Memo to southerners still fighting the Civil War: it’s over, and they lost. And it wasn’t about ‘state rights’ or any legitimate-sounding horseshit: it was about slavery. The whole war came down to the insistence of a handful of southerners (most of whom shirked military service) that they be allowed to own, breed, sell and murder other human beings.
Most southern soldiers did not own slaves or even profit indirectly from the slave ecenomy, but killed and died to preserve it. I find nothing about that cause to be proud of. Their efforts, brave or craven, were all in the ultimate service of evil.
+1 well said Chris!
+1.
And it wasn’t about ‘state rights’ or any legitimate-sounding horseshit: it was about slavery.
It wasn’t about slavery, it was about which group would enslave which group. Final answer: US federal government enslaves everyone.
Chris, you said it better than I ever could have, well done.
The South. That’s where the Democratic Party founded the KKK, right? Ok, just making sure.
@ wes
i’m pretty sure the KKK was founded by Confederate veterans in Pulaski Tennessee in 1865 during Reconstruction, not too sure of their political affiliations if any, terrorist perhaps?
Not that it means anything by today’s standards, but yes they were affiliated with the Democratic party. The party evolved over time and took a couple of twists and turns over the following 50 years. Look it up as it is an interesting read.
Again….not to imply anything with the current party system. The southern confederates were Democrats.
exactly, an unrelated history fact. Their m/o as always was terrorize and intimidate, not fund raise. Lets not forget sheer level of destruction in the south after the war. This was what inspired their creation. Anger over the continued presence of Union troops across the south after the war and the disruption of their economic way of life.
I’m pretty sure there was a bit more to the Civil War than just slavery. Just off the top of my head, and aside from the flap between abolitionists and anti-abolitionists, there was the issue of heavy tariffs being imposed on textiles imported from the Southern states to the North*; States’ rights were at issue, because it was during these days that the seeds of the unconstitutional activities of our current, overbearing federal government were planted; then there was the issue of the expansion of the US into the Western territories – territories with vast and incredibly rich farmland that the industrialists of the Northern States squandered on industrial expansion, which the South wanted to use as farmland.
Even Wikipedia says there was more than just slavery at issue in the Civil War. Anybody who, like Chris Dumm above, says something incredibly ignorant like, “And it wasn’t about ‘state rights’ or any legitimate-sounding horseshit: it was about slavery” is either too stupid to be commenting on the matter (read: graduate of the public school system) or is being intentionally facetious and has successfully baited me into writing a long-winded comment to refute his craftily-worded satire.
I certainly hope it’s the former, because if it’s the latter, I just spent 10 minutes of my life preaching to the choir.
*This, of course, was back in the days when the United States looked and functioned as it was intended by the founders – a union of sovereign, independent nations with a federal electorate to represent their interests to foreign nations. This, opposite to what we have now – a dictatorial, top-heavy Federal Government that issues mandates and runs roughshod over State laws and rights.
interesting James, did you do any re-enacting last week? You seem very intent on discounting slavery’s influence in the Civil War. The economic issues of this era are often conveniently used to draw attention to the central role of chattel slavery in US society and culture during this time. This is a reality that is difficult for those in the modern era to really comprehend, giving up one’s slave during this time was like asking to give up your car or other valued possession. Regarding the westward expansion, ever hear of “Bleeding Kansas”? The fighting over whether the new states would have slavery or not. These skirmishes were the precursor to open hostilities and is a case study in the politics and culture of that era.
“This, of course, was back in the days when the United States looked and functioned as it was intended by the founders ”
Exactly, The US operated with a enormous population of unarmed disenfranchised slaves, who functioned as a free labor force to abuse at will.
No, by and large, I personally think historical re-enactors to be little more than over sized children playing dress up. It’s all but guaranteed that not a single one of them has the courage to stand up, fight, and die for their beliefs the same way those they re-enact did.
Back to the slavery thing:
I never said slavery wasn’t an issue. I said it was a side issue.
Saying that the Civil War was all about slavery, and that the issue of slavery permeated every other issue at odds is ignorant at best, and revisionist at worst.
The issue the War decided was whether or not the new States would allow slavery? I know it’s a little hard to grasp in these days where the fedgov dictates everything to us from the top down, but back then, if one of the newly admitted States wanted slavery, they would have simply made it so – it wouldn’t have required anyone’s permission, because States were sovereign entities; there would have been no congressional vote, because congress had no constitutional authority to decide such matters.
And if you think economics was a less influential force in the run-up to the war than domestic social policy, you got some more reading to do.
