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.
Thank you. There are other people more deserving of accolades. John Bell Hood turned his back on the country so that he could fight for the enemy combatant. He's a traitor based on his deeds. And he did it for the Confederate cause, which was about making sure slavery would be preserved. Based on what the Confederate cause is about, based on what the definition of a traitor is, why should Bell, or Lee get anything named after them, or any statues in their honor? I notice this is a question few people can properly answer.
It wasn't until 1864 that slavery was outlawed. When the war started slavery was intact and would've remained so if the war hadn't occurred. Lincoln didn't fight the South to end slavery, he did it to preserve the Union.
It wasn't until 1864 that slavery was outlawed. When the war started slavery was intact and would've remained so if the war hadn't occurred. Lincoln didn't fight the South to end slavery, he did it to preserve the Union.
Wrong. Slavery was abolished towards the end of 1865. The 13th Amendment was passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865.
When the Civil War started, slavery was indeed intact. This does not negate what was said in the Articles of Secession. Slavery is mentioned often. Those who wrote it said they were afraid that Lincoln would abolish slavery, and therefore, they wanted to secede.
I know Lincoln fought to preserve the Union and not to free the slaves. This still does not change the fact that it was a war to KEEP slavery for the South. This is about what the CONFEDERATE CAUSE is about, not the Union's goal.
Wrong. Slavery was abolished towards the end of 1865. The 13th Amendment was passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865.
When the Civil War started, slavery was indeed intact. This does not negate what was said in the Articles of Secession. Slavery is mentioned often. Those who wrote it said they were afraid that Lincoln would abolish slavery, and therefore, they wanted to secede.
I know Lincoln fought to preserve the Union and not to free the slaves. This still does not change the fact that it was a war to KEEP slavery for the South. This is about what the CONFEDERATE CAUSE is about, not the Union's goal.
Abolition was a far bigger movement than Lincoln's own intentions. Northerners opposed slavery in the growing number of western states because slavery was the economic equivalent of "Chinese slave labor." Slavery reduced the value of a white man's labor and made competition impossible.
With more and more of the new states being non-slave, the slave states would lose their Congressional power, and probably never have another slave-state president. They saw the handwriting on the wall.
Abolition was a far bigger movement than Lincoln's own intentions. Northerners opposed slavery in the growing number of western states because slavery was the economic equivalent of "Chinese slave labor." Slavery reduced the value of a white man's labor and made competition impossible.
With more and more of the new states being non-slave, the slave states would lose their Congressional power, and probably never have another slave-state president. They saw the handwriting on the wall.
Historically accurate.
Hopefully, the neo-Confederates will begin to see the historically accurate handwriting after generation after generation of scribbling their pathetic graffiti of 'Lost Cause' mythologies & propaganda on the wall.
Well, I don't agree. I base this on what the Confederate cause was about. The Confederate cause was about making sure slavery was preserved. Confederates were willing to war against America to keep slavery. The Confederates started it. The Confederate generals do not deserve to be honored in such a way. To me, this was only done because there was alot of anger in the South due to lose, and slavery ending. Instead of coddling the former Confederate states, this message should have been sent: THE WAR IS OVER. YOU LOST, GET OVER IT OR ELSE.
Abolition was a far bigger movement than Lincoln's own intentions. Northerners opposed slavery in the growing number of western states because slavery was the economic equivalent of "Chinese slave labor." Slavery reduced the value of a white man's labor and made competition impossible.
With more and more of the new states being non-slave, the slave states would lose their Congressional power, and probably never have another slave-state president. They saw the handwriting on the wall.
It sure was. Abolition was big in the North. And it's rather ironic that after slavery was abolition, southern plantation owners tried to introduce Chinese labor in the cotton fields. I'll get to that later.
Slavery was looked at outside of the South as impeding on labor for Whites. Kind of ironic considering Whites in the South were far poorer than in the North. Slavery harmed alot of people, but in different ways. It affected Black people first and foremost. Black people weren't even considered human and were denied any kind of humanity. Poor Whites in the South were affected because slavery put many poor Whites out of work. It stalled progress. Poor Whites were certainly free, but struggling. They were the collateral damage.
That seemingly easy-going lifestyle that characterizes the Deep South, that lifestyle was built on slavery. It brought on all kinds of deprivation. It was more than just an economic life. It was a social life.
The South certainly feared losing power. They feared the abolition of slavery. And that fear went beyond just economic issues. It went to social implications. There were those who felt that if slaves were freed, they would ravage the South. There was fear at the idea of Black people being able to do anything White people could do. The antebellum South way of life involved a plantation way of life. It involved Blacks being at the bottom as slaves. It was built on slave labor. Many in the South feared that way of life ending.
