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.
Whatever personal reasons that soldier fought for, it isn't as crucial as THE BOTTOM LINE. The bottom line is, the Confederate cause, as a whole, was about keeping slavery. The Articles of Secession, the Confederate Constitution, those documents point to it. The Confederate cause, what the Confederacy was about, it was wrong, period.
Sad fact is almost everyone supports the powers-that-be wherever they happen to live when war is declared. Right or wrong, whether it makes sense or not, it is an accident of birth for the vast majority. If the place where they are born or live goes to war, they support it without thought.
They all did. History has been revised by the Marxists.
MOST of the soldiers who fought for the Confederacy did not own slaves and did not care about that. In those times, there was greater allegiance to one's state than the federal government. It is only natural and expected that soldiers fought for their state.
Fact is that Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas did not secede until Lincoln called for troops to invade the first 7 states that seceded.
Whatever personal reasons that soldier fought for, it isn't as crucial as THE BOTTOM LINE. The bottom line is, the Confederate cause, as a whole, was about keeping slavery. The Articles of Secession, the Confederate Constitution, those documents point to it. The Confederate cause, what the Confederacy was about, it was wrong, period.
Slavery was not the sole main cause of the Civil War. The Civil War started for various reasons such as the Mexican American war, states rights, economic grievances, taxation, the election of Abraham Lincoln not being on the Southern Ballet, and to preserve the Union. Both the North and the South had their reasons for the Civil War.
Slaves were very expensive. Most families could not afford a slave.
A healthy male slave was sold for $40,000 in today's money.
So, a car. We know from the 1860s census that about one in three households in the Confederate states would have at least one slave. Roughly matches car ownership in the 1950s. That is to say nothing of the thriving rental market for slaves.
The idea that young men fighting for the Confederacy would somehow have grown up shielded from personal experience with the master/slave relationship does not hold water.
He and soldiers fighting with him deserve respect.
You misspelled "pity". Being manipulated into going to war for a nation whose cornerstone was subjugation of an entire race of people - pity is the word.
Quote:
I doubt any soldiers fighting for the south owned slaves.
Why would you doubt that? We know plenty of officers did. As for the rank and file, we also know that about 1/3rd of households had slaves. The young men may not have owned slaves - or much of anything, not being at an age where they'd be heads of households - but a whole lot of them had still been able to order slaves about from a young age.
It might also be mentioned that during time he was part of the CSA, and therefore not an American, he spent his duty hours killing or trying to kill American soldiers.
We can honor soldiers who were former enemies without honoring their cause. In my mind the cause has become very clear, and it was slavery.
In 1860, the wealthiest of the slave counties where those along the Mississippi River. All of those counties voted for John Bell, a candidate who opposed secession and opposed the expansion of slavery. The wealthy plantation owners evidently knew full well what war meant and it was not going to end well.
FWIW, a great many of the wealthy slave owners in Natchez were not native Southerners at all; their roots went back to Philadelphia and other places.
Natchez was the 2nd wealthiest city in America, after New York.
Isn't Natchez where the owner of NYT's ancestors were from? I agree, we can honor soldiers without honoring their cause. The confederate cause isn't one that should be honored, they ultimately were traitors to the country and fought to keep slavery alive and expanding. It should be noted that there were quite a few areas in the south that didn't believe in secession, but were overruled by their state's decision. I live in one of those counties.
Yes...definitely. Shouldn’t have to renounce something you never agreed to in the first place. To be consistent, you have to treat every person like their own state and let them actually decide which group(s) they subscribe to, if any. That’s how it works anywhere outside of government.
But if I wear my shiny costume and stamp my papers with an official seal it doesn't work like that any longer.
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
11,974 posts, read 25,492,699 times
Reputation: 12187
" God forbid there will ever be any more wars. And those that escaped with their life if they draw a little pension some people will try "breaking up the government". Who saved this government for them to enjoy?Those that went out and stood the camp life and those that was killed. I dont think that any living will get paid for what they went through with laying out in snow, rain, cold freezing to the ground, riding in the dust for 3 or 4 days and nights."
My 3rd great uncle James Madison Chilton, a Union veteran referring to how Confederates expected to get a pension for war service from the govt they tried to destroy.
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.