Confedrate history about race?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The libertarian losers have trouble with the basic facts, which are:

1) slavery was the base cause of the war;

2) a very few, insignificant number of blacks (willingly or unwillingly, we don't know) fought for the south;

3) nearly 185,000 blacks fought for the north, with more than 30,000 dying.

These are the facts. The wierdos can make of them that which they wish. Who cares?

This is what southern patriots despise and why they are rejected by American patriots: http://jalbritton.huntingdon.edu/Union Battle Flag.jpg

Only 5% of Americans owned slaves, and some of that 5% were blacks themselves.

Actually about 20% owned slaves and only about 3-5% owned more than 20 slaves. But slave owning was the status of the South. You gained social AND political clout the more you owned. And even poor whites could look at themselves as being at least higher up the social ladder than black slaves.

It is the Great Lie that the War was about States Rights...it was about the Principal of Property....Slave Property...and the great slave holders got the poor whites to fight their dirty war for them...and after they lost, they had to perpetuate the Great Lie because no one wants to admit to the next generation that they fought FOR the right to enslave other human beings.

How can the south have been fighting for slavery, when the north wasn't fighting to end slavery?

 

[bodecea]

Actually, here are some very interesting statistics on slave ownership:

http://www.mcps.org/ss/5thgrade/selectedstat.pdf

Another interesting article worth reading on slave holding statistics:

Historians and the extent of slave ownership in the Southern United States. | Goliath Business News

 

[bodecea]

Only 5% of Americans owned slaves, and some of that 5% were blacks themselves.

Actually about 20% owned slaves and only about 3-5% owned more than 20 slaves. But slave owning was the status of the South. You gained social AND political clout the more you owned. And even poor whites could look at themselves as being at least higher up the social ladder than black slaves.

It is the Great Lie that the War was about States Rights...it was about the Principal of Property....Slave Property...and the great slave holders got the poor whites to fight their dirty war for them...and after they lost, they had to perpetuate the Great Lie because no one wants to admit to the next generation that they fought FOR the right to enslave other human beings.

How can the south have been fighting for slavery, when the north wasn't fighting to end slavery?

The South was fighting FOR slavery or rather for the GROWTH of Slavery in the beginning. Lincoln was not an abolitionist...at least at the beginning he wasn't, but he and the Republican Party were for stopping the growth of slavery into all the western territories. The South knew what that meant...sooner or later, they would be outnumbered in the House and Senate and they would no longer be about to dictate thru threats American domestic policy. They basically saw that they were going to lose a fair election soon and chose to take their ball and go home. Ironically, if they'd waited to see what would have happened instead of letting their power hungry slave holding politicians take them out of the Union, technological advances would have allowed them to drop slavery for cheaper methods of harvesting cotton on their own.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Actually about 20% owned slaves and only about 3-5% owned more than 20 slaves. But slave owning was the status of the South. You gained social AND political clout the more you owned. And even poor whites could look at themselves as being at least higher up the social ladder than black slaves.

It is the Great Lie that the War was about States Rights...it was about the Principal of Property....Slave Property...and the great slave holders got the poor whites to fight their dirty war for them...and after they lost, they had to perpetuate the Great Lie because no one wants to admit to the next generation that they fought FOR the right to enslave other human beings.

How can the south have been fighting for slavery, when the north wasn't fighting to end slavery?

The South was fighting FOR slavery or rather for the GROWTH of Slavery in the beginning. Lincoln was not an abolitionist...at least at the beginning he wasn't, but he and the Republican Party were for stopping the growth of slavery into all the western territories. The South knew what that meant...sooner or later, they would be outnumbered in the House and Senate and they would no longer be about to dictate thru threats American domestic policy. They basically saw that they were going to lose a fair election soon and chose to take their ball and go home. Ironically, if they'd waited to see what would have happened instead of letting their power hungry slave holding politicians take them out of the Union, technological advances would have allowed them to drop slavery for cheaper methods of harvesting cotton on their own.

This is mostly true, but it doesn't answer the question. The north didn't fight the Civil War to end slavery, Lincoln's own words, which you acknowledge, make this clear. The north was fighting to force the south back into the Union, and the south fought to stay out of the Union. If the north had accepted the right of the south to secede then there need never have been a Civil War, and slavery would have ended peacefully over time as you also acknowledge.

As for losing a fair election, how fair is it to have to be ruled by a President that had absolutely no support in your region and had promised to enrich the portion of the nation that did elect him by robbing the portion that didn't by raising tariffs to an obscene level?

