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.
Slavery was very definitely the root cause of the war.
The documents of the confederacy, and the writings of the major players in Confederate government are very clear about that. We might as well accept it, the right to own people was at the very heart of the conflict.
Nevertheless, Lincoln would have accepted slavery in the union (regardless of how much he abhorred the practice) if it was necessary to keep the Federal union intact.
The southern states wanted 'out' in order to preserve their 'way of life'. In other words, to escape the possibility of some future United States Congress preparing to abolish the 'institution' of slavery. They saw that the tide was against them, and they wanted to escape the inevitable liberation of the slaves.
"Root of the cause", I'll agree with. Main reason why Lincoln invaded, will not agree that it was because of "Slavery". It was much deeper than that and it was much more complicated than that. It had more to do with Power, whether Nationally and/or Globally and as well as Economics. Those two alone were definitely on Lincoln's mind just before he ordered 75,000 Troops to invade Virginia. Plus probably a little Ego to boot.
When I say "common sense" part of that is clearly seen. Once he declared "All men are created Equal" the Union was still pretty unfair to the former Slaves. When fighting for the Union they would not even get paid the same or treated the same. And look at all the discrimination many years later. Even up to WWII they were not treated equally.
Not many in Germany would run around talking about being Proud of Nazi heritages, if anything, they want to be known for the dignity of what Germany is Today... not the vile it was under Hitler.
Yet, here in America we have people raving about some treasonous historical linage and claiming pride behind a system that was inhumane in every regards and all elements of its composure.
If you pursue praise of the Confederacy, in doing so, you denounce the United States of America, because nothing about the United States of American promotes Confederate Ideals, and thus you are treasonous against the United States of America, and should be subjected to the penalties of such. It is not a matter of Free Speech, when Hate Groups Rise up, it is fact they are making of themselves "A menace" against the Democracy of the United States and the Constitution that Established the Principles of this Nation.
Being "~A MENACE~ AGAINST THE UNITED STATES" in favor of Confederate Ideals and Aspirations [b].[/B !!!!
I live in Charleston - you know, the city that started it all. I can promise you people aren't running around waxing poetic about the Confederacy. All those losers up in VA? Hell. Most of them weren't even from the flipping South. Seems like a lot were from Ohio. They're just a bunch of troglodytes latching onto something like the morons they are. Down here, we do preserve our history - both the good and the bad. I don't have a problem with that.
Besides, these "monuments" went up during the Civil Rights era. Not immediately following the war. Guess why.
That is something I was not aware of. That makes it more offensive because these erections were a form of defiance and intimidation.
That could also have been the motive of some people during the reconstruction era.
The only monument in the town my family (as far as I am aware) is from is a cenotaph, a memorial to the war dead from the county with their names inscribed. It was put up not too long after the war, when there were still people around who remembered them.
For those who try not to understanding....
Let me give it to you in simple terms:
TREASONOUS CONDUCT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - IS:
That which involves all attempts to defeat, by force or menace, the execution of any act of Congress in any of our States, all efforts to break up the Union by menace or force, all those acts are, by our law, treason, whether done by private persons, or armed men.
That is something I was not aware of. That makes it more offensive because these erections were a form of defiance and intimidation.
That could also have been the motive of some people during the reconstruction era.
The only monument in the town my family (as far as I am aware) is from is a cenotaph, a memorial to the war dead from the county with their names inscribed. It was put up not too long after the war, when there were still people around who remembered them.
Because they weren't mostly put up during the Civil Rights era but that's when the Confederate flag became a thing which most states have reversed (e.g. On state flags, etc). Most of the statues were put up round the end of reconstruction - 1880s to turn of the century. Loads of them funded by daughters of confederacy and groups like that. Just to clarify and all.
For those who try not to understanding....
Let me give it to you in simple terms:
TREASONOUS CONDUCT AGAINST THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - IS:
That which involves all attempts to defeat, by force or menace, the execution of any act of Congress in any of our States, all efforts to break up the Union by menace or force, all those acts are, by our law, treason, whether done by private persons, or armed men.
Interesting footnote in history. Our government decided to not label anyone from the former Confederacy as traitors and even gave them veterans benefits (always thought that was a bit shocking). I do think the leaders like Davis and whatnot should have been tried but they decided not to do so.
Because they weren't mostly put up during the Civil Rights era but that's when the Confederate flag became a thing which most states have reversed (e.g. On state flags, etc). Most of the statues were put up round the end of reconstruction - 1880s to turn of the century. Loads of them funded by daughters of confederacy and groups like that. Just to clarify and all.
Correction again. The majority started being erected after the turn of the 20th century with a second wave coming during the Civil Rights era. Both time periods were rife with race issues.
But what about the importance of historical memory? Even that argument may be somewhat spurious, as the SPLC report demonstrates. Many of the treasured monuments that seem to offer a connection to the post-bellum South are actually much later, anachronistic constructions, and they tend to correlate closely with periods of fraught racial relations, as my colleague Yoni Appelbaum has noted. South Carolina didn’t hoist the battle flag in Columbia until 1961—the anniversary of the war’s start, but also the middle of the civil-rights push, and a time when many white Southerners were on the defensive about issues like segregation and voting rights. A timeline of the genesis of the Confederate sites shows two notable spikes. One comes around the turn of the 20[SIZE=3]th[/SIZE] century, just after Plessy v. Ferguson, and just as many Southern states were establishing repressive race laws. The second runs from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s—the peak of the civil-rights movement. In other words, the erection of Confederate monuments has been a way to perform cultural resistance to black equality.
The only confederate statue that should be anywhere is one that shows Lee surrendering in shame. The rest of them belong in a museum (akin to the holocaust museums) to remind us of our shame in ever allowing it and to ensure we never repeat it.
Be proud of our southern heritage but be ashamed of the shameful parts of it.
Correction again. The majority started being erected after the turn of the 20th century with a second wave coming during the Civil Rights era. Both time periods were rife with race issues.
But what about the importance of historical memory? Even that argument may be somewhat spurious, as the SPLC report demonstrates. Many of the treasured monuments that seem to offer a connection to the post-bellum South are actually much later, anachronistic constructions, and they tend to correlate closely with periods of fraught racial relations, as my colleague Yoni Appelbaum has noted. South Carolina didn’t hoist the battle flag in Columbia until 1961—the anniversary of the war’s start, but also the middle of the civil-rights push, and a time when many white Southerners were on the defensive about issues like segregation and voting rights. A timeline of the genesis of the Confederate sites shows two notable spikes. One comes around the turn of the 20[SIZE=3]th[/SIZE] century, just after Plessy v. Ferguson, and just as many Southern states were establishing repressive race laws. The second runs from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s—the peak of the civil-rights movement. In other words, the erection of Confederate monuments has been a way to perform cultural resistance to black equality.
Keep telling yourself it's never been about race or slavery.
Why don't you go ahead and show me where I said the bolded?
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.
