states they have the right to conduct war or any other thing an independent state wants to do , as time had shown them they were basically uninterested in the Northern States Union, simply because so much had to be subsidized out of the public purse, lighthouses postal, ship building etc.. Fair enough... bearing in mind that most people who actually lived in the South didn't own slaves or own a plantation, had no input into any assembly to voice their views and had to put up with whatever their ruling class of plantation slave owners decided what was in their best interests, which was what in reality was in the ruling classes best interests? Which would as history tell us in the ensuing years too finally realize that whatever declaration was made, slavery was a dead horse when the first Locomotive puffed its way down the rails anyway. Plus the fact that the North needed the South to survive, the South didn't need the North. Thus it was more a war of the Unions survival, by having to break any thoughts of real independent countries emerging in the Southern border.

a reply to: Gothmog

Really?

Take a long read, and you tell me.

www.battlefields.org...

a reply to: murphy22

Lee basically worshiped Washington. Going as far as saying he found his efforts against the British as a fight worth fighting for.

Lee had in his mind he was fighting for a 'good' cause. He wasn't dumb, he knew what the Confederacy wanted. He was given a compromise, and he didn't take it.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: anonentity

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

No.
Learn history .

Yeah... History. The confederate equivalent of the 2nd Amendment - The right to own slaves shall not be infringed.

The Confederate Constitution is quite clear on the matter.

usconstitution.net...

The following is the complete text of the Constitution of the Confederate States of America, as adopted on March 11, 1861. The text of the CSA Constitution was verified at the University of Oklahoma and the Library of Congress and was marked up for Web display by Steve Mount. The University of Georgia has the original hand-written copies in its archives.


Section 9 - Limits on Congress, Bill of Rights

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

Article 4. - The States

1. The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.

3. No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs; or to whom such service or labor may be due.

3. The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.

Yeah, the Confederacy was all about slavery. Anyone else have some more bull to pour on?

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: highvein

I would say that depends on the questions being asked.

Bingo.