Of course the Civil war and the Confederate flag was not about slavery

Antidisestablishmentarian

Well-Known Member
“I tried all in my power to avert this war. I saw it coming, for twelve years I worked night and day to prevent it, but I could not. The North was mad and blind; it would not let us govern ourselves, and so the war came, and now it must go on unless you acknowledge our right to self government. We are not fighting for slavery. We are fighting for Independence.”
President Jefferson Davis, CSA



“All that the South has ever desired was that the Union as established by our forefathers should be preserved and that the government as originally organized should be administered in purity and truth.”
Robert E. Lee


“To tar the sacrifices of the Confederate soldier as simple acts of racism, and reduce the battle flag under which he fought to nothing more than the symbol of a racist heritage, is one of the great blasphemies of our modern age”.
James Webb-Secretary of Navy And Assistant Secretary of Defense under U.S. President Ronald Regan and current U.S. Senator (D.VA.) (Born Fighting: How the Scots-Irish Shaped America, New York: Broadway Books, 2004, p. 225)
 

Antidisestablishmentarian

Well-Known Member
“It was necessary to put the South at a moral disadvantage by transforming the contest from a war waged against states fighting for their indepdence into a war waged against states fighting for the maintenance and extension of slavery…and the world, it might be hoped, would see it as a moral war, not a political; and the sympathy of nations would begin to run for the North, not for the South.”
Woodrow Wilson, “A History of The American People”, page 231

one more for shits and giggles.

If you don't want to accept that It wasn't just about slavery... Then I can't help you.
 

laughingduck

Well-Known Member
This is well-reasoned document concerning the reasons the Civil War occurred.

Many people think the Civil War of 1860-1865 was fought over one issue alone, slavery. Nothing could actually be further from the truth. The War Between the States began because the South demanded States' rights and were not getting them.

The Congress at that time heavily favored the industrialized northern states to the point of demanding that the South sell is cotton and other raw materials only to the factories in the north, rather than to other countries. The Congress also taxed the finished materials that the northern industries produced heavily, making finished products that the South wanted, unaffordable. The Civil War should not have occurred. If the Northern States and their representatives in Congress had only listened to the problems of the South, and stopped these practices that were almost like the taxation without representation of Great Britain, then the Southern states would not have seceded and the war would not have occurred.

I know for many years, we have been taught that the Civil War was all about the abolition of slavery, but this truly did not become a major issue, with the exception of John Brown's raid on Harper's Ferry, until after the Battle of Antietam in September 1862, when Abraham Lincoln decided to free the slaves in the Confederate States in order to punish those states for continuing the war effort. The war had been in progress for two years by that time.

Most southerners did not even own slaves nor did they own plantations. Most of them were small farmers who worked their farms with their families. They were fighting for their rights. They were fighting to maintain their lifestyle and their independence the way they wanted to without the United States Government dictating to them how they should behave.

Why are we frequently taught then, that the Civil War, War of Northern Aggression, War Between the States, or whatever you want to call it, was solely about slavery? That is because the history books are usually written by the winners of a war and this war was won by the Union. However, after following my family around since I was just a year old to Civil War Living History scenarios in Gettysburg and elsewhere, I have listened to both sides of the story, from those portraying historical figures, both Union and Confederate. Through listening to these people and also reading many different books, including some of the volumes of The Official Records of the Civil War, Death in September, The Insanity of It All, Every Day Life During the Civil War, and many others, I have come to the conclusion that the Civil War was about much more than abolishing the institution of slavery.

It was more about preserving the United States and protecting the rights of the individual, the very tenets upon which this country was founded. I personally think that the people who profess that the Civil War was only fought about slavery have not read their history books. I really am glad that slavery was abolished, but I don't think it should be glorified as being the sole reason the Civil War was fought. There are so many more issues that people were intensely passionate about at the time. Slavery was one of them, but it was not the primary cause of the war. The primary causes of the war were economics and states' rights.

Slavery was a part of those greater issues, but it was not the reason the Southern States seceded from the Union, nor fought the Civil War. It certainly was a Southern institution that was part of the economic system of the plantations, and because of that, it was part and parcel of the economic reasons that the South formed the Confederacy. The economic issue was one of taxation and being able to sell cotton and other raw materials where the producers wanted to, rather than where they were forced to, and at under inflated prices. Funny, it sounds very much like the reason we broke from Great Britain to begin with. The South was within their rights, but there should have been another way to solve the problem. If they had been willing to listen to Abraham Lincoln, perhaps the war could have been avoided. Lincoln had a plan to gradually free the slaves without it further hurting the plantation owners. He also had a plan to allow them to sell their products anywhere they wanted to and at a fair price. They did not choose to listen to the President, however, so they formed the Confederacy and the Civil War began.
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
It is a little ironic that whole Civil War thing. First off I find myself thinking slavery has to be in there somewhere. The obvious type of slavery, of blacks was certainly wrong and never should have happened, but what about the other kind? The irony is Lincoln was "trying to save the Union" . I wonder if it ever occurred to him, that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT being a construct of the states was supposed to be a VOLUNTARY union? Meaning why weren't states free to leave this voluntary union?

