Leave Confederate Soldier Statues Alone

[Bush92]

FALSE! They did not fight just to keep slavery alive in America. Most Confederate soldiers never saw a slave. They, in self defense, took up arms against people who were entering their home turf and shooting at them, burning buildings, etc.

The Union left its home base and attacked them at their home base (the South). They fought against that invasion, not for slavery. Almost no southern soldiers had slaves. Many lived in mountainous areas of the South, where slavery did not exist. Many were illiterate, and didn't even know slavery existed.

Only a minority of very rich southerners had slaves, while most southern soldiers were so poor, they went to the battlefields barefoot. The lucky ones who got uniforms, including boots, were known to have said > "This is the best set of clothes I've ever owned."

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for insulting American veterans they way you are.

the soldiers specifically may not have been fighting to keep slaves, but that was the objective of the war. You can see that in the secession declarations of each state. Example: Mississippi's declaration statement reads, "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."
It is certainly a case of the poor man fighting the rich mans war (as all wars go) but the war was totally about slavery, make no mistake.

DOes it thus strike you are relevant that the statues in question, are statues of regular soldiers, not rich slaver owners?

I have seen no statues or plaques celebrating the institution of slavery being discussed.

Trying to stumble through that question was rather difficult but I'll do my best to answer... The confederate army is a stain on american history and no patriotic citizen should be glamorizing said stain. It is our past, it is ugly, let's leave it there.

I would have fought for the South.

I would have, too.

But my great, great Grandfather, my great, great granduncles on my mom's side were majors in the Union Army.

On my dad's side, they were Confederates.

I had kin with Stonewall Jackson.

 

[paperview]

The cause of the CSA...to preserve. protect, defend, and expand...

 

[Aries]

I was born in Florida and moved out to Ohio State, and have been around the world since. Today, I agree that these Confederate Soldiers who fought to keep slavery alive in America, should be taken down from a place of honor and put in a museum telling about their TRUE history. Just like we don't want Germany going around and having statues of Hitler all over the place, when the bad guys lose(and the confederates were bad) they shouldn't be put in an honorable place.

FALSE! They did not fight just to keep slavery alive in America. Most Confederate soldiers never saw a slave. They, in self defense, took up arms against people who were entering their home turf and shooting at them, burning buildings, etc.

The Union left its home base and attacked them at their home base (the South). They fought against that invasion, not for slavery. Almost no southern soldiers had slaves. Many lived in mountainous areas of the South, where slavery did not exist. Many were illiterate, and didn't even know slavery existed.

Only a minority of very rich southerners had slaves, while most southern soldiers were so poor, they went to the battlefields barefoot. The lucky ones who got uniforms, including boots, were known to have said > "This is the best set of clothes I've ever owned."

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for insulting American veterans they way you are.

the soldiers specifically may not have been fighting to keep slaves, but that was the objective of the war. You can see that in the secession declarations of each state. Example: Mississippi's declaration statement reads, "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."
It is certainly a case of the poor man fighting the rich mans war (as all wars go) but the war was totally about slavery, make no mistake.

DOes it thus strike you are relevant that the statues in question, are statues of regular soldiers, not rich slaver owners?

I have seen no statues or plaques celebrating the institution of slavery being discussed.

Trying to stumble through that question was rather difficult but I'll do my best to answer... The confederate army is a stain on american history and no patriotic citizen should be glamorizing said stain. It is our past, it is ugly, let's leave it there.

Omg, you are a piece of shit.

No, the confederate army is NOT a stain on our history. I have never heard anybody except you and perhaps communist pigs say that. They are RENOWNED as being a dedicated, committed and brave army who fought and died to protect their CORRECT belief that the states are not subservient to the federal government in any way, shape or form.

don't try the "state's rights" crap, no one has the right to own other humans. They were wrong.

 

[paperview]

 

[paperview]

FALSE! They did not fight just to keep slavery alive in America. Most Confederate soldiers never saw a slave. They, in self defense, took up arms against people who were entering their home turf and shooting at them, burning buildings, etc.