“it wouldn’t have required anyone’s permission, because States were sovereign entities”
Except that they weren’t. There were TONS of Federal compromises to admit states in order to maintain the free/slave balance. In the rare instances where a state was allowed to decide for itself whether it was to be free or slave, activists from both sides packed the state and fought wars of terror against one another to try to tip the balance in their favor (e.g. “Bleeding Kansas”).
Almost the entire Civil War was about slavery. The notion that it was about tariffs, rail systems, pressures of a declining social system, etc all are offered to obscure a simple reality – slavery defined the way of life for the powerful in the American South. They were concerned about tariffs on cotton – which was picked by slaves. They were concerned about rail development – because without it they couldn’t get that cotton to ports. They were concerned about property rights and determinism – because it let them keep and own people.
Exactly.
Please tell me what rights were being infringed upon by the Federal Government other then Slavery? The imposition of a tariff is not an infringement of States rights. It is an enumerated power of the federal government. The southerner’s claims of the right to nullification have no basis in the Constitution. If a federal power is enumerated in the Constitution then the federal government is supreme.
The Southern states succeeded after they lost an election because slavery supporters saw the handwriting on the wall. The economic and demographic growth of the Northern States would eventually lead to the end of slavery and the way of life for the southern aristocracy. They took their bat and ball and tried to go home. The Confederates were just like the Wisconsin “fleebaggers” except on a grander scale. (Funny that they are both Democrats) If succession wasn’t about slavery then why did they wait to leave the Union until after Lincoln’s election and not before? If it wasn’t about slavery why didn’t they free the slaves and then succeed?
James,
Don’t feed the trolls.
People aren’t going to listen, they’ve had decades of federally funded indoctrination. Your few words of truth aren’t going to change anything. You could list the dozens and dozens of primary source references, all of them referencing the wars origins in a battle for states rights and economic issues. You could point out that “slavery” was not even mentioned as an issue by the Federal government until almost 18 months into the war. Heck you could point out that Lincoln not only offered to allow Southern states to rejoin and keep their slaves, but that he offered TWO emancipation proclamations. (The first being not quite as high-minded and moral as the second more famous)
Yes, slaves were an issue James. They were, at that time, considered to be property. And that’s why they cost a fortune. You can bet if the Federal government came up to farmers today and said, “you see that combine you paid a vast sum for? The one your lively-hood depends on? Well…we’ve decided to outlaw that, we are taking it from you, and we offer you nothing in return. Good luck running this place! Oh and, no complaining, we’re the Government, you SERVE US and you do what WE say.”
It’s exactly the same situation.
Only morons and inbred rednecks think slavery is ok. And as far as I’m concerned, only socialists and inbreds think the Federal government stepping in to steal from it’s citizens is acceptable.
I believe that there are worse evils than an over-reaching government, and I believe that slavery is one of them. Rescuing a slave, or a hostage, or a kidnapped teenage prostitute, is not theft. In fact, protecting the weak from the violent predations of the strong and ruthless is precisely why we agree to be governed.
If you think there was any reason other than slavery for the southern states to leave the union you are a fool. South Carolina, the first state to secede states directly in their declaration of secession several times that the reason they are leaving the union is because the North is against slavery, “A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.” and “the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States.” are just two examples from that declaration that show the racism that guided, and in many cases still guides, the south. The Vice president of the Confederacy also gave several speeches where he stated that the North would destroy the southern, “Glorious institution and thus our very economic way of life” was he talking about farming? No probably just slavery. You might have been taught by some fool professor that the civil war was about more than slavery but I assure you it was not, and saying that Wikipedia says the civil war was about anything is ridiculous. I can get on Wikipedia and make it say the Civil war was about a French plot to poison all the drinking water in Mexico. That doesn’t make it true. Do a little research from anywhere that is a respected source of information and I’m certain that you will find your opinion to be false.
The Civil War was fought over state’s rights, with slavery being the only “state’s right” worth fighting a civil war over. Slavery wasn’t a side issue; it was the overarching issue. Many Southerners still live in denial of this fact. When Haley Barbour actually came out and admitted as much recently, a bold step for a Southern politician even to this day, there were fainting spells among the faithful. The Confederacy was founded for one reason: to preserve a great moral monstrosity. There were no higher principles at work.
Wow, this is the second time I’ve agreed with Magoo.
The Civil War was fought over states’ rights, as magoo asserts. One of the “rights” was certainly slavery, which was by some accounts already a dying institution (in fact, the importation of slaves has already been banned and the ban enforced by the Navy). Most Confederate soldiers had never owned a slave — or met a Yankee, for that matter. But a lot of them felt that the states, having former the Union, had the right to withdraw from it. I still don’t know why they were wrong in that last point of view.