If the Union was ACTUALLY involuntary held together...did he really END slavery or did he just use the power of the Federal government to ensure slavery of another kind was perpetuated?
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
It is a little ironic that whole Civil War thing. First off I find myself thinking slavery has to be in there somewhere. The obvious type of slavery, of blacks was certainly wrong and never should have happened, but what about the other kind? The irony is Lincoln was "trying to save the Union" . I wonder if it ever occurred to him, that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT being a construct of the states was supposed to be a VOLUNTARY union? Meaning why weren't states free to leave this voluntary union?

If the Union was ACTUALLY involuntary held together...did he really END slavery or did he just use the power of the Federal government to ensure slavery of another kind was perpetuated?
Somewhere in between, in my estimation.
A strong Federal government cannot sincerely be compared to slavery. But the Civil War provided one of the great "ratchet moments" for a stronger Federal center.
The alternative would have been to become a patchwork of smaller republics etc. on the Central American model. This would have led to greater freedom for the individual (for how long?), but a marginalization of the former Union in world affairs imo.

An unknown proportion of which would now most probably be speaking German ... cn
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Somewhere in between, in my estimation.
A strong Federal government cannot sincerely be compared to slavery. But the Civil War provided one of the great "ratchet moments" for a stronger Federal center.
The alternative would have been to become a patchwork of smaller republics etc. on the Central American model. This would have led to greater freedom for the individual (for how long?), but a marginalization of the former Union in world affairs imo.

An unknown proportion of which would now most probably be speaking German ... cn
Slavery can be described in degrees. Some would say if you aren't completely free to own yourself or your property, you are at least partially enslaved. The Federal Government is an institution that has taken freedom. I hold that it CAN be compared to an enslaver....Perhaps you've heard of the DEA?
 

laughingduck

Well-Known Member
It is a little ironic that whole Civil War thing. First off I find myself thinking slavery has to be in there somewhere. The obvious type of slavery, of blacks was certainly wrong and never should have happened, but what about the other kind? The irony is Lincoln was "trying to save the Union" . I wonder if it ever occurred to him, that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT being a construct of the states was supposed to be a VOLUNTARY union? Meaning why weren't states free to leave this voluntary union?

If the Union was ACTUALLY involuntary held together...did he really END slavery or did he just use the power of the Federal government to ensure slavery of another kind was perpetuated?
The fact that the states are now involuntarily members of the union is the tragedy that came out of the war, ending slavery was the great thing.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Slavery can be described in degrees. Some would say if you aren't completely free to own yourself or your property, you are at least partially enslaved. The Federal Government is an institution that has taken freedom. I hold that it CAN be compared to an enslaver....Perhaps you've heard of the DEA?
I was not aware that the DEA held or trafficked in slaves.

Throwaway comment aside, I am uneasy with describing slavery by degrees, since it opens the door to just the sort of political blue-sky philosophy to which you allude. Imo that sort of repurposing a term for ideological gain does not help. cn
 

canndo

Well-Known Member
The word "slave" is another hot button inflamatory word who's use I find distasteful. No, taxation is not slavery, no being made to do something you do not wish to do is not slavery. When your wife and children are taken from you and sold for profit, and you are whipped for crying about your loss then you can be rightfuly called a slave, until that time, you may not like the situation but it insults the understanding of slavery for you to call yourself one.
 

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
"i would free them all to avoid this war"

clearly he thought one thing would prevent the other. he was the de facto head of the confederacy, not davis.
The South relied more heavily on agriculture than the North. The South wanted more states rights.

Sound familiar? Without low wage southerners doing agriculture, we will die! Liberals replaced black slaves with brown ones. How special.

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
The South relied more heavily on agriculture than the North. The South wanted more states rights.

Sound familiar? Without low wage southerners doing agriculture, we will die! Liberals replaced black slaves with brown ones. How special.

Those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it.
Farmers chain and whip illegal immigrants?
 