The Union left its home base and attacked them at their home base (the South). They fought against that invasion, not for slavery. Almost no southern soldiers had slaves. Many lived in mountainous areas of the South, where slavery did not exist. Many were illiterate, and didn't even know slavery existed.

Only a minority of very rich southerners had slaves, while most southern soldiers were so poor, they went to the battlefields barefoot. The lucky ones who got uniforms, including boots, were known to have said > "This is the best set of clothes I've ever owned."

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for insulting American veterans they way you are.

the soldiers specifically may not have been fighting to keep slaves, but that was the objective of the war. You can see that in the secession declarations of each state. Example: Mississippi's declaration statement reads, "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."
It is certainly a case of the poor man fighting the rich mans war (as all wars go) but the war was totally about slavery, make no mistake.

DOes it thus strike you are relevant that the statues in question, are statues of regular soldiers, not rich slaver owners?

I have seen no statues or plaques celebrating the institution of slavery being discussed.

Trying to stumble through that question was rather difficult but I'll do my best to answer... The confederate army is a stain on american history and no patriotic citizen should be glamorizing said stain. It is our past, it is ugly, let's leave it there.

Omg, you are a piece of shit.

No, the confederate army is NOT a stain on our history. I have never heard anybody except you and perhaps communist pigs say that. They are RENOWNED as being a dedicated, committed and brave army who fought and died to protect their CORRECT belief that the states are not subservient to the federal government in any way, shape or form.

don't try the "state's rights" crap, no one has the right to own other humans. They were wrong.

This is the only time you 'll see kosherpig defend democrats.

 

[Correll]

FALSE! They did not fight just to keep slavery alive in America. Most Confederate soldiers never saw a slave. They, in self defense, took up arms against people who were entering their home turf and shooting at them, burning buildings, etc.

The Union left its home base and attacked them at their home base (the South). They fought against that invasion, not for slavery. Almost no southern soldiers had slaves. Many lived in mountainous areas of the South, where slavery did not exist. Many were illiterate, and didn't even know slavery existed.

Only a minority of very rich southerners had slaves, while most southern soldiers were so poor, they went to the battlefields barefoot. The lucky ones who got uniforms, including boots, were known to have said > "This is the best set of clothes I've ever owned."

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for insulting American veterans they way you are.

the soldiers specifically may not have been fighting to keep slaves, but that was the objective of the war. You can see that in the secession declarations of each state. Example: Mississippi's declaration statement reads, "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."
It is certainly a case of the poor man fighting the rich mans war (as all wars go) but the war was totally about slavery, make no mistake.

DOes it thus strike you are relevant that the statues in question, are statues of regular soldiers, not rich slaver owners?

I have seen no statues or plaques celebrating the institution of slavery being discussed.

Trying to stumble through that question was rather difficult but I'll do my best to answer... The confederate army is a stain on american history and no patriotic citizen should be glamorizing said stain. It is our past, it is ugly, let's leave it there.

Omg, you are a piece of shit.

No, the confederate army is NOT a stain on our history. I have never heard anybody except you and perhaps communist pigs say that. They are RENOWNED as being a dedicated, committed and brave army who fought and died to protect their CORRECT belief that the states are not subservient to the federal government in any way, shape or form.

don't try the "state's rights" crap, no one has the right to own other humans. They were wrong.

You've already admitted that there were other issues in the war. Why are you backtracking?

 

[my2¢]

I have seen no statues or plaques celebrating the institution of slavery being discussed.

True. I think that gets lost behind the institution of slavery being the basis of the secessionist movement as described in the individual states' declaration of separation from the United States (Declaration of Causes of Secession)

Subsequent edit:
To be clear where I'm coming from, I do think the South had the right to secede. I also think that city councils and state legislatures can decide for themselves any issue regarding past, current and future statues. Being a yankee, if it were up to a popular vote I would abstain.