Do no misunderstand — I view the Stars and Bars and the Swastika flag as symbols of evil. Sorry, my southern brothers, but that’s the way I feel. As for slavery, no more barbaric system ever existed. But as for the states withdrawing from the Union that they created, that’s a different story. Why did they not have that right? Only under Lincoln did the “consent of the governed” become irrelevant.
To James and Doc: I agree with your understanding of what was really at stake in the War Between the States. Our constitutional Republic died and a consolidated nation-state took its place following the Union victory. That’s not something to celebrate.
The victors who wrote the “official” history books have succeeded in indoctrinating a awful lot of otherwise well-meaning folks.
Thankfully there are a few Yankees who are willing to examine the historical record beyond what the court historians have deemed acceptable. Here’s one:
Tom Woods and Thomas DiLorenzo were two of the authors who helped deprogram me from my years in the Lincoln cult. I highly recommend their books.
IMO, the American Civil War was our last stand against what we now call the NWO.
The constitutional republic that this nation was founded as died after the Civil War… Let’s see… we Southerners got tired of being governed by the North(a far away place to most not unlike England during the Revolutionary War) who held most of the industrial power at the time and did not want to lose it, most of the population at the time was up there and propagandized that we were lower than them(as we still are made out to be below the yanks), Lincoln only agreed to emancipation because it would destabilze the South(look it up), he did not want the North flooded with African refugees because it would take away jobs and he did not give the “Emancipation Proclamation” until a major Union victory. The Proclamation did not require some Union states to free their slaves…
As a sidenote, most white immigrants arrived in colonial America as indentured servants. In the 17th century, nearly two-thirds of English settlers arrived as indentured servants.
I don’t believe in slavery but one needs to read up on the truth about the Civil War(where more Americans died than all the wars since) before they start spouting off about it.
Sorry, but you Confederate sympathizers are spouting revisionist history, screwball division. Why are gun enthusiasts drawn to fringe political theories? Or is it the other way around?
“Magoo says:
April 19, 2011 at 6:45 AM
Why are gun enthusiasts drawn to fringe political theories? Or is it the other way around?”
I’m not. I could care less about any ‘fringe’ anything. Why are anti’s drawn to extreme forms of exaggeration and ‘painting’?
No BLOOD for OIL !!!!!
Sorry, wrong war. It’s ALL ABOUT SLAVERY !!!!!!
There, you have your battlecry.
Some people love to simplify things down to a bumper sticker. Not saying slavery was right (it wasn’t), but the issues around the civil war were a hell of a lot more complex than a bumper sticker. Start accepting that and maybe we can talk about it.
I am with the south to all the yanks the south foght for freedom if you got somthin to say say it it won’t change what happened we got whipped but we put up one hell of a fight
Slavery was the economic basis of the Confederacy and the central issue of the Civil War. From there one can argue how central it was, or what central can be made to mean, but these are semantical exercises.
Read the Cornerstone Speech by CSA Vice President Alexander H. Stevens. Its text constitutes one of the primary founding documents of the Confederacy. As set forth there, the organization and statecraft of the CSA did not differ from the Union’s in any significant way. It was essentially a mirror of the Union with a few minor differences and one large one: It specifically and categorically rejects Jefferson’s assertion in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal. In the Confederacy, people of African descent — slaves — are permanently declared unequal and inferior.
Slavery. It was all about slavery. There were no other factors. In the event other factors are found, slavery is the factor behind the factor.
Also, guns are bad. You people need help.
All guns are bad? Even the pink ones? My wife will be disappointed…
Especially the pink ones.
You do realize that slavery was legal and was codified in the U.S. Constitution, right? Not saying it was right, but legally, it was practiced in the North and South.
If you think the cornerstone speech was racist, you should read some of Lincoln’s comments regarding white supremacy. In an 1858 debate with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, “”I as much as any man want the superior position to belong to the white race.”
Good thing Lincoln wasn’t racist like those southerners, eh?
In his inaugural address Lincoln stated that it was “his duty “to collect the duties and imposts,” but “beyond that there will no be any invasion of any state . . .” That’s a nice way of saying that if secession made it impossible for Washington D.C. to collect tariffs on imports–there WOULD be an invasion.”
Hyper-focusing on slavery misses key factors that ALSO contributed to the war that made centralized, all-powerful federal government a reality. We all lost a lot of freedom in that war. Not just the folks who owned slaves.
I have no doubt Lincoln could be termed a racist by modern standards. How that is relevant here I have no idea. I cited the Cornerstone Speech not to indicate racism in the CSA, but to illustrate its resolve to perpetuate slavery as an institution.
There were no issues of states’ rights among the Confederate states that did not relate directly to slavery. You can’t be for the Confederate cause but against slavery. It’s impossible. Slavery was the Confederate cause.
