U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
Old 10-13-2009, 10:42 AM
 
Location: south Missouri
438 posts, read 600,169 times
Reputation: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motion View Post
What reasons did Blacks have for fighting for the Confederates? Did the confederate states promise to end slavery if they won?

Slavery was never the real issue of the Civil War; it was - like most wars - based on ecoomic differences. Many blacks fought as did whites for their homeland. Most Confederates did not own slaves; they were not rich enough.

The misconception that the Civil War was about slavery continues and it is without merit or fact.

 
Old 10-13-2009, 08:31 PM
 
Location: St. Augustine
9,258 posts, read 10,866,236 times
Reputation: 7364
Quote:
Originally Posted by checking out View Post
Seems you cannot accept that the North came forth with economic advantage in mind.

You're entitled to your opinion on another matter. I'd just want to point out that you are hypocritical. Rebeling against an oppressor is what caused this Nation to be formed. But then rebelling against the oppressive northerners is a fault ascribed only to the south. That's QUITE TWISTED.

I certainly have no problem accepting that many northerners fought for the Union because it was economically advantageous to do so, that's the way the world works. However remember that northerners were fighting in reaction to rebellion; the northern states did not rebel and start war against The United States, the slaveholders did and for THEIR economic advantage. Had their been no rebellion the northerners wouldn't have had to fight anyone.

The southern states weren't being oppressed by the northern ones unless you think that being on the losing end of a political issue means you're being oppressed. Using that reasoning since ALL of us are on the losing end of one or another political isssue at some time ALL of us are justified in rebelling. Anarchy.

Actually the southern states hadn't been oppressed anyway; they rebelled because they lost an election and were afraid they MIGHT not get things their own way. Like silly spoiled children afraid a game would go against them they wanted to take their ball (and their slaves) and go home.
 
Old 10-13-2009, 08:36 PM
 
Location: St. Augustine
9,258 posts, read 10,866,236 times
Reputation: 7364
Quote:
Originally Posted by joetownmom View Post
Slavery was never the real issue of the Civil War; it was - like most wars - based on ecoomic differences.

You don't think slavery was about economics?

You claim many Blacks fought for their homeland, they did alright and they did it in the blue uniform of their homeland.....The United States.

As for Blacks fighting for the rebellion, well not many if any did. But you know that if you're following this thread in a serious manner.
 
Old 10-13-2009, 11:13 PM
 
900 posts, read 128,385 times
Reputation: 299
There is actually another name for what the Southern states did. It's Treason. Stupid, misguided bigots and racists fighting for an abominal cause.

And none of the Revisionist History emanating from the "South's Gonna Rise Agin' websites will change that.
 
Old 10-13-2009, 11:43 PM
 
1,067 posts, read 1,124,896 times
Reputation: 451
Quote:
Originally Posted by joetownmom View Post
Slavery was never the real issue of the Civil War; it was - like most wars - based on ecoomic differences. Many blacks fought as did whites for their homeland. Most Confederates did not own slaves; they were not rich enough.

The misconception that the Civil War was about slavery continues and it is without merit or fact.
Thanks for your realistic view of that war, as with EVERY OTHER WAR.

Unfortunately there are those who seek to see things through rose or putrid purple lenses. Even a cosmic event will not change their perspective.
 
Old 10-14-2009, 07:52 AM
 
Location: Virginia
6,530 posts, read 8,679,543 times
Reputation: 3036
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angus Podgorny View Post
There is actually another name for what the Southern states did. It's Treason. Stupid, misguided bigots and racists fighting for an abominal cause.

And none of the Revisionist History emanating from the "South's Gonna Rise Agin' websites will change that.
How does rebelling against what was, in it's origination, a voluntary union of states constitute "treason"?

I've argued ad-nauseum in the past that the Civil War (Notice how we can just call it this without being inflammatory? Sure I could have called it "The War of Northern Aggression" just to get a rise. So why don't we make it an unwritten rule that we drop that, as well as this "War of the Rebellion" crap, etc.. ? ) was about economics more than slavery, BUT.... in order to make that assertion one must come from a certain perspective...

Was secession about slavery? Well, primarily YES. I've read, read, and re-read and the bottom line really is that without slavery involved, secession doesn't happen... There are economic reasons, but slavery was the straw that stirred the Southern drink there.