 

[Aries]

the soldiers specifically may not have been fighting to keep slaves, but that was the objective of the war. You can see that in the secession declarations of each state. Example: Mississippi's declaration statement reads, "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."
It is certainly a case of the poor man fighting the rich mans war (as all wars go) but the war was totally about slavery, make no mistake.

DOes it thus strike you are relevant that the statues in question, are statues of regular soldiers, not rich slaver owners?

I have seen no statues or plaques celebrating the institution of slavery being discussed.

Trying to stumble through that question was rather difficult but I'll do my best to answer... The confederate army is a stain on american history and no patriotic citizen should be glamorizing said stain. It is our past, it is ugly, let's leave it there.

Omg, you are a piece of shit.

No, the confederate army is NOT a stain on our history. I have never heard anybody except you and perhaps communist pigs say that. They are RENOWNED as being a dedicated, committed and brave army who fought and died to protect their CORRECT belief that the states are not subservient to the federal government in any way, shape or form.

don't try the "state's rights" crap, no one has the right to own other humans. They were wrong.

You've already admitted that there were other issues in the war. Why are you backtracking?

I am not backtracking. My statement was keeping the slave system was the main objective of the southern secession movement. I think the "state's rights" argument as the cause of the war is stupid because it is just a mask for the previous mentioned objection- slavery.

"states rights" in this case amounts to "the right to own slaves" - to me, that is invalid.

 

[paperview]

I was born in Florida and moved out to Ohio State, and have been around the world since. Today, I agree that these Confederate Soldiers who fought to keep slavery alive in America, should be taken down from a place of honor and put in a museum telling about their TRUE history. Just like we don't want Germany going around and having statues of Hitler all over the place, when the bad guys lose(and the confederates were bad) they shouldn't be put in an honorable place.

FALSE! They did not fight just to keep slavery alive in America. Most Confederate soldiers never saw a slave. They, in self defense, took up arms against people who were entering their home turf and shooting at them, burning buildings, etc.

The Union left its home base and attacked them at their home base (the South). They fought against that invasion, not for slavery. Almost no southern soldiers had slaves. Many lived in mountainous areas of the South, where slavery did not exist. Many were illiterate, and didn't even know slavery existed.

Only a minority of very rich southerners had slaves, while most southern soldiers were so poor, they went to the battlefields barefoot. The lucky ones who got uniforms, including boots, were known to have said > "This is the best set of clothes I've ever owned."

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for insulting American veterans they way you are.

the soldiers specifically may not have been fighting to keep slaves, but that was the objective of the war. You can see that in the secession declarations of each state. Example: Mississippi's declaration statement reads, "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."
It is certainly a case of the poor man fighting the rich mans war (as all wars go) but the war was totally about slavery, make no mistake.

DOes it thus strike you are relevant that the statues in question, are statues of regular soldiers, not rich slaver owners?

I have seen no statues or plaques celebrating the institution of slavery being discussed.

Trying to stumble through that question was rather difficult but I'll do my best to answer... The confederate army is a stain on american history and no patriotic citizen should be glamorizing said stain. It is our past, it is ugly, let's leave it there.

I would have fought for the South.

Of course you would have.

"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.

...

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."

 

[Correll]

DOes it thus strike you are relevant that the statues in question, are statues of regular soldiers, not rich slaver owners?

I have seen no statues or plaques celebrating the institution of slavery being discussed.

Trying to stumble through that question was rather difficult but I'll do my best to answer... The confederate army is a stain on american history and no patriotic citizen should be glamorizing said stain. It is our past, it is ugly, let's leave it there.

Omg, you are a piece of shit.

No, the confederate army is NOT a stain on our history. I have never heard anybody except you and perhaps communist pigs say that. They are RENOWNED as being a dedicated, committed and brave army who fought and died to protect their CORRECT belief that the states are not subservient to the federal government in any way, shape or form.

don't try the "state's rights" crap, no one has the right to own other humans. They were wrong.

You've already admitted that there were other issues in the war. Why are you backtracking?