“Magoo says:
April 20, 2011 at 4:36 AM
“You can’t be for the Confederate cause but against slavery. It’s impossible. Slavery was the Confederate cause.”
Sure you could. You could be for the confederate cause and not be for slavery. Do you think every German soldier in WWII was a Nazi? Don’t you think some of them were there because their brothers believed in that cause? That some some of them were there because their fathers believed in that cause? Why do you seem to think that all Confederates were for slavery? Maybe a son that was lost for a cause that only he believed in led a father to send off his other sons or maybe even himself for personal reasons. I think if you stop black and whitening it you will see that war is far more complicated than you would have us believe.
You are off on your own tangent unrelated to this discussion. I wasn’t referring to the Confederate soldier. He was an absolute pawn in a war that in no way served his interests, his region, or his country.
I am referring to the theory today that the Confederate cause served some greater purpose in the protection of individual or states’ rights. It’s baloney.
thank you that true
Yes! This +10,000,000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
The Confederacy existed only to champion the cause of slavery! It eventually got so bad that slaveholders would send out slaves to get them more slaves! And then slaves would slave the slave slave slavery slave!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111one
I’m always fascinated where reason, logic and truth are usually thrown out on these subjects…. usually by Magoo.
Funny how he has not mentioned that apparently the Union states apparently had more rights than the South. That being the fact that tariffs and other policies pushed by the North oppressed the Southern states… Oh, wait I thought everybody was equal…
I also have a laugh now that apparently quite a few industries are doing ok(even in this economy) in the South and other parts of the US but have pretty much left the North. Let’s see.. Winchester shut down, Marlin moved to North Carolina, there are quite a few Japanese car factories down here now, etc.
The North did not “oppress” the South in the years leading into the war. That’s nonsense. The slave states were a powerful, often dominant bloc in congress well into the late 1850s. Lincoln’s predecessor, democrat James Buchanan, was an open accommodationist on slavery, while his predecessor, democrat Franklin Pierce, was a pro-slavery doughface who endorsed the Kansas-Nebraska Act and later supported the Confederacy. Only as more territories gained statehood and the South began to lose its clout did the slave states make their tragic move toward secession. All earlier noise about secession, North and South, had come to nothing.
It was the militancy of the slave states, in their attempts to enforce slavery throughout the new states, which created the split between the Northern and Southern factions of the Democratic Party, the resulting ascendancy of the Republican Party, and the election of Abraham Lincoln. Know your history. From virtually every angle, slavery is the overarching cause of the Civil War.
I don’t know how industry in the modern South relates to this discussion. It’s a mystery to me. I can only guess you feel defensive about the South. No need, we’re all Americans. As you may have heard, the war is over.
Well, apparently I need to read some more on this issue than I thought. But I still feel states have the right to tell the fed. gov’t to mind it’s own business.
Magoo your insane…. Have you ever bothered to dig deeper than what was tought to you by a completely biased government school system? I doubt it. You probily like to argue for the hell of it.
I own guns and love them. I have a right to own and bear arms so up yours. I hunt to. With my evil guns. Guns don’t kill people people kill people. I can just as easily hop in a car and go mow down 20 people. Are you gonna outlaw forks,cars, rocks,pointy sticks, pillows, power cables,glass,and plastic to? If somebody does decide to outlaw those things could you let me know? I Keep my money guns and freedom you can keep the damn change.
Ment I’ll .stupid auto correct!!! Bet you live in California. Where all those evil semi autos with there 30/100/and 200 round clips are ileagle and they aren’t there any more? I know that this will come as a shock but there still there! It’s this new thing called smuggling! :0
Dear magoo
You seem to live in a fake world surrounded by people like you. The civil war was fought because the government could not handle losing the south. It is stated in the constitution that if states wish to secede they have the right not to be harassed by the federal government. The government once again overstepped their boundaries and attacked the South for leaving.
The Civil War was because of the South wanting to have their own laws and were happy to let the yanks do the same. But when the north and the government started forcing their laws down our throats the South wanted to leave and had every right to do so.
Now I do by no way shape or form condone slavery as it is indeed evil however if another country had a legal system with slaves then the federal government has no right to tell the no. Yes slavery is bad but without it the US would not be anywhere near what it is now. The slaves built the Transcontinental Railroad. With out slaves the south would not be much because the Africans lived and were born with disease carrying Mosquitos everywhere. The whites died a lot from the heat, disease, and Mosquitos that Africans were immune to.
After all I quote from Lincon himself “I have no intention for negros to be of equal state or status as a white man.” So if you say it was because Lincon wanted to get rid of slavery you are terribly misguided. He only did what he did because he needed the vote and aproval of the North and attempted the same with the South by using Johnson as the VP because he had very pro South opinions and did not hide them.
