- Joined
- Aug 27, 2005
- Messages
- 43,602
- Reaction score
- 26,256
- Location
- Houston, TX
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Actually, those who know little about the Civil War, think that the war was all about slavery.
Care to show us any primary source docs that point to slavery being the reason that southern soldiers fought in the Confederate Army? I'm betting, no.
Actually, I already posted a link to the South Carolina Articles of Secession. In another thread, I posted links to the Georga, Mississippi, and Texas Articles of Secession. Yes, slavery was the reason for secession, and Southern soldiers fought for the Confederate States, which strongly supported slavery so much that they gave it as their main reason for seceeding. So yes, if soldiers fought for the Confederacy, they were fighting for slavery. That's a no-brainer.
In the mind of a narrow-minded person, that's good enough.
To say that the average Confederate soldier went to war to preserve slavery is as dumbassed-a-logic that American soldiers went to war in the middle east for oil. The folks who think that the Civil War was fought strictly over slavery are in the same group that think that Obama isn't an American citizen and think that Bush was behind 9/11. They're no different than the trufers and the birfers; taking half-assed information and turning it into unquestionable fact.
The Articles of Secession are not half-assed information. They were written by the very people who seceded. So, yes, they are unquestionable fact. You can't change history, because the history is already there, in black and white, written in their own hand, for everybody to see. They condemned themselves in the eyes of history by what they themselves wrote.
The articles of seccesion don't speak for, even a fraction, of the people who took up arms for the Confederacy. Just like most U.S. soldiers didn't believe we were fighting for oil in Desert Storm and even fewer U.S. soldiers didn't believe that Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks.
You're nothing but another version of a trufer, taking part of the picture and turning it into the big picture; nevermind that the Longstreet, in 1863, contemplated that the slaves should have been freed, then Fort Sumter fired upon, or that in 1864 Pat Cleburne--a division commander in the Army of Tennessee--and 13 of his officers signed a letter to Jeff Davis, pushing for slaves to be offered freedom, in exchange for military service, or that the Confederate Army was the first American army to segregate--100 years before the United States army did so.
Believe what you want, brother; but it just ain't so.
BTW, didn't you already post this thread?????? Why are we reliving this??
Nope, it was a different topic. And how can I be a truther when the documents are there for all to see, in black and white, written by the very people who seceeded? It was about slavery, no matter what other alternate explantion you want to shovel at the rest of us.
The articles of seccesion don't speak for, even a fraction, of the people who took up arms for the Confederacy. Just like most U.S. soldiers didn't believe we were fighting for oil in Desert Storm and even fewer U.S. soldiers didn't believe that Saddam was involved with the 9/11 attacks.
You're nothing but another version of a trufer, taking part of the picture and turning it into the big picture; nevermind that the Longstreet, in 1863, contemplated that the slaves should have been freed, then Fort Sumter fired upon, or that in 1864 Pat Cleburne--a division commander in the Army of Tennessee--and 13 of his officers signed a letter to Jeff Davis, pushing for slaves to be offered freedom, in exchange for military service, or that the Confederate Army was the first American army to segregate--100 years before the United States army did so.
Believe what you want, brother; but it just ain't so.
BTW, didn't you already post this thread?????? Why are we reliving this??
You're conflating different issues.
I said most of the articles secession cited slavery, and indeed, they did; it was forefront issue FOR secession.
I don't give a rat's ass what was in the mind of an ordinary soldier; he didn't make the decisions which put him in the fight.
I also didn't say a thing about what the Civil War was fought over; that was about preservation of the Union. That's an entirely different topic from why the southern states seceded.
And they seceded to preserve slavery. They said so themselves.
Yeah, there's docs to see that Obama isn't an American citizen and Bush orchestrated 9/11. I bet you believe that Bush had explosive paint applied to the walls of the WTC prior to the attacks, too, huh? You prolly have Obama's real birth certificate at your crib and it has, "Kenya", cearly stamped on it.