I am not backtracking. My statement was keeping the slave system was the main objective of the southern secession movement. I think the "state's rights" argument as the cause of the war is stupid because it is just a mask for the previous mentioned objection- slavery.

"states rights" in this case amounts to "the right to own slaves" - to me, that is invalid.

Main objective indicates other secondary objectives.

You've admitted that poor southerns had little if any direct stake in the institution of slavery.

So, why are you focusing on slavery to the extent of ignoring everything else, and conflating poor southern whties with rich southern slave owners?

 

[paperview]

Jefferson Davis' Farewell Address -- Senate Chamber, U.S. Capitol, January 21, 1861

<snip> [His state seceded because...] "She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races.

[^ Davis, making reference to well-known speeches by Lincoln citing the DoI in criticism of slavery.]

https://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=87

A few years earlier:
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858

Defending slavery and advocating secession if an abolitionist becomes president. The “dangerously powerful man” is Senator Seward, an opponent of slavery.

"It seems now to be probable that the Abolitionists and their allies will have control of the next House of Representatives, and it may be well inferred from their past course that the will attempt legislature both injurious and offensive to the south. I have an abiding faith that any law which violates our constitutional rights, will be met with a veto by the present Executive. – But should the next House of Representatives be such as would elect an Abolition President, we may expect that the election will be so conducted as probably to defeat a choice by the people and devolve the election upon the House.

Whether by the House or by the people, if an Abolitionist be chosen president of the United States,

you will have presented to you the question of whether you will permit the government to pass into the hands of your avowed and implacable enemies. Without pausing for your answer, I will state my own position to be that such a result would be a species of revolution by which the purposes of the Government would be destroyed and the observances of its mere forms entitled to no respect.

<snip>

It requires but a cursory examination of the Constitution of the United States; but a partial knowledge of its history and of the motives of the men who formed it, to see how utterly fallacious it is to ascribe to them the purpose of interfering with the domestic institutions of any of the States.

But if a disrespect for that instrument, a fanatical disregard of its purposes, should ever induce a majority, however large, to seek by amending the Constitution, to pervert it from its original object, and to deprive you of the quality which your fathers bequeathed to you, I say let the star of Mississippi be snatched from the constellation to shine by its inherent light, if it must be so, through all the storms and clouds of war. "

http://www.confederatepastpresent.o...ected-president-&catid=41:the-gathering-storm


There Jeff Davis is, years before Lincoln was elected, saying even if through Constitutional measures, by Amendment - anyone sought to deprive them of their slaves -- War! It's on.

If an Abolitionist is elected president, we are "avowed and implacable enemies."

 

[Correll]

Jefferson Davis' Farewell Address -- Senate Chamber, U.S. Capitol, January 21, 1861

<snip> [His state seceded because...] "She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races.

[^ Davis, making reference to well-known speeches by Lincoln citing the DoI in criticism of slavery.]

https://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=87
https://jeffersondavis.rice.edu/Content.aspx?id=87
A few years earlier:
Speech of Jefferson Davis before the Mississippi Legislature, Nov. 16, 1858

Defending slavery and advocating secession if an abolitionist becomes president. The “dangerously powerful man” is Senator Seward, an opponent of slavery.

"It seems now to be probable that the Abolitionists and their allies will have control of the next House of Representatives, and it may be well inferred from their past course that the will attempt legislature both injurious and offensive to the south. I have an abiding faith that any law which violates our constitutional rights, will be met with a veto by the present Executive. – But should the next House of Representatives be such as would elect an Abolition President, we may expect that the election will be so conducted as probably to defeat a choice by the people and devolve the election upon the House.

Whether by the House or by the people, if an Abolitionist be chosen president of the United States,

you will have presented to you the question of whether you will permit the government to pass into the hands of your avowed and implacable enemies. Without pausing for your answer, I will state my own position to be that such a result would be a species of revolution by which the purposes of the Government would be destroyed and the observances of its mere forms entitled to no respect.

<snip>

It requires but a cursory examination of the Constitution of the United States; but a partial knowledge of its history and of the motives of the men who formed it, to see how utterly fallacious it is to ascribe to them the purpose of interfering with the domestic institutions of any of the States.