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
Farmers chain and whip illegal immigrants?
They might as well. Family is everything to Southerners. They will do anything to see their family is cared for, even if it means taking a wage no other would tolerate. Illegal immigration is more the fault of of corporations as "people." These corporations get federal funding to exploit. But then you liberals can only see the exploited and exploitation is better than nothing. The corporations need to stop their slave labor industry and the government needs to stop funding it. All that letting crops rot in the fields should be a criminal act. We have product dumping and predatory pricing laws, but unfairly don't enforce them on agriculture industry. This whole pity for the Southerners is a slight of hand red herring to keep this horrible practice alive.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
The South wanted more states rights.
yeah, and it really showed when they made the largest federal power grab in the history of that nation when they made other states submit to their will with the fugitive slave act :dunce:

"states' rights" was just nonsense they liked to spout while conducting themselves with no respect for states' rights.
 

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
I fully support a government program helping others like you with reading comprehension difficulties.

I already stated the crop rotting in the fields. I also explained it's a form of predatory pricing and product dumping. These "farmers" (corporations) are willing to let a few crops rot in order to win in the end. Those corporations through selective subsidies (for those who qualify) keeps the horrible exploit practice alive. Because liberals cry how horrible there's wasted food and to allow the exploitation to continue. Even the exploitation is bad, the alternative is worse.

What you fail to realise is the conservatives and liberals work together as good cop bad cop to get a result both wanted in the first place. I refuse to play.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
I fully support a government program helping others like you with reading comprehension difficulties.

I already stated the crop rotting in the fields. I also explained it's a form of predatory pricing and product dumping. These "farmers" (corporations) are willing to let a few crops rot in order to win in the end. Those corporations through selective subsidies (for those who qualify) keeps the horrible exploit practice alive. Because liberals cry how horrible there's wasted food and to allow the exploitation to continue. Even the exploitation is bad, the alternative is worse.

What you fail to realise is the conservatives and liberals work together as good cop bad cop to get a result both wanted in the first place. I refuse to play.
this just screams "refusal to play": Romney 4 president 2012!

and you also said: Southerners...will do anything to see their family is cared for, even if it means taking a wage no other would tolerate.

which is empirically false, as none of those unemployed southerners would go out and pick crops for a decent wage, much less a wage that no one else would tolerate.

yaw,. too easy. at least my cheeseburgers tasted excellent.
 

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
yeah, and it really showed when they made the largest federal power grab in the history of that nation when they made other states submit to their will with the fugitive slave act :dunce:

"states' rights" was just nonsense they liked to spout while conducting themselves with no respect for states' rights.
You think modern conservatives give a fuck about states rights? It's big brother with region control (look up gray markets and importing region lockout devices.
One example is John Deer sells the same exact equipment but charges way more here than it does in Mexico, because of the market social economic differences. So John Deer lobbies regulations which prevent you from importing Mexican region equipment for "safety and envirinmental" excuses).
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
You think modern conservatives give a fuck about states rights? It's big brother with region control (look up gray markets and importing region lockout devices.
One example is John Deer sells the same exact equipment but charges way more here than it does in Mexico, because of the market social economic differences. So John Deer lobbies regulations which prevent you from importing Mexican region equipment for "safety and envirinmental" excuses).
that must be why gas is cheaper in my part of town as well, all those mexicans.
 

Canna Sylvan

Well-Known Member
this just screams "refusal to play": Romney 4 president 2012!

and you also said: Southerners...will do anything to see their family is cared for, even if it means taking a wage no other would tolerate.

which is empirically false, as none of those unemployed southerners would go out and pick crops for a decent wage, much less a wage that no one else would tolerate.

yaw,. too easy. at least my cheeseburgers tasted excellent.
I'm talking about the Southerners way way south. :dunce:

I already made it clear in the other post how I was mocking, comparing the civil war south with our new labor war of the south, Mexico. Guess I have to spell it out all the time for your kind, treadmill repair men.

Way to undertand, (way to not understand for your fellow treadmill dealer intellectuals), that I was talking about when you take away the Brown wage slave labor, the corporations will show, "hey look, we can't find labor, unless we get illegals, told you so, how many fields do you want to rot?" But it's all lies, because there's already a well established evil exploiting system which only works that way. It doesn't mean there isn't a solution. But the corporations know they have the people by the short hairs, and because they know their predatory and product dumping scheme of letting just one crop will get liberals on their side to cave in But, the corporations did this on purpose as a insurance policy to threaten what happens if you ever attempt to call them on their horrible wage exploitation and cheating the people out of them paying their fair share in taxes. Don't bring up your illegals pay taxes drivel. I'm not going into a pissing match wirh you on that. I'm talking about corporations paying less wages, means less employee tax, payroll taxes payable.
 
Top