And James, dillon, strider72 and others with me thank you for supporting the cause.
im going to avoid the political issue and just ask why an artilleryman (identifiable by the roman-style short-sword and red coloring of the cuffs and isignia) is wielding an infantryman’s weapon.
Memo to southerners still fighting the Civil War: it’s over, and they lost. And it wasn’t about ‘state rights’ or any legitimate-sounding horseshit: it was about slavery. The whole war came down to the insistence of a handful of southerners (most of whom shirked military service) that they be allowed to own, breed, sell and murder other human beings.
Most southern soldiers did not own slaves or even profit indirectly from the slave ecenomy, but killed and died to preserve it. I find nothing about that cause to be proud of. Their efforts, brave or craven, were all in the ultimate service of evil.
+1 well said Chris!
+1.
It wasn’t about slavery, it was about which group would enslave which group. Final answer: US federal government enslaves everyone.
Chris, you said it better than I ever could have, well done.
The South. That’s where the Democratic Party founded the KKK, right? Ok, just making sure.
@ wes
i’m pretty sure the KKK was founded by Confederate veterans in Pulaski Tennessee in 1865 during Reconstruction, not too sure of their political affiliations if any, terrorist perhaps?
Not that it means anything by today’s standards, but yes they were affiliated with the Democratic party. The party evolved over time and took a couple of twists and turns over the following 50 years. Look it up as it is an interesting read.
Again….not to imply anything with the current party system. The southern confederates were Democrats.
exactly, an unrelated history fact. Their m/o as always was terrorize and intimidate, not fund raise. Lets not forget sheer level of destruction in the south after the war. This was what inspired their creation. Anger over the continued presence of Union troops across the south after the war and the disruption of their economic way of life.
I’m pretty sure there was a bit more to the Civil War than just slavery. Just off the top of my head, and aside from the flap between abolitionists and anti-abolitionists, there was the issue of heavy tariffs being imposed on textiles imported from the Southern states to the North*; States’ rights were at issue, because it was during these days that the seeds of the unconstitutional activities of our current, overbearing federal government were planted; then there was the issue of the expansion of the US into the Western territories – territories with vast and incredibly rich farmland that the industrialists of the Northern States squandered on industrial expansion, which the South wanted to use as farmland.
Even Wikipedia says there was more than just slavery at issue in the Civil War. Anybody who, like Chris Dumm above, says something incredibly ignorant like, “And it wasn’t about ‘state rights’ or any legitimate-sounding horseshit: it was about slavery” is either too stupid to be commenting on the matter (read: graduate of the public school system) or is being intentionally facetious and has successfully baited me into writing a long-winded comment to refute his craftily-worded satire.
I certainly hope it’s the former, because if it’s the latter, I just spent 10 minutes of my life preaching to the choir.
*This, of course, was back in the days when the United States looked and functioned as it was intended by the founders – a union of sovereign, independent nations with a federal electorate to represent their interests to foreign nations. This, opposite to what we have now – a dictatorial, top-heavy Federal Government that issues mandates and runs roughshod over State laws and rights.
interesting James, did you do any re-enacting last week? You seem very intent on discounting slavery’s influence in the Civil War. The economic issues of this era are often conveniently used to draw attention to the central role of chattel slavery in US society and culture during this time. This is a reality that is difficult for those in the modern era to really comprehend, giving up one’s slave during this time was like asking to give up your car or other valued possession. Regarding the westward expansion, ever hear of “Bleeding Kansas”? The fighting over whether the new states would have slavery or not. These skirmishes were the precursor to open hostilities and is a case study in the politics and culture of that era.
“This, of course, was back in the days when the United States looked and functioned as it was intended by the founders ”
Exactly, The US operated with a enormous population of unarmed disenfranchised slaves, who functioned as a free labor force to abuse at will.
No, by and large, I personally think historical re-enactors to be little more than over sized children playing dress up. It’s all but guaranteed that not a single one of them has the courage to stand up, fight, and die for their beliefs the same way those they re-enact did.
Back to the slavery thing:
I never said slavery wasn’t an issue. I said it was a side issue.
Saying that the Civil War was all about slavery, and that the issue of slavery permeated every other issue at odds is ignorant at best, and revisionist at worst.
The issue the War decided was whether or not the new States would allow slavery? I know it’s a little hard to grasp in these days where the fedgov dictates everything to us from the top down, but back then, if one of the newly admitted States wanted slavery, they would have simply made it so – it wouldn’t have required anyone’s permission, because States were sovereign entities; there would have been no congressional vote, because congress had no constitutional authority to decide such matters.
