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.
Among them, the right of states to allow, promote, and encourage slavery.
Yes, but not the sole reason. You people who moan about slavery being the reason for the War of Northern Agression really have no idea what the war was truly about.
Last edited by MORebelWoman; 07-08-2012 at 07:15 AM..
Yes, but not the sole reason. You people who moan about slavery being the reason for the War of Northern Agression really have no idea what the war was truly about.
My GGGrandfather, Henry Williamson Dixon, was a captain in the sixth S.C. Regiment. He fought at the Second Manassas and was wounded by a sniper in Richmond while on his way home. My family has lived in or near Columbia, S.C. since 1741.
My family were merchants and never owned slaves. I have letters from a freed slave in Florida thanking my GGrandmother for sending him money.
According to family history, Henry joined because everyone else he knew was going, he saw it as a chance for a break from routine and an opportunity for some excitement, and everyone thought the war would be over in a month or so. The University of South carolina closed because the entire student body enlisted (women were not permitted to attend USC at that time).
I live in a house on what was a piece of Wade Hampton's plantation a mile and a half from his house which was targeted and burned by Sherman. I am five miles from the First Baptist Church in Columbia, where the delegates originally met to consider the Articles of Secession. The convention was moved to Charleston after an outbreak of Cholera, and the Articles were passed and signed there.
Slavery was a major portion of the reason. While my family never owned slaves, they certainly benefitted from slavery. Slaves were the machinery that made the economic engines turn in the pre-industrialized South, and The South realized that they would not be able to carry on if they had to pay wages for work that was being done essentially for free. "Room" consisted of plank shanties on most plantations, and "board" was whatever was grown on the farm. Corn and beans and pork were most of it, since hogs could be turned loose to fatten on forage and rounded up later for butchering, costing almost nothing in labor.
Don't lecture me on what the war was about unless you would like to quote sources. I'm not an idiot, nor am I as ignorant as you might like to think.
My GGGrandfather, Henry Williamson Dixon, was a captain in the sixth S.C. Regiment. He fought at the Second Manassas and was wounded by a sniper in Richmond while on his way home. My family has lived in or near Columbia, S.C. since 1741.
My family were merchants and never owned slaves. I have letters from a freed slave in Florida thanking my GGrandmother for sending him money.
According to family history, Henry joined because everyone else he knew was going, he saw it as a chance for a break from routine and an opportunity for some excitement, and everyone thought the war would be over in a month or so. The University of South carolina closed because the entire student body enlisted (women were not permitted to attend USC at that time).
I live in a house on what was a piece of Wade Hampton's plantation a mile and a half from his house which was targeted and burned by Sherman. I am five miles from the First Baptist Church in Columbia, where the delegates originally met to consider the Articles of Secession. The convention was moved to Charleston after an outbreak of Cholera, and the Articles were passed and signed there.
Slavery was a major portion of the reason. While my family never owned slaves, they certainly benefitted from slavery. Slaves were the machinery that made the economic engines turn in the pre-industrialized South, and The South realized that they would not be able to carry on if they had to pay wages for work that was being done essentially for free. "Room" consisted of plank shanties on most plantations, and "board" was whatever was grown on the farm. Corn and beans and pork were most of it, since hogs could be turned loose to fatten on forage and rounded up later for butchering, costing almost nothing in labor.
Don't lecture me on what the war was about unless you would like to quote sources. I'm not an idiot, nor am I as ignorant as you might like to think.
7 of 11 seceded states specifically mention slavery in their Articles Of Secession. Are those sources adequate?
I would agree with Nugent. (Our ancestors fought with the Union in the army of the Tennessee under first Grant, and then Sherman. We additionally have ancestors who fought for America in the American Revolution- one being a privateer. We have been here since 1632).
The south, like all nations, would have abolished slavery on its own. How long would that have taken? Probably an additional 30-40 years. Slavery was becoming economically no longer viable. With the advent of modern machinery, slavery for agricultural purposes becomes an antiquated means of production, beyond the inherently held fact that subjugation of other humans is an affront to the American concept of liberty. ALL western nations had, or were, abadoning slavery.
One would argue that
1. preservation of the Union made the US stronger from a military and industrial standpoint. History would prove that true- we were, and are, the strongest nation in the world.
2. preventing 40 more years of slavery was worth the cost in lives and treasure
3. the union winning solidified what Lincoln had stated in the Gettysburg address and that national disaster provided the seeds for manifest destiny and showed that "..... a nation of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from this earth".
4. a union victory and the war itself ushered in a surge in US manufacturing
What bad things happened as a result of a union victory?
1. The concept of states rights was mortally wounded by the Union victory. While government remained small until the 1930s, the massive growth in the Federal Government has become-
a. massively expensive
b. irresponsible with taxpayer money
c. created the largest debt in US history, which jeopardizes our personal and financial freedom
2. The south suffered 75 years of economic hardship after the war.
3. Deepened animosity toward blacks in the south
4. shifted power balance in the US to large urban, northern cities, which have been shown then, and now, not to have the best interest of the greater land mass of the nation at heart.
With the current expansion of power of the Federal Government and its continual reckless spending (which will ultimately result in our demise), the rise of a very strong Federal Government now appears to be a very big negative. Jefferson warned us of a bigger and ever expanding Federal Government, which would result in the same oppression levied by King George prior to the revolution. Unfortunately, at this juncture, we have probably reached that point. I am sure that Jefferson would cry if he could see the current US government. I would offer that many, if not most, of the Union soldiers who fought for the union, if they could see the nation now (the issue of slavery being abolished as the exception), probably would have turned thier guns away from the Confederates. When you look at old notes and diary entries of the western Union soldiers, nearly all were devout Christians who really believed the moral justification for their participation in the war. However, this did not become THE ISSUE until later in the war. Most were just bored farm boys looking for adventure and a means of leaving the farm.
I'm not sure how his opinion correlates with low IQ. However I disagree. I'm very glad the North but the traitorous and treasonous South in its place. It's just a shame so many had to die first.
Anyone who thinks the civil war was fought over the one issue of slavery is very simplistic in their views.
Problem is, it WAS fought over slavery and slavery alone. Sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CouponDad
Doesn't surprise me there are complete idiots that believe that's what he meant or that they think the south would still have slaves..
No, but they would've had slavery for a least a few hours longer, which is a crime and is against the principles this country was founded on. Easy for you to be so flippant about it....your ancestors weren't slaves. I mean, how many more years of slavery is acceptable in your opinion? 5? 50? 100?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeftyTrav
I saw a fairly bold bumper sticker once. Something along the lines of:
'We would have been a lot better off if we'd have picked the cotton ourselves'
I've seen the bumper stickers, and they don't bother me one bit. To me, its just a guy acknowledging that southern whites were lazy in the first half of the 19th century. Glad they're admitting it.
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.
