Must listen..Confederate soldier interview from 1947 (enemy, weapon, racism, Missouri)
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 the South's government was likely fighting for slavery (among other State's rights), but what about the individual soldier? Wan't Robert E Lee quoted as not supporting slavery? Others as well? Is it possible that in their cases maybe they were not fighting for slavery but State's rights? Maybe it was more soldier dependent. If a statue figure was a known pro-slavery and racist then I have no problem with their coming down. However, removing any and every statue from that time period is not right either. Each case should be looked at for its own merit.
"The war between the United States and the Confederate States began on April 12, 1861 at Fort Sumter, Charleston, South Carolina. The immediate cause was Constitutional principle: the U.S. government refused to recognize the southern states’ right to secede from the Union,"
It matters NOT why they wanted to secede.
Where in the Constitution does it state that once you join the union, you CANNOT withdraw?
Every organization, group, club, etc. in America ALLOWS that you can LEAVE if you wish.
If you FREELY join, you should be allowed to WITHDRAW if you wish.
I know from doing genealogy that the vast majority didn't have slaves. History is always full of grey areas. From reading diaries and letters you can see fairly quickly neither side really wanted to be there. Forget the flowery propaganda published during that time, they ALL just wanted to go home. But that was then, this is now. So, lets burn everything down. Nobody cares about this stuff unless they are history buffs, all those people are dead.
" So, lets burn everything down. Nobody cares about this stuff unless they are history buffs, all those people are dead." That has to include every single thing about our COMPLETE history since we TOOK the land away from the Indians. We slaughtered men women and children to take it, which is much WORSE then slavery.
We fought the British to free ourselves from their control, which they did NOT want us to do. Is that NOT the same thing the South did?
We celebrate OUR own fight for independence from Britain but, condemn the South for wanting to do the same thing.
Our OWN past is much worse then the South wanting to secede for whatever reason.
Initially, it wasn't a war to end slavery for the North. However, it was about slavery for the South. It was always about slavery. Yes. the South was fighting for states rights. However, the states' rights issue was over one subject: Slavery.
"However, the states' rights issue was over one subject: Slavery" Not JUST 1 thing. Slavery yes, but also tariffs and states rights which is a very big part of the Constitution and the South wanting to secede.
The interesting (or, rather, depressing) thing about the "States' Rights" argument is that the slave states (it's what they called themselves) had no issue whatsoever with federalism as long as they held the upper hand. The 1850 Fugitive Slave Act - pushed through on the insistence of the slave states - made it perfectly clear that they were fine with using the cudgel of federal authority to override the rights of other states.
It wasn't until they realized that they were about to be in the minority that they suddenly decided that they'd been fierce defenders of States' Rights all along.
"However, the states' rights issue was over one subject: Slavery" Not JUST 1 thing. Slavery yes, but also tariffs and states rights which is a very big part of the Constitution and the South wanting to secede.
Read the freakin' declarations of secession. Or the Cornerstone speech.
Or look at the very modest changes they made to their constitution. For those interested: They went all out to lock down slavery as protected no matter what, but they somehow forgot to address the entire states' rights thing. Weird, innit?
States' rights was to the Civil War what Freedom and Democracy were to the Iraq War.
It was the states' rights to keep slavery. At the end of the day, slavery was at the heart of it. That soldier might have personally seen it as a battle for the south. However, for someone who is the descendant of slaves, it doesn't mean much to me.
Read the freakin' declarations of secession. Or the Cornerstone speech.
Or look at the very modest changes they made to their constitution. For those interested: They went all out to lock down slavery as protected no matter what, but they somehow forgot to address the entire states' rights thing. Weird, innit?
I read it all the time. And I've posted passages of it on city-data. I get that for the individual who we're speaking of, slavery was not his reason for fighting. However, this is the fact. The Confederate cause, was about keeping slavery. The states' rights argument was about slavery. The Confederacy feared the abolition of slavery. This is why I can't respect the Confederacy, or Confederate generals such as Robert E. Lee or P.T. Beauregard.
Essentially it was the same class of wealthy plantation owners that were British Loyalists during the revolutionary era that fomented the secession. Anti-American from the start.
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.
Nobody cares about this stuff unless they are history buffs, all those people are dead.