And if you think economics was a less influential force in the run-up to the war than domestic social policy, you got some more reading to do.
“it wouldn’t have required anyone’s permission, because States were sovereign entities”
Except that they weren’t. There were TONS of Federal compromises to admit states in order to maintain the free/slave balance. In the rare instances where a state was allowed to decide for itself whether it was to be free or slave, activists from both sides packed the state and fought wars of terror against one another to try to tip the balance in their favor (e.g. “Bleeding Kansas”).
Almost the entire Civil War was about slavery. The notion that it was about tariffs, rail systems, pressures of a declining social system, etc all are offered to obscure a simple reality – slavery defined the way of life for the powerful in the American South. They were concerned about tariffs on cotton – which was picked by slaves. They were concerned about rail development – because without it they couldn’t get that cotton to ports. They were concerned about property rights and determinism – because it let them keep and own people.
Exactly.
Please tell me what rights were being infringed upon by the Federal Government other then Slavery? The imposition of a tariff is not an infringement of States rights. It is an enumerated power of the federal government. The southerner’s claims of the right to nullification have no basis in the Constitution. If a federal power is enumerated in the Constitution then the federal government is supreme.
The Southern states succeeded after they lost an election because slavery supporters saw the handwriting on the wall. The economic and demographic growth of the Northern States would eventually lead to the end of slavery and the way of life for the southern aristocracy. They took their bat and ball and tried to go home. The Confederates were just like the Wisconsin “fleebaggers” except on a grander scale. (Funny that they are both Democrats) If succession wasn’t about slavery then why did they wait to leave the Union until after Lincoln’s election and not before? If it wasn’t about slavery why didn’t they free the slaves and then succeed?
James,
Don’t feed the trolls.
People aren’t going to listen, they’ve had decades of federally funded indoctrination. Your few words of truth aren’t going to change anything. You could list the dozens and dozens of primary source references, all of them referencing the wars origins in a battle for states rights and economic issues. You could point out that “slavery” was not even mentioned as an issue by the Federal government until almost 18 months into the war. Heck you could point out that Lincoln not only offered to allow Southern states to rejoin and keep their slaves, but that he offered TWO emancipation proclamations. (The first being not quite as high-minded and moral as the second more famous)
Yes, slaves were an issue James. They were, at that time, considered to be property. And that’s why they cost a fortune. You can bet if the Federal government came up to farmers today and said, “you see that combine you paid a vast sum for? The one your lively-hood depends on? Well…we’ve decided to outlaw that, we are taking it from you, and we offer you nothing in return. Good luck running this place! Oh and, no complaining, we’re the Government, you SERVE US and you do what WE say.”
It’s exactly the same situation.
Only morons and inbred rednecks think slavery is ok. And as far as I’m concerned, only socialists and inbreds think the Federal government stepping in to steal from it’s citizens is acceptable.
I believe that there are worse evils than an over-reaching government, and I believe that slavery is one of them. Rescuing a slave, or a hostage, or a kidnapped teenage prostitute, is not theft. In fact, protecting the weak from the violent predations of the strong and ruthless is precisely why we agree to be governed.
If you think there was any reason other than slavery for the southern states to leave the union you are a fool. South Carolina, the first state to secede states directly in their declaration of secession several times that the reason they are leaving the union is because the North is against slavery, “A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery.” and “the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States.” are just two examples from that declaration that show the racism that guided, and in many cases still guides, the south. The Vice president of the Confederacy also gave several speeches where he stated that the North would destroy the southern, “Glorious institution and thus our very economic way of life” was he talking about farming? No probably just slavery. You might have been taught by some fool professor that the civil war was about more than slavery but I assure you it was not, and saying that Wikipedia says the civil war was about anything is ridiculous. I can get on Wikipedia and make it say the Civil war was about a French plot to poison all the drinking water in Mexico. That doesn’t make it true. Do a little research from anywhere that is a respected source of information and I’m certain that you will find your opinion to be false.
The Civil War was fought over state’s rights, with slavery being the only “state’s right” worth fighting a civil war over. Slavery wasn’t a side issue; it was the overarching issue. Many Southerners still live in denial of this fact. When Haley Barbour actually came out and admitted as much recently, a bold step for a Southern politician even to this day, there were fainting spells among the faithful. The Confederacy was founded for one reason: to preserve a great moral monstrosity. There were no higher principles at work.
Wow, this is the second time I’ve agreed with Magoo.
Shouldn’t that be an AK-47?
The Civil War was fought over states’ rights, as magoo asserts. One of the “rights” was certainly slavery, which was by some accounts already a dying institution (in fact, the importation of slaves has already been banned and the ban enforced by the Navy). Most Confederate soldiers had never owned a slave — or met a Yankee, for that matter. But a lot of them felt that the states, having former the Union, had the right to withdraw from it. I still don’t know why they were wrong in that last point of view.
