Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
I think they where concerned their country would be destroyed so needed a separate one.
That sometime in the future the major cites would be overrun and the advanced culture destroyed. That the cites would be ruined and no longer able to support themselves. That a huge increases in crime would have to become an acceptable way of life.
That they would become the minority and have to live beside people that where not twice but 6 times more violent according to the stats.
That the schools would have to be dumbed down to where they could not compete with the rest of the world.
That once you had more people that consumed more than they produced. No one could survive.
Like Haiti a lush tropical island with good productive farming. Then Independence and all the resources consumed and stripped bare of trees to become a barren wasteland. What happens when you just take and dont give back.
Some very old history books do show this concern to some degree.
No they were not. They were concerned that their slave-owning way of life would be destroyed.
1) The Confederate South didn't have many cities of note. Only New Orleans and Charleston.
2) The culture of the South was made possible by slavery. Slaves were the ones doing all of the farm labor, helping to build with for someone else, while those who owned the plantations could lead an easy-going, genteel existence.
3) The South had a higher murder rate than the rest of the USA. The South, in spite of having more millionaires than in the North, was markedly poorer than the North. A sizable amount of people had money while alot of people didn't. In spite of the South having a smaller population, the South had a higher raw number of people who couldn't read. Schools in the South were already lacking. The South lagged in terms of education relative to the rest of the country.
4) Consuming more than producing? Blacks were made to do all that work and got far less than what the slave owners got. No pity from me.
To be blunt, I don't feel any pity for those Confederates. My ancestors were ones being enslaved and subjected to human rights abuses. I don't care how said Confederates would have felt about "becoming the minority". Black people had to live with being treated like crap every day during those times.
And as for Haiti, Haiti suffered from a combination of internal AND external problems. Haiti got its independence through a slave revolt. To keep other Blacks from thinking "let's revolt for freedom", Haiti was basically made to pay for its freedom and subjected to a boycott by more powerful nations. Haiti was good for the slave owner, bad for the slave.
The Civil War most definitely WAS about slavery. Civil War apologists try to claim it wasn't, and their propaganda has been successful in convincing people it wasn't, but it was. Read the writings of civil war leaders, and declarations of secession of states leaving the union. They made it very clear that slavery was their main motive for secession.
Southern states seceded because Lincoln won the election, and they were afraid he would ban slavery. He had made his anti-slavery stance very clear before the election. He was a moderate though, and felt that keeping the country together was very important. He tried to compromise with the slave states, and promised he wouldn't ban it in states it already exists. But slave states didn't trust him, and feared he would outlaw the slavery that was making them so rich.
Plus Lincoln was going to ban slavery in future states, and the confederate states didn't like that. They wanted slavery in new states too, because they didn't want non-slave states to get a majority in Congress and eventually ban slavery for good. This is what led to bloody feuds in the territories, like "Bloody Kansas". The Confederate states didn't want slavery just for themselves, they also wanted to spread it into the territories and future states.
The South wanted to keep slavery forever, and felt that spreading it westward would help keep it alive. Ironically, westward expansion would have ended it. The South was going to hold on to slavery because slavery was its social way of life, it's economic way of life, basically how it operated. Anyone who claims slavery had nothing to do with the war is just lying.
Location: Was Midvalley Oregon; Now Eastside Seattle area
13,070 posts, read 7,502,913 times
Reputation: 9796
Peeps, forget the words to the Pledge of Allegiance that they should have learned in grade school and recited daily. Recite it daily with and without feeling, and perhaps It's meaning will become clear.
Peeps, forget the words to the Pledge of Allegiance that they should have learned in grade school and recited daily. Recite it daily with and without feeling, and perhaps It's meaning will become clear.
Well, I would find it ironic that those who fly the Confederate flag would complain if you didn't stand for the national anthem.
There has been a bunch of stuff in the news lately about the protests, the confederate flag, and confederate statues. Let's consider something.
The American flag stands for the US Constitution. As a part of that Constitution is the right to assemble and protest. So, the protesters are displaying a critical part of what it means to live in America. It celebrates the US flag.
Now, let's remember history. There were a group of people that hated American so much that they broke away from America. To add insult to injury, they went so far as to OPENLY REJECT the American flag and created their own flag. The confederate flag.
History tells us that the confederate flag is a clear symbol of anti-Americanism. That's the logical conclusion. So why are folks defending it and the confederate statues? The confederate soldiers fought AGAINST AMERICA.
To Josh Hicks, I would like to tell him "Amen"!! Robert E. Lee made an enemy of the USA. So did Jefferson Davis and other prominent Confederate leaders. They do not deserve to have statues in their honor. Lee, Davis, and other Confederate generals/leaders should have been tried for treason, found guilty, and then
1) Sent to prison for the remainder of their lives.
or
2) Death penalty.
But no, the Confederates were treated like prodigal sons.
That Marine gets it. You cannot swear to fight for the USA, and then fly the Confederate flag. The Confederates were enemies of the USA. History does show the Confederate flag to be anti-American. However, it doesn't surprise me that those who claim to be proud Americans will fly the Confederate flag.
This is what William Tappan Thompson, who endorsed the Confederate flag, had to say about it.
- "While we consider the flag which has been adopted by the senate as a very decided improvement of the old United States flag, we still think the battle flag on a pure white field would be more appropriate and handsome.
Such a flag would be a suitable emblem of our young confederacy, and sustained by the brave hearts and strong arms of the south, it would soon take rank among the proudest ensigns of the nations, and be hailed by the civilized world as THE WHITE MAN'S FLAG.
