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.
Abolition had far stronger sentiment in the North than the South. That is the bottom line. The South was going to go to the death before letting go of the institution of slavery. It was not just an economic institution. It was social. While a majority of Southerners didn't own slaves, slavery pretty much shaped the South going into the Civil War. It was a status symbol to own slaves. Many who were too poor to own slaves likely hoped to own slaves. And then something else. We all know that the majority of Blacks in the South were slaves. And most of the "black slave owners" were likely the Creoles and mixed race people in Louisiana. Less than one percent of the Black population were slave owners. There is something that needs to be considered. Blacks were essentially looked down on. Many argued that if Black slaves were freed, they would cause problems for the South.
Many in the South saw slavery as something necessary to uphold the economy and the social order. That is the way of life the South was trying to defend. It was morally bankrupt back then. However, there were many delusional people living back then.
The funny thing about this post is the reconstruction of the South starting in 1865. Many former Slaves went right back to those Plantation they worked as slaves.
Some call the Generals Like grant and Stuart as Traitor in fact they served the union army during the Indian Wars and the Mexican Conflict of 1848 All these Leaders including Jefferson Davis did have Jail time to deal for the price of being on the losing side.
Interesting Fact of Robert E Lee he was supporting President Andrew Johnson in the reconstruction of the South. In the end he gained respect of the North and he was a Very Good Officer.
So do not rush pulling down Robert E Lees Statues. General contributed thru out his career to this country.
While few people owned slaves, the economy was based upon slave labor and many perhaps most people had jobs tied to slave based labor. The cotton broker might not have owned slaves, but his livelihood depended upon them.
Exactly. So many in the South saw themselves as having a stake in the institution of slavery. This is why the South wanted secession so badly.
No matter how much proof we put out there, some people will never listen or learn.
Gotcha. Although sure is baffling at times, even with the less important stuff, like terminology. Fr'instance, some Confederate-hyphen-American folks used to refer to themselves as 'rebels'. How can they be considered rebellious when all they wanted was to preserve, defend, & expand on their so-called right to own people as property? Wannabe rebels is more suitable to describe.
How is it rebellious to want to preserve their 'status quo' lifestyle? They were 'preservationists' as opposed to 'rebels'.
(Stating the obvious) the Slave Rebellions were about the rebels, the true revolutionaries.
The funny thing about this post is the reconstruction of the South starting in 1865. Many former Slaves went right back to those Plantation they worked as slaves. ...
Cui bono?
You are most likely referring to the 'forced apprenticeships':
Quote:
Later, as a free black population grew in antebellum North Carolina, apprenticeship “law and practice increasingly became defined by race” (ibid.). Apprenticeship codes were modified to threaten any free blacks not employed “in some honest, industrious occupation”. ...
Labor of Innocents: Forced Apprenticeship in North Carolina, 1715–1919
It's a phenomenon called Dunning-Kruger. People with the least education and knowledge about a subject paradoxically are the most arrogant and blindly certain they're right and the rest of the universe is wrong. Educated people have more intellectual humility, and are more willing to change their minds when confronted by contrary evidence.
The problem with such a conclusion is the CW was a much more complex subject. It was not wholly based on Slavery, which is and was a big issue. But the clashing of ideas and how states going forward solve differences.
I shutter to think if there was anther CW how many people would perish. It would be far more than 620K Americans.
Keeping remembrance of Key figures that formed our history and the impact of these players should not be forgotten.
Lee, etc. were not heroes who've succumbed to evolving sensibilities. They were traitors back then as well.
Hundreds of thousands died or were maimed. Who knows how far it set the nation back?
Long past time to quit celebrating and honoring these traitors.
But the term "traitor" is in the eye of the beholder, is it not?
Lets face it, our national heroes were called traitors by the British. It was not our country, it was their country.
Thus our beloved Washington is not only a traitor, but also a terrorist.
Modern day liberal thinking along with PC has created this myth that Lee and others were traitors. Most of them went to the same schools/colleges and considered themselves Americans. It was only with the election of a Republican who intended on changing their way of life did the south break away.
But to me, that is kind of the point. Remember Lee was not just some southerner, he served our country with distinction during the Mexican-American War.