But if a disrespect for that instrument, a fanatical disregard of its purposes, should ever induce a majority, however large, to seek by amending the Constitution, to pervert it from its original object, and to deprive you of the quality which your fathers bequeathed to you, I say let the star of Mississippi be snatched from the constellation to shine by its inherent light, if it must be so, through all the storms and clouds of war. "

http://www.confederatepastpresent.o...ected-president-&catid=41:the-gathering-storm


There Jeff Davis is, years before Lincoln was elected, saying even if through Constitutional measures, by Amendment - anyone sought to deprive them of their slaves -- War! It's on.

If an Abolitionist is elected president, we are "avowed and implacable enemies."

The wealthy could see no other way to maintain their wealth, position and status.


Now explain why the white population at large supported them.

 

[Aries]

Trying to stumble through that question was rather difficult but I'll do my best to answer... The confederate army is a stain on american history and no patriotic citizen should be glamorizing said stain. It is our past, it is ugly, let's leave it there.

Omg, you are a piece of shit.

No, the confederate army is NOT a stain on our history. I have never heard anybody except you and perhaps communist pigs say that. They are RENOWNED as being a dedicated, committed and brave army who fought and died to protect their CORRECT belief that the states are not subservient to the federal government in any way, shape or form.

don't try the "state's rights" crap, no one has the right to own other humans. They were wrong.

You've already admitted that there were other issues in the war. Why are you backtracking?

I am not backtracking. My statement was keeping the slave system was the main objective of the southern secession movement. I think the "state's rights" argument as the cause of the war is stupid because it is just a mask for the previous mentioned objection- slavery.

"states rights" in this case amounts to "the right to own slaves" - to me, that is invalid.

Main objective indicates other secondary objectives.

You've admitted that poor southerns had little if any direct stake in the institution of slavery.

So, why are you focusing on slavery to the extent of ignoring everything else, and conflating poor southern whites with rich southern slave owners?

Maybe little at stake economically but they certainly had a lot at stake. Slavery in the south was not just about working conditions but it affected every aspect of society. I am conflating them because in this instance they were fighting on the same side for the same basic principles. Racism.

 

[Correll]

Omg, you are a piece of shit.

No, the confederate army is NOT a stain on our history. I have never heard anybody except you and perhaps communist pigs say that. They are RENOWNED as being a dedicated, committed and brave army who fought and died to protect their CORRECT belief that the states are not subservient to the federal government in any way, shape or form.

don't try the "state's rights" crap, no one has the right to own other humans. They were wrong.

You've already admitted that there were other issues in the war. Why are you backtracking?

I am not backtracking. My statement was keeping the slave system was the main objective of the southern secession movement. I think the "state's rights" argument as the cause of the war is stupid because it is just a mask for the previous mentioned objection- slavery.

"states rights" in this case amounts to "the right to own slaves" - to me, that is invalid.

Main objective indicates other secondary objectives.

You've admitted that poor southerns had little if any direct stake in the institution of slavery.

So, why are you focusing on slavery to the extent of ignoring everything else, and conflating poor southern whites with rich southern slave owners?

Maybe little at stake economically but they certainly had a lot at stake. Slavery in the south was not just about working conditions but it affected every aspect of society. I am conflating them because in this instance they were fighting on the same side for the same basic principles. Racism.

The majority of white southerns were subsidence farmers with little concern about slavery or the Cotton Trade.

Yet they supported their leadership in their attempt to break away from the US.


Saying "racism" as a reason is not an answer.

 

[paperview]

Trying to stumble through that question was rather difficult but I'll do my best to answer... The confederate army is a stain on american history and no patriotic citizen should be glamorizing said stain. It is our past, it is ugly, let's leave it there.

Omg, you are a piece of shit.