 

[Againsheila]

The libertarian losers have trouble with the basic facts, which are:

1) slavery was the base cause of the war;

2) a very few, insignificant number of blacks (willingly or unwillingly, we don't know) fought for the south;

3) nearly 185,000 blacks fought for the north, with more than 30,000 dying.

These are the facts. The wierdos can make of them that which they wish. Who cares?

This is what southern patriots despise and why they are rejected by American patriots: http://jalbritton.huntingdon.edu/Union Battle Flag.jpg

Only 5% of Americans owned slaves, and some of that 5% were blacks themselves.

Actually about 20% owned slaves and only about 3-5% owned more than 20 slaves. But slave owning was the status of the South. You gained social AND political clout the more you owned. And even poor whites could look at themselves as being at least higher up the social ladder than black slaves.

It is the Great Lie that the War was about States Rights...it was about the Principal of Property....Slave Property...and the great slave holders got the poor whites to fight their dirty war for them...and after they lost, they had to perpetuate the Great Lie because no one wants to admit to the next generation that they fought FOR the right to enslave other human beings.

Please explain the slave holding states in the north and why their slaves weren't freed by the Emancipation Proclamation......

 

[bodecea]

How can the south have been fighting for slavery, when the north wasn't fighting to end slavery?

The South was fighting FOR slavery or rather for the GROWTH of Slavery in the beginning. Lincoln was not an abolitionist...at least at the beginning he wasn't, but he and the Republican Party were for stopping the growth of slavery into all the western territories. The South knew what that meant...sooner or later, they would be outnumbered in the House and Senate and they would no longer be about to dictate thru threats American domestic policy. They basically saw that they were going to lose a fair election soon and chose to take their ball and go home. Ironically, if they'd waited to see what would have happened instead of letting their power hungry slave holding politicians take them out of the Union, technological advances would have allowed them to drop slavery for cheaper methods of harvesting cotton on their own.

This is mostly true, but it doesn't answer the question. The north didn't fight the Civil War to end slavery, Lincoln's own words, which you acknowledge, make this clear. The north was fighting to force the south back into the Union, and the south fought to stay out of the Union. If the north had accepted the right of the south to secede then there need never have been a Civil War, and slavery would have ended peacefully over time as you also acknowledge.

This is very true. But the South chose to fire on a Federal installation and you and I know NO PRESIDENT can ignore that or turn the other cheek. The South brought the whirlwind down upon themselves.

As for losing a fair election, how fair is it to have to be ruled by a President that had absolutely no support in your region

So what...majority in Electorial College wins in this country.

and had promised to enrich the portion of the nation that did elect him by robbing the portion that didn't by raising tariffs to an obscene level?

Really. Lincoln promised that? Show where he made that promise.

 

[bodecea]

Only 5% of Americans owned slaves, and some of that 5% were blacks themselves.

Actually about 20% owned slaves and only about 3-5% owned more than 20 slaves. But slave owning was the status of the South. You gained social AND political clout the more you owned. And even poor whites could look at themselves as being at least higher up the social ladder than black slaves.

It is the Great Lie that the War was about States Rights...it was about the Principal of Property....Slave Property...and the great slave holders got the poor whites to fight their dirty war for them...and after they lost, they had to perpetuate the Great Lie because no one wants to admit to the next generation that they fought FOR the right to enslave other human beings.

Please explain the slave holding states in the north and why their slaves weren't freed by the Emancipation Proclamation......

Because....(can't believe I have to explain this to someone who 'supposedly' knows anything about the Civil War...the Emancipation Proclamation was a military tactical move. At least present a threat to the Southern states that their manpower will be more motivated to exit north...no slaves in liberated areas would ever be returned to their masters...keep the border states in...motive the abolitionists...and make sure that slave hating France and Britain never ever recognize the Confederacy. It was a brilliant move, to be sure....Lincoln just needed a victory to make it not look like an act of desperation....Antietam.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The libertarian losers have trouble with the basic facts, which are:

1) slavery was the base cause of the war;

2) a very few, insignificant number of blacks (willingly or unwillingly, we don't know) fought for thce south;

3) nearly 185,000 blacks fought for the north, with more than 30,000 dying.

These are the facts. The wierdos can make of them that which they wish. Who cares?