Do no misunderstand — I view the Stars and Bars and the Swastika flag as symbols of evil. Sorry, my southern brothers, but that’s the way I feel. As for slavery, no more barbaric system ever existed. But as for the states withdrawing from the Union that they created, that’s a different story. Why did they not have that right? Only under Lincoln did the “consent of the governed” become irrelevant.
To James and Doc: I agree with your understanding of what was really at stake in the War Between the States. Our constitutional Republic died and a consolidated nation-state took its place following the Union victory. That’s not something to celebrate.
The victors who wrote the “official” history books have succeeded in indoctrinating a awful lot of otherwise well-meaning folks.
Thankfully there are a few Yankees who are willing to examine the historical record beyond what the court historians have deemed acceptable. Here’s one:
http://www.vtcommons.org/journal/2011/02/kirkpatrick-sale-dispersions-sesquicentennial-upon-us
Tom Woods and Thomas DiLorenzo were two of the authors who helped deprogram me from my years in the Lincoln cult. I highly recommend their books.
IMO, the American Civil War was our last stand against what we now call the NWO.
The constitutional republic that this nation was founded as died after the Civil War… Let’s see… we Southerners got tired of being governed by the North(a far away place to most not unlike England during the Revolutionary War) who held most of the industrial power at the time and did not want to lose it, most of the population at the time was up there and propagandized that we were lower than them(as we still are made out to be below the yanks), Lincoln only agreed to emancipation because it would destabilze the South(look it up), he did not want the North flooded with African refugees because it would take away jobs and he did not give the “Emancipation Proclamation” until a major Union victory. The Proclamation did not require some Union states to free their slaves…
As a sidenote, most white immigrants arrived in colonial America as indentured servants. In the 17th century, nearly two-thirds of English settlers arrived as indentured servants.
I don’t believe in slavery but one needs to read up on the truth about the Civil War(where more Americans died than all the wars since) before they start spouting off about it.
Sorry, but you Confederate sympathizers are spouting revisionist history, screwball division. Why are gun enthusiasts drawn to fringe political theories? Or is it the other way around?
“Magoo says:
April 19, 2011 at 6:45 AM
Why are gun enthusiasts drawn to fringe political theories? Or is it the other way around?”
I’m not. I could care less about any ‘fringe’ anything. Why are anti’s drawn to extreme forms of exaggeration and ‘painting’?
No BLOOD for OIL !!!!!
Sorry, wrong war. It’s ALL ABOUT SLAVERY !!!!!!
There, you have your battlecry.
Some people love to simplify things down to a bumper sticker. Not saying slavery was right (it wasn’t), but the issues around the civil war were a hell of a lot more complex than a bumper sticker. Start accepting that and maybe we can talk about it.
I am with the south to all the yanks the south foght for freedom if you got somthin to say say it it won’t change what happened we got whipped but we put up one hell of a fight
Slavery was the economic basis of the Confederacy and the central issue of the Civil War. From there one can argue how central it was, or what central can be made to mean, but these are semantical exercises.
Read the Cornerstone Speech by CSA Vice President Alexander H. Stevens. Its text constitutes one of the primary founding documents of the Confederacy. As set forth there, the organization and statecraft of the CSA did not differ from the Union’s in any significant way. It was essentially a mirror of the Union with a few minor differences and one large one: It specifically and categorically rejects Jefferson’s assertion in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal. In the Confederacy, people of African descent — slaves — are permanently declared unequal and inferior.
Text:
http://civilwarcauses.org/corner.htm
Slavery. It was all about slavery. There were no other factors. In the event other factors are found, slavery is the factor behind the factor.
Also, guns are bad. You people need help.
All guns are bad? Even the pink ones? My wife will be disappointed…
Especially the pink ones.
You do realize that slavery was legal and was codified in the U.S. Constitution, right? Not saying it was right, but legally, it was practiced in the North and South.
If you think the cornerstone speech was racist, you should read some of Lincoln’s comments regarding white supremacy. In an 1858 debate with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln said, “”I as much as any man want the superior position to belong to the white race.”
Good thing Lincoln wasn’t racist like those southerners, eh?
In his inaugural address Lincoln stated that it was “his duty “to collect the duties and imposts,” but “beyond that there will no be any invasion of any state . . .” That’s a nice way of saying that if secession made it impossible for Washington D.C. to collect tariffs on imports–there WOULD be an invasion.”
Hyper-focusing on slavery misses key factors that ALSO contributed to the war that made centralized, all-powerful federal government a reality. We all lost a lot of freedom in that war. Not just the folks who owned slaves.