PC liberals want to sum up people like Lee as pro-slavery, thus they were evil. They try to use the same rubbish to besmirch the likes of Jefferson and others.
If XYZ people today fight for what is considered a worthy cause in 2017, should they have their efforts erased because people 100 years from now use their modern thinking to judge people of our day?
But the term "traitor" is in the eye of the beholder, is it not?
Lets face it, our national heroes were called traitors by the British. It was not our country, it was their country.
Thus our beloved Washington is not only a traitor, but also a terrorist.
Modern day liberal thinking along with PC has created this myth that Lee and others were traitors. Most of them went to the same schools/colleges and considered themselves Americans. It was only with the election of a Republican who intended on changing their way of life did the south break away.
But to me, that is kind of the point. Remember Lee was not just some southerner, he served our country with distinction during the Mexican-American War.
PC liberals want to sum up people like Lee as pro-slavery, thus they were evil. They try to use the same rubbish to besmirch the likes of Jefferson and others.
If XYZ people today fight for what is considered a worthy cause in 2017, should they have their efforts erased because people 100 years from now use their modern thinking to judge people of our day?
But the term "traitor" is in the eye of the beholder, is it not?
Lets face it, our national heroes were called traitors by the British. It was not our country, it was their country.
Thus our beloved Washington is not only a traitor, but also a terrorist.
Modern day liberal thinking along with PC has created this myth that Lee and others were traitors. Most of them went to the same schools/colleges and considered themselves Americans. It was only with the election of a Republican who intended on changing their way of life did the south break away.
But to me, that is kind of the point. Remember Lee was not just some southerner, he served our country with distinction during the Mexican-American War.
PC liberals want to sum up people like Lee as pro-slavery, thus they were evil. They try to use the same rubbish to besmirch the likes of Jefferson and others.
If XYZ people today fight for what is considered a worthy cause in 2017, should they have their efforts erased because people 100 years from now use their modern thinking to judge people of our day?
`
If the South had won the war they could consider people like Lee heroes. Since they lost, Lee is a traitor. Fortunately he wasn't a very good general. Simple enough for you?
The Founding Fathers did not revolt against a representative government for the purpose of preserving and expanding slavery. And many of them worked to help limit slavery. Plus, not all of them were even slaveowners.
The "way of life" of the South which they rebels fought for was centered around slavery.
And, as someone else pointed out, chattel slavery was widely considered morally bankrupt by the mid-nineteenth century. The North had eliminated slavery within their borders.
And it matters little what Lee did before the American Civil War, he rebelled against a representative government for the purpose of preserving and expanding slavery.
Thank you. I have been trying to get this across forever. Few people will lesson. Some people are such diehards for the Confederate cause that they will either gaslight other people, downplay certain things, or try to make excuses. Anything to prevent saying "the South was wrong".
The Founding Fathers did not revolt against a representative government for the purpose of preserving and expanding slavery. And many of them worked to help limit slavery. Plus, not all of them were even slaveowners.
The "way of life" of the South which they rebels fought for was centered around slavery.
And, as someone else pointed out, chattel slavery was widely considered morally bankrupt by the mid-nineteenth century. The North had eliminated slavery within their borders.
And it matters little what Lee did before the American Civil War, he rebelled against a representative government for the purpose of preserving and expanding slavery.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DCforever
If the South had won the war they could consider people like Lee heroes. Since they lost, Lee is a traitor. Fortunately he wasn't a very good general. Simple enough for you?
Many take an anti-Lee perspective because of their liberal PC activism gene (if you will), which makes them think they understand history.
Most of the modern day liberals know more about what perfume a Kim Kardasian (sp) wears than any real sense of American history.
Lee, just like his opposing generals was an American citizen, and chose to fight for his state and own moral beliefs. I am not condoning what he did, just staing fact based on my understanding of his belief system.
I would not argue he could be considered a traitor, but the leftist PC crowd would like to demonize him without having a full understanding of who he really was. Yet they'd defend to the death the virtues of Obama, Hillary, and other liberals compared with Lee, just because of partisan politics. In reality, those like Lee could envision America outside of themselves, and would have probably had a better sense of American values (sans the slavery issue) than what the socialist/communist elements like liberals of today believe.
`
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.