This is what southern patriots despise and why they are rejected by American patriots: http://jalbritton.huntingdon.edu/Union Battle Flag.jpg

Only 5% of Americans owned slaves, and some of that 5% were blacks themselves.

againsheila is attempting to create a dream world that never existed. The documents and facts listed above by me and others clearly reveal that slavery was the root cause of the war. 25% of southern families, additionally, owned at least one slave. The cotton empire rested on slave labor, and the rest of the southern economy existed to support it. 90% of investment capital directly or indirectly in the South supported the cotton empire. All other supposed "causes" were merely symptoms of the root cause, slavery.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Only 5% of Americans owned slaves, and some of that 5% were blacks themselves.

Actually about 20% owned slaves and only about 3-5% owned more than 20 slaves. But slave owning was the status of the South. You gained social AND political clout the more you owned. And even poor whites could look at themselves as being at least higher up the social ladder than black slaves.

It is the Great Lie that the War was about States Rights...it was about the Principal of Property....Slave Property...and the great slave holders got the poor whites to fight their dirty war for them...and after they lost, they had to perpetuate the Great Lie because no one wants to admit to the next generation that they fought FOR the right to enslave other human beings.

Please explain the slave holding states in the north and why their slaves weren't freed by the Emancipation Proclamation......

This statement is immaterial. We are talking about a South in rebellion against constitutional, electoral process. In other words, the southerners lost, but couldn't stand the idea. That attitude remind anyone of people on this board?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The South was fighting FOR slavery or rather for the GROWTH of Slavery in the beginning. Lincoln was not an abolitionist...at least at the beginning he wasn't, but he and the Republican Party were for stopping the growth of slavery into all the western territories. The South knew what that meant...sooner or later, they would be outnumbered in the House and Senate and they would no longer be about to dictate thru threats American domestic policy. They basically saw that they were going to lose a fair election soon and chose to take their ball and go home. Ironically, if they'd waited to see what would have happened instead of letting their power hungry slave holding politicians take them out of the Union, technological advances would have allowed them to drop slavery for cheaper methods of harvesting cotton on their own.

This is mostly true, but it doesn't answer the question. The north didn't fight the Civil War to end slavery, Lincoln's own words, which you acknowledge, make this clear. The north was fighting to force the south back into the Union, and the south fought to stay out of the Union. If the north had accepted the right of the south to secede then there need never have been a Civil War, and slavery would have ended peacefully over time as you also acknowledge.

This is very true. But the South chose to fire on a Federal installation and you and I know NO PRESIDENT can ignore that or turn the other cheek. The South brought the whirlwind down upon themselves.

As for losing a fair election, how fair is it to have to be ruled by a President that had absolutely no support in your region

So what...majority in Electorial College wins in this country.

and had promised to enrich the portion of the nation that did elect him by robbing the portion that didn't by raising tariffs to an obscene level?

Really. Lincoln promised that? Show where he made that promise.

Lincoln tried to resupply that fort with the knowledge that it would be fired upon. He did it intentionally to start the war because he didn't have the support of the people otherwise. The Confederates were clearly more than willing to allow the Union troops in the fort to simply run out of supplies and leave, but were not willing to have a permanent Union presence within their borders.

His promise to increase tariffs is why he had such great support in the north, especially states like Pennsylvania.

"Before his election, Lincoln had promoted very high tariffs (federal taxes on foreign imports), using the receipts to build railroads, canals, roads, and other federal pork-barrel projects.

The tariffs protected Northern manufacturers from foreign competition, and were paid mostly by the non-manufacturing South, while most of the proposed boondoggles were to be built in the North. Thus the South was being forced to subsidize Northern corporate welfare."

Civil War books

 

[JakeStarkey]

You have it backward. South Carolina had nothing to say about federal property. To fire on it under any situation was treason. End of story on that. Yes, Lincoln knew that the South would fire, and he told the nation that only under the South would war come to the Union. He was right, the South was wrong, and he murdered it for its treasonous conduct. America has been blessed a million times over because of Lincoln and has avoided a million tribulations because the South was sent to hell.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You have it backward. South Carolina had nothing to say about federal property. To fire on it under any situation was treason. End of story on that. Yes, Lincoln knew that the South would fire, and he told the nation that only under the South would war come to the Union. He was right, the South was wrong, and he murdered it for its treasonous conduct. America has been blessed a million times over because of Lincoln and has avoided a million tribulations because the South was sent to hell.