No, the confederate army is NOT a stain on our history. I have never heard anybody except you and perhaps communist pigs say that. They are RENOWNED as being a dedicated, committed and brave army who fought and died to protect their CORRECT belief that the states are not subservient to the federal government in any way, shape or form.

don't try the "state's rights" crap, no one has the right to own other humans. They were wrong.

You've already admitted that there were other issues in the war. Why are you backtracking?

I am not backtracking. My statement was keeping the slave system was the main objective of the southern secession movement. I think the "state's rights" argument as the cause of the war is stupid because it is just a mask for the previous mentioned objection- slavery.

"states rights" in this case amounts to "the right to own slaves" - to me, that is invalid.

Main objective indicates other secondary objectives.

You've admitted that poor southerns had little if any direct stake in the institution of slavery.

So, why are you focusing on slavery to the extent of ignoring everything else, and conflating poor southern whties with rich southern slave owners?

Every southerner, rich or poor, knew slavery was the blood engine that ran the south. It was the single most valuable commodity in the entire country .

To give you some perspective, The collective wealth tied up in those slaves was over 3 billion dollars.

That is yes, with a B. Three BILLION. Not in today dollars, adjusted for inflation -- Then dollars. Three BILLION in 1860 dollars.

If you wanted to buy all the railroads, factories and banks in the entire country at that time, it would have only cost you about $2.5 billion.

----> slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country. A stunning figure. Think on that.

4 out of every ten in the CSA were slaves, in some states, there were MAJORITY slave populations. Yes, more slave than free.

One third of southern families owned at least one slave -- and the myth it was just the rich who owned them -- is a myth. Plantation owners accounted for a very small percentage. Near most owned just one or two slaves.

Many of these slaves were mortgaged, making them very much in reach to the average southerner.

 

[Correll]

Omg, you are a piece of shit.

No, the confederate army is NOT a stain on our history. I have never heard anybody except you and perhaps communist pigs say that. They are RENOWNED as being a dedicated, committed and brave army who fought and died to protect their CORRECT belief that the states are not subservient to the federal government in any way, shape or form.

don't try the "state's rights" crap, no one has the right to own other humans. They were wrong.

You've already admitted that there were other issues in the war. Why are you backtracking?

I am not backtracking. My statement was keeping the slave system was the main objective of the southern secession movement. I think the "state's rights" argument as the cause of the war is stupid because it is just a mask for the previous mentioned objection- slavery.

"states rights" in this case amounts to "the right to own slaves" - to me, that is invalid.

Main objective indicates other secondary objectives.

You've admitted that poor southerns had little if any direct stake in the institution of slavery.

So, why are you focusing on slavery to the extent of ignoring everything else, and conflating poor southern whties with rich southern slave owners?

Every southerner, rich or poor, knew slavery was the blood engine that ran the south. It was the single most valuable commodity in the entire country .

To give you some perspective, The collective wealth tied up in those slaves was over 3 billion dollars.

That is yes, with a B. Three BILLION. Not in today dollars, adjusted for inflation -- Then dollars. Three BILLION in 1860 dollars.

If you wanted to buy all the railroads, factories and banks in the entire country at that time, it would have only cost you about $2.5 billion.

----> slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country. A stunning figure. Think on that.

4 out of every ten in the CSA were slaves, in some states, there were MAJORITY slave populations. Yes, more slave than free.

One third of southern families owned at least one slave -- and the myth it was just the rich who owned them -- is a myth. Plantation owners accounted for a very small percentage. The majority owned just one or two slaves.

Many of these slaves were mortgaged, making them very much in reach to the average southerner.

Nice touch, counting FAMILIES, instead of actual slave owners.

THus you get to conflate the the red headed step child who would never inherit shit, with the slave owner who was in charge of the family.


Just the type of dishonest tactic we've come to expect from the left.

 

[paperview]

The large plantation owner being the norm is a myth.

" 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five." Do you really think half of all the white families in Miss., for ex. were '"very wealthy people?"

A good many Southern preachers then actually told their flock it was a noble and Christian principle to own a slave or two - and if you had the means, and didn't, you'd go to hell.

