Leave Confederate Soldier Statues Alone

[Constructive Anarchy]

No, they really didn't.

Total - 1860 CENSUS

Total Population

31,183,582

Free Colored Persons
476,748

Total Free Population
27,233,198

Total Number of Slaves
3,950,528

Slaves as % of Population
13%

Total Number of Families
5,155,608

Total Number of Slaveholders
393,975

% of Families Owning Slaves
8%

American Civil War Census Data

slaves replaced indentured servants as the primary plantation labor class in the south, and the system was falling apart. It was anticipated it would have totally dissolved in about ten more years, according to most estimates.

But the feds didn't want to wait, because it was NEVER about slaves. Per usual, they were just using those people to advance their own agenda..which was to wipe out rural land owners and put their own garbage carpetbaggers and judges in there.

kosherpig showing again what an idiot she is. You can't take the whole of the US which most all the northern states had abolished slavery into the equation, you ******* retard.

Nearly one third of southern families -- where slavery was the be all and end all.

Gawd, of all the ignorant, Lost Cause internet trolls I have ever run into, you are definitely in the top 5 as one of the stupidest.

Again, not looking state by state.

Vague. It's intellectually honest to compare slaveholding states with non-slaveholding states -- not combining them to come up with a meaningless percentage.

Try post #209. Not vague at all.

K. Thx.

You're welcome. Not that I agree with the premise of the thread, at all.. I believe only very dull and mediocre people want to hide history.

 

[paperview]

kosherpig showing again what an idiot she is. You can't take the whole of the US which most all the northern states had abolished slavery into the equation, you ******* retard.

Nearly one third of southern families -- where slavery was the be all and end all.

Gawd, of all the ignorant, Lost Cause internet trolls I have ever run into, you are definitely in the top 5 as one of the stupidest.

Again, not looking state by state.

Vague. It's intellectually honest to compare slaveholding states with non-slaveholding states -- not combining them to come up with a meaningless percentage.

Try post #209. Not vague at all.

K. Thx.

You're welcome. Not that I agree with the premise of the thread, at all.. I believe only very dull and mediocre people want to hide history.

Yes. To not even acknowledging the central role slavery played in confederate history, and it's impact on all the people there - is doing exactly what this OP complains about: censoring history.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Again, not looking state by state.

Vague. It's intellectually honest to compare slaveholding states with non-slaveholding states -- not combining them to come up with a meaningless percentage.

Try post #209. Not vague at all.

K. Thx.

You're welcome. Not that I agree with the premise of the thread, at all.. I believe only very dull and mediocre people want to hide history.

Yes. To not even acknowledging the central role slavery played in confederate history, and it's impact on all the people there - is doing exactly what this OP complains about: censoring history.

Slavery was obviously the primary issue that led to Civil War. Anyone who says different simply isn't playing with a full deck. That being said, I see no good reasons to wipe that page from history. The monuments should serve as a constant reminder of what can and still could happen in this country.

 

[koshergrl]

Vague. It's intellectually honest to compare slaveholding states with non-slaveholding states -- not combining them to come up with a meaningless percentage.

Try post #209. Not vague at all.

K. Thx.

You're welcome. Not that I agree with the premise of the thread, at all.. I believe only very dull and mediocre people want to hide history.

Yes. To not even acknowledging the central role slavery played in confederate history, and it's impact on all the people there - is doing exactly what this OP complains about: censoring history.

Slavery was obviously the primary issue that led to Civil War. Anyone who says different simply isn't playing with a full deck. That being said, I see no good reasons to wipe that page from history. The monuments should serve as a constant reminder of what can and still could happen in this country.

No, slavery was the excuse the feds used to use force against the south. And the south didn't fight because they wanted slaves. They fought because they refused to accept that the feds had the AUTHORITY to force them to do anything. And they were right, the feds DON'T have the authority to exert authority. By claiming it was about SLAVERY they were able to justify it.

If it was about SLAVERY, there would have been a civil war a hundred years before, when INDENTURED SERVANTS were the primary workforce.

 

[Constructive Anarchy]

Try post #209. Not vague at all.

K. Thx.

You're welcome. Not that I agree with the premise of the thread, at all.. I believe only very dull and mediocre people want to hide history.

Yes. To not even acknowledging the central role slavery played in confederate history, and it's impact on all the people there - is doing exactly what this OP complains about: censoring history.