Your argument supports every single bull**** argument, as to why American soldiers have gone to war for the past 235 years. If you believe this argument, then you believe all of those.
You and Dan are victims of political correctness vice historical fact. What's next? You're going to argue that American troops supported the drug trade in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War?
You're not looking at the big picture, brother.
This is vapid.
The governments under which these soldiers served said they were separating themselves from the Union to preserve slavery. They, the governments, said so.
The US government said nothing about oil in Iraq, nothing about the drug trade in Vietnam, nothing, zip, nada. It wasn't their mission. Never was.
But preserving slavery was cited as a reason for separating from the Union. Officially, unquestionably, in writing. To DENY it is bull****.
Actually, those who know little about the Civil War, think that the war was all about slavery.
Care to show us any primary source docs that point to slavery being the reason that southern soldiers fought in the Confederate Army? I'm betting, no.
I disagree. The cotton gin had already been invented. The South no longer needed slavery, but they still wanted it. And even if they still needed it, that does not excuse their moral reprehensibility, nor should secession be something to celebrate.
true, the civil war was more about the south getting the shaft, providing the great crop of prosperity, cotton, and not reaping the benefits of construction that the North was seeing. railroads, factories, etc.
And then suddenly being told you werent going to get any more money for your crop, less even, but now you may have to pay your labor force, being the straw that broke the camels back.
I would hope that slavery would have ended on its own due to the inhumanity of it alone. Which was already taking place, many plantation owners were treating their slaves very well, and it was looked upon as employment. I mean what were most slaves going to do otherwise. they were brought here uneducated, had families to feed, needed housing.
there were thousands of stories of slaves being part of the family...And abuse was no more rampant on a plantation than it was on many work crews throughout the new industrialization of America elsewhere.
The civil war was more a protest to states not having a fair seat at the table.
While, true, slavery was a key component of the Civil War, it was hardly the only one.
Name one great nation in world history that wasn't built on the backs of slavery. And I use "great" as meaning successful and powerful, not morally superior. A nation could not begin without it because there was no economy to build from. Free labor is the only dependable currency a young country could build itself upon.
Now, the ugly part of this truth is how American whites had convinced themselves that African "savages" were inferior, both intellectually and morally, thereby making the practice "acceptable" in many of their minds. This has repeated itself throughout history. The Romans did it. The Germans saw the Jews this way. Virtually every nation in world history had a targetted race or ethnicity. Even today, many Muslims see infidels in this same manner without apology. Look at Darfur.
It is a mistake to take today's views and try and supplant them into 1850, just a few decades after America was born and much was uncertain. Much of the South thought itself destined to break away from that union in the very early goings. (Iraq is in that condition right now; it takes considerable time.)
There was a vast economic disconnect from the North during those times that had nothing to do with slavery. It was similar to what you might see today between New York City and Omaha. Two completely different worlds. Totally different lifestyles. Different markets and economies entirely. A different set of values and priorities. Except in the years leading up to the Civil War, there wasn't a framework of a nation solidly in place as today.
That divide is still there. America is a conglomerate of very different people and values, and as natural migration to like-minded people continues to occur, there is a tangible divide that is deepening by the day. Though our nation is much more firmly established, talk of secession is constant and somewhat real. That will continue to deepen.
Of course, Americans are so fat, lazy, and stupid, they think such a thing could never happen again. They don't understand that this is still a very young nation, and every world power before us has eventually divided and crumbled, and we will one day, too, sooner or later.
What are you talking about -- Great Britain has never committed any atrocities on the world stage, and we were (are) the greatest nation of them all!
XD
LOL, other than killing millions while trying to take over the planet.
And what's with those centuries of serfdom, and the Abolition of Slavery Act you passed AFTER you were the most powerful country in Europe?
Picking up on subtlety is not your forté, mon ami.
No, I got it. Just pointed out the ironies for those that might not.
Hey, despite all England's sins, I love our fair brethren across the pond. You did a lot more good than bad. Don't know where the planet would be today without you.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?