Slaves were much cheaper in the 1820 - 40's (it spiked midway corresponding with the 1837 crash, then went back down again.) -- these slaves did what? They reproduced (literally "breeding" them), they were handed down to families, and yes, the means to obtain one was not something out of reach, and the financiers did what?

Yep, you could mortgage a slave, quite readily. Many did. There were huge banking outfits all set to help you obtain a slave, just like people will help you obtain a car today. It paid off well.

Let's have a look:
"In the 1830s, powerful Southern slaveowners wanted to import capital into their states so they could buy more slaves. They came up with a new, two-part idea: mortgaging slaves; and then turning the mortgages into bonds that could be marketed all over the world.

First, American planters organized new banks, usually in new states like Mississippi and Louisiana.

Drawing up lists of slaves for collateral, the planters then mortgaged them to the banks they had created, enabling themselves to buy additional slaves to expand cotton production. To provide capital for those loans, the banks sold bonds to investors from around the globe — London, New York, Amsterdam, Paris. The bond buyers, many of whom lived in countries where slavery was illegal, didn’t own individual slaves — just bonds backed by their value. Planters’ mortgage payments paid the interest and the principle on these bond payments. Enslaved human beings had been, in modern financial lingo, “securitized.”

As slave-backed mortgages became paper bonds, everybody profited — except, obviously, enslaved..."
American finance grew on the back of slaves

 

[Pogo]

don't try the "state's rights" crap, no one has the right to own other humans. They were wrong.

You've already admitted that there were other issues in the war. Why are you backtracking?

I am not backtracking. My statement was keeping the slave system was the main objective of the southern secession movement. I think the "state's rights" argument as the cause of the war is stupid because it is just a mask for the previous mentioned objection- slavery.

"states rights" in this case amounts to "the right to own slaves" - to me, that is invalid.

Main objective indicates other secondary objectives.

You've admitted that poor southerns had little if any direct stake in the institution of slavery.

So, why are you focusing on slavery to the extent of ignoring everything else, and conflating poor southern whites with rich southern slave owners?

Maybe little at stake economically but they certainly had a lot at stake. Slavery in the south was not just about working conditions but it affected every aspect of society. I am conflating them because in this instance they were fighting on the same side for the same basic principles. Racism.

The majority of white southerns were subsidence farmers with little concern about slavery or the Cotton Trade.

Yet they supported their leadership in their attempt to break away from the US.


Saying "racism" as a reason is not an answer.

Omg, you are a piece of shit.

No, the confederate army is NOT a stain on our history. I have never heard anybody except you and perhaps communist pigs say that. They are RENOWNED as being a dedicated, committed and brave army who fought and died to protect their CORRECT belief that the states are not subservient to the federal government in any way, shape or form.

don't try the "state's rights" crap, no one has the right to own other humans. They were wrong.

You've already admitted that there were other issues in the war. Why are you backtracking?

I am not backtracking. My statement was keeping the slave system was the main objective of the southern secession movement. I think the "state's rights" argument as the cause of the war is stupid because it is just a mask for the previous mentioned objection- slavery.

"states rights" in this case amounts to "the right to own slaves" - to me, that is invalid.

Main objective indicates other secondary objectives.

You've admitted that poor southerns had little if any direct stake in the institution of slavery.

So, why are you focusing on slavery to the extent of ignoring everything else, and conflating poor southern whties with rich southern slave owners?

Every southerner, rich or poor, knew slavery was the blood engine that ran the south. It was the single most valuable commodity in the entire country .

To give you some perspective, The collective wealth tied up in those slaves was over 3 billion dollars.

That is yes, with a B. Three BILLION. Not in today dollars, adjusted for inflation -- Then dollars. Three BILLION in 1860 dollars.

If you wanted to buy all the railroads, factories and banks in the entire country at that time, it would have only cost you about $2.5 billion.

----> slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country. A stunning figure. Think on that.

4 out of every ten in the CSA were slaves, in some states, there were MAJORITY slave populations. Yes, more slave than free.