Slavery was obviously the primary issue that led to Civil War. Anyone who says different simply isn't playing with a full deck. That being said, I see no good reasons to wipe that page from history. The monuments should serve as a constant reminder of what can and still could happen in this country.

No, slavery was the excuse the feds used to use force against the south. And the south didn't fight because they wanted slaves. They fought because they refused to accept that the feds had the AUTHORITY to force them to do anything. And they were right, the feds DON'T have the authority to exert authority. By claiming it was about SLAVERY they were able to justify it.

If it was about SLAVERY, there would have been a civil war a hundred years before, when INDENTURED SERVANTS were the primary workforce.

Nothing you said here makes any kind of sense. There are no legitimate historians who would support your view.

 

[Correll]

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.

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.

How did Missouri, 90% white, vote?

Missouri was the only state that the Democratic candidate Stephen Douglas carried. He also got a couple of EVs from New Jersey which split its EV between Douglas and Lincoln. But in the field of four, Douglas came in dead last. And once it was over he worked with the President-Elect to try to preseve the Union.

No idea what "90% white" is supposed to mean, since in the rest of the country including Appalachia, the vote was "100% white".

YOur point was the slavery was sooo incredible important and that that drove the secession.

If you were correct, then I would expect that Missouri, with the LEAST number of slaves, percentage wise would have been the LEAST supportive of secession.

 

[Correll]

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.

No, they really didn't.

Total - 1860 CENSUS

Total Population

31,183,582

Free Colored Persons
476,748

Total Free Population
27,233,198

Total Number of Slaves
3,950,528

Slaves as % of Population
13%

Total Number of Families
5,155,608

Total Number of Slaveholders
393,975

% of Families Owning Slaves
8%

American Civil War Census Data

slaves replaced indentured servants as the primary plantation labor class in the south, and the system was falling apart. It was anticipated it would have totally dissolved in about ten more years, according to most estimates.

But the feds didn't want to wait, because it was NEVER about slaves. Per usual, they were just using those people to advance their own agenda..which was to wipe out rural land owners and put their own garbage carpetbaggers and judges in there.

kosherpig showing again what an idiot she is. You can't take the whole of the US which most all the northern states had abolished slavery into the equation, you ******* retard.

Nearly one third of southern families -- where slavery was the be all and end all.

Gawd, of all the ignorant, Lost Cause internet trolls I have ever run into, you are definitely in the top 5 as one of the stupidest.

Might be unfair to include northern numbers.

Claiming that something that less than a third of families were involved in, was the "be all and end all", is not much better.

 

[paperview]

Vague. It's intellectually honest to compare slaveholding states with non-slaveholding states -- not combining them to come up with a meaningless percentage.

Try post #209. Not vague at all.

K. Thx.

You're welcome. Not that I agree with the premise of the thread, at all.. I believe only very dull and mediocre people want to hide history.

Yes. To not even acknowledging the central role slavery played in confederate history, and it's impact on all the people there - is doing exactly what this OP complains about: censoring history.

Slavery was obviously the primary issue that led to Civil War. Anyone who says different simply isn't playing with a full deck. That being said, I see no good reasons to wipe that page from history. The monuments should serve as a constant reminder of what can and still could happen in this country.

Fair enough.

 

[Correll]

Vague. It's intellectually honest to compare slaveholding states with non-slaveholding states -- not combining them to come up with a meaningless percentage.

Try post #209. Not vague at all.

K. Thx.

You're welcome. Not that I agree with the premise of the thread, at all.. I believe only very dull and mediocre people want to hide history.

Yes. To not even acknowledging the central role slavery played in confederate history, and it's impact on all the people there - is doing exactly what this OP complains about: censoring history.

Slavery was obviously the primary issue that led to Civil War. Anyone who says different simply isn't playing with a full deck. That being said, I see no good reasons to wipe that page from history. The monuments should serve as a constant reminder of what can and still could happen in this country.

It is worth noting though, that post war, the US had a northern industry dominated economic and trade policy that did NOTHING for southern agricultural interests for over a century.


Coincidence?

 

[paperview]

...If it was about SLAVERY, there would have been a civil war a hundred years before, when INDENTURED SERVANTS were the primary workforce.

Swear to gawd, this woman must be posting from a mental institution.

 

[koshergrl]

K. Thx.

You're welcome. Not that I agree with the premise of the thread, at all.. I believe only very dull and mediocre people want to hide history.