Is the Civil War about slavery? Not nearly as much. The War is about economics. The North had ZERO reason to care about secession other than the economics of it.

I literally laughed out loud at the poster who claimed that the South was "far more racist" than the North. Eh... To me it's the difference between someone who hates dogs and kicks dogs, and Michael Vick... Yeah, one takes it a step further, but the outward feeling toward the dog isn't much different...
 
Old 10-14-2009, 08:03 AM
 
Location: Virginia
6,530 posts, read 8,679,543 times
Reputation: 3036
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29 View Post
A perfect example of the Goebbels Spin; a tactic in which you acccuse those who are against something of being for it; in this case those who destroyed slavery and the rebellion that supported it are accused of racism and formenting war for classist and racist reasons despite the fact that northern society was far less classist and racist than southern society. And that the society being accused of racism actually destroyed that most racist of institutions: chattel slavery based on race.
I think the comparison to Goebbels is entirely uncalled for, but what does your theory say for those claiming to be "against something" that they weren't really against? I mean freeing slaves was a by-product of Northern refusal to let the South secede, but....

It's like George W. Bush logic really: "If you're not against it, you're for it." ... That is no more true than the reverse.
 
Old 10-14-2009, 08:26 AM
 
Location: St. Augustine
9,258 posts, read 10,866,236 times
Reputation: 7364
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler View Post
I think the comparison to Goebbels is entirely uncalled for, but what does your theory say for those claiming to be "against something" that they weren't really against? I mean freeing slaves was a by-product of Northern refusal to let the South secede, but....
OK. It's true that many northerners had no particular beef with slavery, certainly not enought to fight against it. I think we'd agree that most Federal soldiers were fighting to preserve the union and not to destroy slavery.

However there was a considerable group of northerners, especially New Englanders and New Englanders who'd settled the upper Old Northwest, who were aqainst slavery on moral grounds and these people were influential. Moreover it seems that as the war went on more and more Federal soldiers, having seen slavery firsthand, developed anti-slavery feelings.

I would say that economics were a strong motive on both sides. For instance Illinois was a fiercely Unionist state and no doubt much of that was because of the state's prosperity, a farmer who broke the prairie was in the black (pun intended if you've seen Illinois soil) the second year on his farm; nobody in Illinois wanted the applecart upset and they were willing to fight to see it wasn't.

Somebody needs to do a study on the effects of prosperity on nationalism.
 
Old 10-14-2009, 08:39 AM
 
Location: Virginia
6,530 posts, read 8,679,543 times
Reputation: 3036
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29 View Post
OK. It's true that many northerners had no particular beef with slavery, certainly not enought to fight against it. I think we'd agree that most Federal soldiers were fighting to preserve the union and not to destroy slavery.

However there was a considerable group of northerners, especially New Englanders and New Englanders who'd settled the upper Old Northwest, who were aqainst slavery on moral grounds and these people were influential. Moreover it seems that as the war went on more and more Federal soldiers, having seen slavery firsthand, developed anti-slavery feelings.
Yeah, agreed... I didn't mean to discount the abolitionists, but I think saying that is the same as saying that most Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves, therefore the war had nothing to do with slavery for the South....

IOW, both groups were brought to war by their respective politicians. Their individual views had very little to do with why they were at war.

I know you know this. Just stating it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29
I would say that economics were a strong motive on both sides. For instance Illinois was a fiercely Unionist state and no doubt much of that was because of the state's prosperity, a farmer who broke the prairie was in the black (pun intended if you've seen Illinois soil) the second year on his farm; nobody in Illinois wanted the applecart upset and they were willing to fight to see it wasn't.
I was born in Libertyville, Ill. ... Yeah, I've seen it..

Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29
Somebody needs to do a study on the effects of prosperity on nationalism.
Yeah, get on that man!!!
 
Old 10-14-2009, 09:49 AM
 
Location: I think my user name clarifies that.
8,294 posts, read 13,321,811 times
Reputation: 3642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Motion View Post
What do you make of this?



YouTube - Black Confederate

Back to the OP...


This is a very interesting video clip of a very interesting black man. I noticed that he said, "Above all, I'm a Southerner!"

It's interesting when a black man doesn't have "being black" as the only thing he thinks and talks about.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top