As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause...."
-"As a national emblem, it is significant of our higher cause, the cause of a superior race, and a higher civilization contending against ignorance, infidelity, and barbarism. Another merit in the new flag is, that it bears no resemblance to the now infamous banner of the Yankee vandals."
That is what was said about the Confederate flag, back in 1863, in the Savannah Morning Journal, founded by William Tappan Thompson. Even though he was a northerner (Ohio native), he supported the Confederacy. His reason: His support of slavery.
I can remember a day when the rebel flag was really about rebellion, and came to symbolize any kind of rebellion. Billy Idol, Tom Petty, and Lynard Skynard all used the rebel flag to that effect.
But now, it means something more hateful...and I can respect that, and live in the present, and know that many people find it distasteful.
Petty regretted that:
"I was pretty ignorant of what it actually meant."
To Josh Hicks, I would like to tell him "Amen"!! Robert E. Lee made an enemy of the USA. So did Jefferson Davis and other prominent Confederate leaders. They do not deserve to have statues in their honor. Lee, Davis, and other Confederate generals/leaders should have been tried for treason, found guilty, and then
1) Sent to prison for the remainder of their lives.
or
2) Death penalty.
But no, the Confederates were treated like prodigal sons.
That Marine gets it. You cannot swear to fight for the USA, and then fly the Confederate flag. The Confederates were enemies of the USA. History does show the Confederate flag to be anti-American. However, it doesn't surprise me that those who claim to be proud Americans will fly the Confederate flag.
This is what William Tappan Thompson, who endorsed the Confederate flag, had to say about it.
- "While we consider the flag which has been adopted by the senate as a very decided improvement of the old United States flag, we still think the battle flag on a pure white field would be more appropriate and handsome.
Such a flag would be a suitable emblem of our young confederacy, and sustained by the brave hearts and strong arms of the south, it would soon take rank among the proudest ensigns of the nations, and be hailed by the civilized world as THE WHITE MAN'S FLAG.
As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause...."
-"As a national emblem, it is significant of our higher cause, the cause of a superior race, and a higher civilization contending against ignorance, infidelity, and barbarism. Another merit in the new flag is, that it bears no resemblance to the now infamous banner of the Yankee vandals."
That is what was said about the Confederate flag, back in 1863, in the Savannah Morning Journal, founded by William Tappan Thompson. Even though he was a northerner (Ohio native), he supported the Confederacy. His reason: His support of slavery.
I think he was referring to the ACTUAL confederate flag, depicted here:
A few things about Lincoln you will not read in school.
Lincoln was a racist, he didn't like the blacks and he even blamed them for the Civil War. Lincoln's plan was to remove all blacks from the U.S. and re-colonize them back to Africa.
Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the south, the north still had their slaves.
Stop believing in revisionist propaganda.
Lincoln was a man of compromise, and his main goal was to keep the union together. He did feel slavery was wrong, but wanted to find a peaceful way to resolve it. He was also trying too hard to please the masses.
Pro-Confederate revisionists label John Brown as a terrorist, but label Lincoln as a racist because he wasn't John Brown.
Here's a couple quotes from Lincoln, that predate the Civil War:
“Let us discard all this quibbling about [this] race and that race and the other race being inferior… Let us discard all these things and unite as one people throughout this land until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal.”
“If A can prove… that he may, of right, enslave B.—why may not B snatch the same argument, and prove equally, that he may enslave A? –You say A. is white, and B. is black. It is color, then; the lighter having the right to enslave the darker? Take care. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with a fairer skin than your own. You do not mean color exactly? –You mean the whites are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and therefore have the right to enslave them? Take care again. By this rule, you are to be slave to the first man you meet, with an intellect superior to your own. But, say you, it is a question of interest; and if you can make it your interest, you have the right to enslave another. Very well. And if he can make it his interest, he has the right to enslave you.”
Lincoln wrote that -- before the Civil War, before he was president.
The Union Blockade was an economic move to strangle the South which relied on agriculture (and also slaves) and wasn't some moral/ethical issue about slaves.
The Union Blockade was a move taken DURING the Civil War, not before it.
If the South hadn't started the Civil War, there never would have been a Union Blockade.
The war was caused by slavery, not by military strategies that take place during the war.
I haven't read all the posts... only the first page. So please pardon me if this idea has already been presented.
In my understanding of the situation, the South (Confederate States) weren't really interested in going to war with the North. They simply wanted to declare their independence from the North (US) and exist as a separate country and be able to make their own laws rather than continue to be subject to the laws of the North (US) which the South felt were unfairly written and enforced to favor the North over the South. This included business reasons as well as way of life reasons. In other words, the South wanted to be able to determine their own destiny rather than have it determined by the Northern states.
I see this as very similar to the reasoning why the US broke away from Great Britain. The US wanted to be free to determine their own destiny, write their own laws, and not be ruled by Kings and Parliaments. In short, the South wanted to be a separate country to determine their own destiny under laws and procedures that they felt were more fair and equitable to them... much in the same way as the US broke away from Great Britain.
In both instances above, the reason there was a "war" is because the original country didn't want to allow a section of their country to leave and start a new country, and they employed force in the manner of soldiers and federal troops to try to stop the secession. In the case of the "Revolutionary War", the revolutionists won. In the case of the "Civil War", the revolutionists lost. Other than that very important distinction, the causes for the wars were essentially the same... the desire for independence from the mother country.
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.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 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.