Slavery was looked at outside of the South as impeding on labor for Whites. Kind of ironic considering Whites in the South were far poorer than in the North. Slavery harmed alot of people, but in different ways. It affected Black people first and foremost. Black people weren't even considered human and were denied any kind of humanity. Poor Whites in the South were affected because slavery put many poor Whites out of work. It stalled progress. Poor Whites were certainly free, but struggling. They were the collateral damage.
One of the great mysteries of social science is the willingness of whites in the South to fight and die for a system that kept them poor. That attitude continued through the 20th century in their resistance of unionization, and it continues to this day. They fight to keep the rich wealthy and themselves poor.
Puzzling.
Quote:
That seemingly easy-going lifestyle that characterizes the Deep South, that lifestyle was built on slavery. It brought on all kinds of deprivation. It was more than just an economic life. It was a social life.
The South certainly feared losing power. They feared the abolition of slavery. And that fear went beyond just economic issues. It went to social implications. There were those who felt that if slaves were freed, they would ravage the South. There was fear at the idea of Black people being able to do anything White people could do. The antebellum South way of life involved a plantation way of life. It involved Blacks being at the bottom as slaves. It was built on slave labor. Many in the South feared that way of life ending.
I've read that the Southern elite were actually attempting to re-create the classical ancient Greek period, of which slavery and layered social classes were necessary parts. That's supposedly the explanation of all the faux-Greek plantation manor architecture, too.
It sure was. Abolition was big in the North. And it's rather ironic that after slavery was abolition, southern plantation owners tried to introduce Chinese labor in the cotton fields. I'll get to that later.
Slavery was looked at outside of the South as impeding on labor for Whites. Kind of ironic considering Whites in the South were far poorer than in the North. Slavery harmed alot of people, but in different ways. It affected Black people first and foremost. Black people weren't even considered human and were denied any kind of humanity. Poor Whites in the South were affected because slavery put many poor Whites out of work. It stalled progress. Poor Whites were certainly free, but struggling. They were the collateral damage.
That seemingly easy-going lifestyle that characterizes the Deep South, that lifestyle was built on slavery. It brought on all kinds of deprivation. It was more than just an economic life. It was a social life.
The South certainly feared losing power. They feared the abolition of slavery. And that fear went beyond just economic issues. It went to social implications. There were those who felt that if slaves were freed, they would ravage the South. There was fear at the idea of Black people being able to do anything White people could do. The antebellum South way of life involved a plantation way of life. It involved Blacks being at the bottom as slaves. It was built on slave labor. Many in the South feared that way of life ending.
Historically accurate.
The evidence provided by the historical record reveals the Slaver States were railing against the Free States, its people, abolitionists, & eventually Lincoln.
A review of the Congressional Record of the 36th Congress reveals more than 300 proposals in regard to negotiations, some of these are Amendments to the United States Constitution, all are designed to avert military conflict. (President Buchanon was the 1st to propose.)
'US Constitution & Secession' is a recent book by Dwight Pitcaithley. His book focuses on analyzing the many amendments proposed during this time frame, all designed to avert military conflict.
Basically he breaks down 350 different topics in the proposed 67 amendments. Slavery expanded in the territories is the largest topic cited. The Slaver State position was that Government should protect slavery because slaves are property. 90% of the amendments proposed were about protecting slavery. 2 out of the 350 discussed tariffs. 5 were logical exit strategies for secession. One described having 4 Presidents, 1 each for North, South, East & West.
Other significant issues discussed:
Return of fugitives slaves
Protecting slavery in the District of Columbia
Slaves were taken from owners when they went to certain states (Virginia sues NY over this)
Dred Scott decision
Secession issues & reorganizing federal government
Jefferson Davis proposed nationalizing slavery (slaves as protected property)
The Corwin amendment was approved by Senate (& previously approved by the House); on Inauguration Day it was ratified by 5 states.
The Slave States seceded to protect slavery & the notion of white supremacy.
Southern states were railing against the Northern states, its people, abolitionists, & eventually Lincoln.
In his analysis of the proposed Amendments: the Slaver States were willing to trade State authority to protect slavery for Federal authority to protect slavery. (In other words, it was about property rights & NOT States' rights)
Even after the war, attempts were made to appease the Slaver States, they would have none of it. They continued to rail against the Free United States, its people, & President Lincoln. Resentful about losing their 'peculiar institutions', they set out to preserve, protect, & defend their 'way of life' based on white supremacy through the enactment of local & state laws.
The Slaver States resisted assimilation into the Free United States for over a century.
One of the great mysteries of social science is the willingness of whites in the South to fight and die for a system that kept them poor. That attitude continued through the 20th century in their resistance of unionization, and it continues to this day. They fight to keep the rich wealthy and themselves poor.
Puzzling.
It's not all that puzzling to me anymore. One of the things slavery created was a class to look down on. Owning slaves was a status symbol in the South, as well as part of the economy. You could be very poor, but if there were slaves, that gave an even lower class to look down on. It was like "well, at least I'm not a Black slave".