Yes. To not even acknowledging the central role slavery played in confederate history, and it's impact on all the people there - is doing exactly what this OP complains about: censoring history.

Slavery was obviously the primary issue that led to Civil War. Anyone who says different simply isn't playing with a full deck. That being said, I see no good reasons to wipe that page from history. The monuments should serve as a constant reminder of what can and still could happen in this country.

No, slavery was the excuse the feds used to use force against the south. And the south didn't fight because they wanted slaves. They fought because they refused to accept that the feds had the AUTHORITY to force them to do anything. And they were right, the feds DON'T have the authority to exert authority. By claiming it was about SLAVERY they were able to justify it.

If it was about SLAVERY, there would have been a civil war a hundred years before, when INDENTURED SERVANTS were the primary workforce.

Nothing you said here makes any kind of sense. There are no legitimate historians who would support your view.

Abraham Lincoln said it wasn't about slavery.

"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.

"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year."

Abraham Lincoln said war was over taxes, not slavery

 

[koshergrl]

"On Dec. 25, 1860, South Carolina declared unfair taxes to be a cause of secession: "The people of the Southern States are not only taxed for the benefit of the Northern States, but after the taxes are collected, three-fourths (75%) of them are expended at the North (to subsidize Wall Street industries that elected Lincoln)." (Paragraphs 5-8)

"It was on April 8, 1861, that Lincoln, alone, started the war by a surprise attack on Charleston Harbor with a fleet of warships, led by the USS Harriet Lane

 

[koshergrl]

"Conventional wisdom of the moment tells us that the great war of 1861—1865 was “about” slavery or was “caused by” slavery. I submit that this is not a historical judgment but a political slogan. What a war is about has many answers according to the varied perspectives of different participants and of those who come after. To limit so vast an event as that war to one cause is to show contempt for the complexities of history as a quest for the understanding of human action.

"Two generations ago, the most perceptive historians, much more learned than the current crop, said that the war was “about” economics and was “caused by” economic rivalry. The war has not changed one bit since then. The perspective has changed. It can change again as long as people have the freedom to think about the past. History is not a mathematical calculation or scientific experiment but a vast drama of which there is always more to be learned."

Clyde Wilson is a distinguished Professor Emeritus of History at the University of South Carolina where he was the editor of the multivolume The Papers of John C. Calhoun. He is the M.E. Bradford Distinguished Chair at the Abbeville Institute.

Why The War Was Not About Slavery | Abbeville Institute

 

[koshergrl]

"In his inaugural address, delivered on March 4, 1861, Lincoln proclaimed that it was his duty to maintain the Union. He also declared that he had no intention of ending slavery where it existed, or of repealing the Fugitive Slave Law ..."

It wasn't about slavery. It was about unfair taxation. Feds getting their greasy hands on rural resources. Then, now and always.

The Civil War

 

[paperview]

Abraham Lincoln said it wasn't about slavery.

Hey, mental patient: The CONFEDERATE STATES THEMSELVES SAID IT WAS ABOUT SLAVERY.

Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.


Citing a neo-confederate's opinion doesn't help your cause much.

 

[koshergrl]

"Many historians have concluded that if the North was not motivated by any substantial antislavery convictions, then the Civil War cannot be justified morally. Why fight a war the purpose of which was only to restore the Union if emancipation was only an accidental byproduct? - See more at: The South Was Right, the Historians Are Wrong: Taking the Antislavery Origins of the Civil War Seriously - Online Library of Law & Liberty

 

[paperview]

....

Clyde Wilson is a ...

...racist who condemned the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and was against integration.

Ya hear that? To bolster her point, the carazykkkakes again, cites a confederate loving segregationist. way ta go, champ!

 

[koshergrl]

e past. History is not a mathematical calculation or scientific experiment but a vast drama of which there is always more to be learned."

Clyde Wilson is a ...

To bolster her point, the carazykkkakes again, cites a confederate loving segregationist. way ta go, champ!

And a historian.

There's nothing wrong with loving the history of the South. Not a thing.

But abject statists don't understand the importance and value of history. After all, you are the retards who destroyed all the Buddhist temples and thought it was cool to do so.

 

[koshergrl]

Dumbfucks.

 

[koshergrl]

The Taliban is also of the same mind...Historically, there's always a mob of retards to destroy great works of art and burn books if a criminal tells them it's cool.