And the colonies were "property" of Great Britain, and to declare independence and fire on the Crown under any situation was treason. Right?

 

[uscitizen]

The south is still Racist and very proud of NASCAR too.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The southern states in relation to the Union were in no way in relationship of the colonies to Great Britain. What a silly insinuation. A simple statement, no evidence, no facts, other than the assertion.

Utterly absured.

 

[uscitizen]

You have it backward. South Carolina had nothing to say about federal property. To fire on it under any situation was treason. End of story on that. Yes, Lincoln knew that the South would fire, and he told the nation that only under the South would war come to the Union. He was right, the South was wrong, and he murdered it for its treasonous conduct. America has been blessed a million times over because of Lincoln and has avoided a million tribulations because the South was sent to hell.

And the colonies were "property" of Great Britain, and to declare independence and fire on the Crown under any situation was treason. Right?

Yep, The minute men were enemy combatants they had no nation did they?
And the tea Partiers were terrorists, even disguising themselves as indians.
Kinda like dressing up as muslims now and doing something similiar.
Conservatives were by definition loyal to the crown.
Progressives were by definition for forming the USA.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The southern states in relation to the Union were in no way in relationship of the colonies to Great Britain. What a silly insinuation. A simple statement, no evidence, no facts, other than the assertion.

Utterly absured.

You're right. The southern states had a much greater claim to the right of secession than did the colonies.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You have it backward. South Carolina had nothing to say about federal property. To fire on it under any situation was treason. End of story on that. Yes, Lincoln knew that the South would fire, and he told the nation that only under the South would war come to the Union. He was right, the South was wrong, and he murdered it for its treasonous conduct. America has been blessed a million times over because of Lincoln and has avoided a million tribulations because the South was sent to hell.

And the colonies were "property" of Great Britain, and to declare independence and fire on the Crown under any situation was treason. Right?

Yep, The minute men were enemy combatants they had no nation did they?
And the tea Partiers were terrorists, even disguising themselves as indians.
Kinda like dressing up as muslims now and doing something similiar.
Conservatives were by definition loyal to the crown.
Progressives were by definition for forming the USA.

There were no Progressives. It was the liberals that supported independence, though that would be classical liberals by today's definitions.

 

[paperview]

It's amazing how most people forget or are simply ignorant about the negroes that had also fought and died for the Southern cause.

I only got about 60 posts in after this first post on the thread...I needed to read to see if anyone had corrected you on this --

I didn't see it...(but if this has been mentioned yet, forgive me...)

UH, DUDE - That picture is a forgery.

---------------
Retouching History:

The Modern Falsification of a Civil War Photograph

Jerome S. Handler and Michael L. Tuite, Jr. [1]



Introduction

“In the past decade,” the Yale historian David Blight has recently written, “the neo-Confederate fringe of Civil War enthusiasm . . . has contended that thousands of African Americans, slave and free, willingly joined the Confederate war effort as soldiers and fought for their ‘homeland’ . . . . Slaves’ fidelity to their masters’ cause - - a falsehood constructed to support claims that the war was not about slavery - - has long formed one of the staple arguments in Lost Cause ideology.” [2]

In this paper we discuss a graphic example of Blight’s contention by examining a Civil War-era posed studio photograph of black Union soldiers with a white officer. We maintain that this photograph has been deliberately falsified in recent years by an unknown person/s sympathetic to the Confederacy.

This falsified or fabricated photo, purporting to be of the 1st Louisiana Native Guards (Confederate), has been taken to promote Neo-Confederate views, to accuse Union propagandists of duplicity, and to show that black soldiers were involved in the armed defense of the Confederacy.

As of the date of this website this photograph is being sold on the web by an on-line retailer, www.rebelstore.com, which promotes itself as “The Internet’s Original Rebel Store,” and advertises this photograph as a legitimate photo of “Members of the first all Black Confederate Unit organized in New Orleans in 1861.” [3]
The Photograph:


See more here:Retouching History
University of Virginia
--------------------
"The South did not use this Confederate Native Guard regiment in any military action, and failed to provide it with uniforms or arms. Most of the men in the unit used their own resources to obtain weapons and uniforms which were displayed in a parade in New Orleans on January 8, 1862.

It was largely considered part of the Confederacy's "public relations" campaign."

Looks like the old Reb public relations are still working. Or trying to anyway.

 

[paperview]

Still at it, huh Kev?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Still at it, huh Kev?

I try to stop myself, but I can't.