I watched a documentary about Barbados. White indentured servants were sent there to work the sugar cane plantations, as well as Black slaves. When the indentured servants were free from their contracts, many of the lived in poverty. An Englishman went to Barbados, and he commented on how the poor Whites viewed themselves on the same level as gentlemen.
For me, it's not as hard to as it seems to understand why, when you look at how things operated. In a class-based, plantation-based society like the South, there were those who could not afford slaves, but might have hoped to own some. And then there were those who had no stake in slavery, but viewed the federal government as more dangerous to them than the elites who were directly hurting them.
I would also add that there is a kind of paternalism that goes on in the South. There is a mentality of "keep the big guys happy so they'll throw you some money too". There is sort of a fear of asking for better. I also think about this. In a region where cheap labor is always abundant, I think many people were reluctant to unionize or fight the big guys. Birmingham is basically Pittsburgh of the South. All the stars aligned for Birmingham to have a productive steel industry. Iron, limestone, and coal literally within reaching distance of each other. Guess what Alabama had after slavery ended: Convict-leasing. Basically hired prison labor. For a time, this was how coal was mined in Alabama. Since you couldn't legally enslave Black people, servitude as part of a punishment was used.
Quote:
I've read that the Southern elite were actually attempting to re-create the classical ancient Greek period, of which slavery and layered social classes were necessary parts. That's supposedly the explanation of all the faux-Greek plantation manor architecture, too.
Well, that just ruined my day. One of the things I find endearing about Nashville it is Greek-Revival architecture. Well, whether or not that actually was the case, one thing is undeniable. The Deep South fancied itself as an aristocratic society, and slavery was how it was built. It viewed slavery as necessary. It viewed having an enslaved class as necessary in order to have the "class that leads progress".
Based on the number of poor Whites in the South, based on the high illiteracy rate in the South, and lagging behind the rest of America in education at the time, whatever progress took place, wasn't much.
The evidence provided by the historical record reveals the Slaver States were railing against the Free States, its people, abolitionists, & eventually Lincoln.
A review of the Congressional Record of the 36th Congress reveals more than 300 proposals in regard to negotiations, some of these are Amendments to the United States Constitution, all are designed to avert military conflict. (President Buchanon was the 1st to propose.)
'US Constitution & Secession' is a recent book by Dwight Pitcaithley. His book focuses on analyzing the many amendments proposed during this time frame, all designed to avert military conflict.
Basically he breaks down 350 different topics in the proposed 67 amendments. Slavery expanded in the territories is the largest topic cited. The Slaver State position was that Government should protect slavery because slaves are property. 90% of the amendments proposed were about protecting slavery. 2 out of the 350 discussed tariffs. 5 were logical exit strategies for secession. One described having 4 Presidents, 1 each for North, South, East & West.
Other significant issues discussed:
Return of fugitives slaves
Protecting slavery in the District of Columbia
Slaves were taken from owners when they went to certain states (Virginia sues NY over this)
Dred Scott decision
Secession issues & reorganizing federal government
Jefferson Davis proposed nationalizing slavery (slaves as protected property)
The Corwin amendment was approved by Senate (& previously approved by the House); on Inauguration Day it was ratified by 5 states.
The Slave States seceded to protect slavery & the notion of white supremacy.
Southern states were railing against the Northern states, its people, abolitionists, & eventually Lincoln.
In his analysis of the proposed Amendments: the Slaver States were willing to trade State authority to protect slavery for Federal authority to protect slavery. (In other words, it was about property rights & NOT States' rights)
Even after the war, attempts were made to appease the Slaver States, they would have none of it. They continued to rail against the Free United States, its people, & President Lincoln. Resentful about losing their 'peculiar institutions', they set out to preserve, protect, & defend their 'way of life' based on white supremacy through the enactment of local & state laws.
The Slaver States resisted assimilation into the Free United States for over a century.
Anyone who claims that "states' rights" was the big issue, "states' rights" revolved around one thing: Slavery. The southern states say the non-southern states as hostile to the institution of slavery. The southern states were allowed to have slavery, but they wanted the federal government to be pro-slavery. They weren't looking for federal indifference, they wanted a pro-slavery federal government.
They only cared about states' rights when it suited them. If they cared so much about states' rights, we wouldn't have a Fugitive Slave Act. The Missouri Compromise wouldn't be necessary. Bleeding Kansas wouldn't have happened.
Anyone who thinks this was all about "states rights" can look at the Confederate Constitution. It was indeed about property rights. The right to treat human beings like property. And the South lost the war. Truth be told, the war really should have ended with a war tribunal and the likes of Lee, Hood, and Davis punished for being traitors.
The fact that Confederate generals were let off easy is an example of coddling the former Confederate states. Here is another strange fact. Vicksburg, MS didn't celebrate the 4th of July until the mid 1940s. Vicksburg had Carnival of the Confederacy.
Erecting those Confederate statues and Jim Crow went hand in hand.
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.