One third of southern families owned at least one slave -- and the myth it was just the rich who owned them -- is a myth. Plantation owners accounted for a very small percentage. The majority owned just one or two slaves.

Many of these slaves were mortgaged, making them very much in reach to the average southerner.

A bit of perspective on these two points:

Going back to this interesting map posted earlier:

​

--- see that gap in the middle that has no circle graph? That's where I am. This area (western NC/east Tennesee) voted against secession when it was put to a vote, and for the most part stayed loyal to the Union when the War was waged. Not coincidentally the same area did consist of subsistence farmers and little or no slaves, as noted by one poster above.

But that's the case for this area, i.e. Appalachia, not the entire South. In the case of secession and Confederacy this area was literally outvoted by other eastern and western areas of the same states, where there was more sympathy for secession, and more slaves.

Fatter o' mact in the election of 1860 immediately preceding the War, the state of Tennessee voted for John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party, an offshoot of the Whigs that favored holding on to the Union. So did Virginia. Bell IIRC was a slaveholder who nevertheless opposed expansion of slavery into new states.

The point being, "the South" is not a monolith. Some of it led the charge for secession and Confederacy, other parts of it were not interested.

 

[my2¢]

I would have fought for the South.

While I currently feel the South had right to secede, being a yankee I'm pretty sure I would have fought for the winning side. When the South captured Fort Sumter it would have been one of those Remember the Maine and Pearl Harbor sort of moments. The newspaper stories throughout the North sparked outrage over the incident which in turn ignited jingoism.

 

[paperview]

don't try the "state's rights" crap, no one has the right to own other humans. They were wrong.

You've already admitted that there were other issues in the war. Why are you backtracking?

I am not backtracking. My statement was keeping the slave system was the main objective of the southern secession movement. I think the "state's rights" argument as the cause of the war is stupid because it is just a mask for the previous mentioned objection- slavery.

"states rights" in this case amounts to "the right to own slaves" - to me, that is invalid.

Main objective indicates other secondary objectives.

You've admitted that poor southerns had little if any direct stake in the institution of slavery.

So, why are you focusing on slavery to the extent of ignoring everything else, and conflating poor southern whties with rich southern slave owners?

Every southerner, rich or poor, knew slavery was the blood engine that ran the south. It was the single most valuable commodity in the entire country .

To give you some perspective, The collective wealth tied up in those slaves was over 3 billion dollars.

That is yes, with a B. Three BILLION. Not in today dollars, adjusted for inflation -- Then dollars. Three BILLION in 1860 dollars.

If you wanted to buy all the railroads, factories and banks in the entire country at that time, it would have only cost you about $2.5 billion.

----> slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country. A stunning figure. Think on that.

4 out of every ten in the CSA were slaves, in some states, there were MAJORITY slave populations. Yes, more slave than free.

One third of southern families owned at least one slave -- and the myth it was just the rich who owned them -- is a myth. Plantation owners accounted for a very small percentage. The majority owned just one or two slaves.

Many of these slaves were mortgaged, making them very much in reach to the average southerner.

Nice touch, counting FAMILIES, instead of actual slave owners.

THus you get to conflate the the red headed step child who would never inherit shit, with the slave owner who was in charge of the family.


Just the type of dishonest tactic we've come to expect from the left.

What a dolt.

There were only a total of one million free white families in the CSA>. Ponder that. To suppose their immediate families primarily consisted of "red headed step children" is ******* retarded.

Eat this: there were only a little over 5 million families in the entire US in 1860.

Does that figure stun you?

Now, consider: more than one on four rebels who took up arms against the North came from slaveholding families (and one in two in a few other states) it presents a different picture.

One could say, yes, well, those were families - just because pop owned the slave, doesn't mean the kids did too.

Yeah, they did, more or less. they were part of the household. That slave labor on their property, in some form or another, helped provide them food, shelter and money, and also helped formulate their future wealth they could, and most often did, inherit.

Slave labor provided so much of just about everything when it came to the commerce of the South. Stop being a toadstool dunce.