I have no doubt Lincoln could be termed a racist by modern standards. How that is relevant here I have no idea. I cited the Cornerstone Speech not to indicate racism in the CSA, but to illustrate its resolve to perpetuate slavery as an institution.
There were no issues of states’ rights among the Confederate states that did not relate directly to slavery. You can’t be for the Confederate cause but against slavery. It’s impossible. Slavery was the Confederate cause.
“Magoo says:
April 20, 2011 at 4:36 AM
“You can’t be for the Confederate cause but against slavery. It’s impossible. Slavery was the Confederate cause.”
Sure you could. You could be for the confederate cause and not be for slavery. Do you think every German soldier in WWII was a Nazi? Don’t you think some of them were there because their brothers believed in that cause? That some some of them were there because their fathers believed in that cause? Why do you seem to think that all Confederates were for slavery? Maybe a son that was lost for a cause that only he believed in led a father to send off his other sons or maybe even himself for personal reasons. I think if you stop black and whitening it you will see that war is far more complicated than you would have us believe.
You are off on your own tangent unrelated to this discussion. I wasn’t referring to the Confederate soldier. He was an absolute pawn in a war that in no way served his interests, his region, or his country.
I am referring to the theory today that the Confederate cause served some greater purpose in the protection of individual or states’ rights. It’s baloney.
thank you that true
Yes! This +10,000,000!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11
The Confederacy existed only to champion the cause of slavery! It eventually got so bad that slaveholders would send out slaves to get them more slaves! And then slaves would slave the slave slave slavery slave!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111one
I’m always fascinated where reason, logic and truth are usually thrown out on these subjects…. usually by Magoo.
Funny how he has not mentioned that apparently the Union states apparently had more rights than the South. That being the fact that tariffs and other policies pushed by the North oppressed the Southern states… Oh, wait I thought everybody was equal…
I also have a laugh now that apparently quite a few industries are doing ok(even in this economy) in the South and other parts of the US but have pretty much left the North. Let’s see.. Winchester shut down, Marlin moved to North Carolina, there are quite a few Japanese car factories down here now, etc.
The North did not “oppress” the South in the years leading into the war. That’s nonsense. The slave states were a powerful, often dominant bloc in congress well into the late 1850s. Lincoln’s predecessor, democrat James Buchanan, was an open accommodationist on slavery, while his predecessor, democrat Franklin Pierce, was a pro-slavery doughface who endorsed the Kansas-Nebraska Act and later supported the Confederacy. Only as more territories gained statehood and the South began to lose its clout did the slave states make their tragic move toward secession. All earlier noise about secession, North and South, had come to nothing.
It was the militancy of the slave states, in their attempts to enforce slavery throughout the new states, which created the split between the Northern and Southern factions of the Democratic Party, the resulting ascendancy of the Republican Party, and the election of Abraham Lincoln. Know your history. From virtually every angle, slavery is the overarching cause of the Civil War.
I don’t know how industry in the modern South relates to this discussion. It’s a mystery to me. I can only guess you feel defensive about the South. No need, we’re all Americans. As you may have heard, the war is over.
Well, apparently I need to read some more on this issue than I thought. But I still feel states have the right to tell the fed. gov’t to mind it’s own business.
Magoo your insane…. Have you ever bothered to dig deeper than what was tought to you by a completely biased government school system? I doubt it. You probily like to argue for the hell of it.
I own guns and love them. I have a right to own and bear arms so up yours. I hunt to. With my evil guns. Guns don’t kill people people kill people. I can just as easily hop in a car and go mow down 20 people. Are you gonna outlaw forks,cars, rocks,pointy sticks, pillows, power cables,glass,and plastic to? If somebody does decide to outlaw those things could you let me know? I Keep my money guns and freedom you can keep the damn change.
Ment I’ll .stupid auto correct!!! Bet you live in California. Where all those evil semi autos with there 30/100/and 200 round clips are ileagle and they aren’t there any more? I know that this will come as a shock but there still there! It’s this new thing called smuggling! :0
Dear magoo
You seem to live in a fake world surrounded by people like you. The civil war was fought because the government could not handle losing the south. It is stated in the constitution that if states wish to secede they have the right not to be harassed by the federal government. The government once again overstepped their boundaries and attacked the South for leaving.
The Civil War was because of the South wanting to have their own laws and were happy to let the yanks do the same. But when the north and the government started forcing their laws down our throats the South wanted to leave and had every right to do so.
Now I do by no way shape or form condone slavery as it is indeed evil however if another country had a legal system with slaves then the federal government has no right to tell the no. Yes slavery is bad but without it the US would not be anywhere near what it is now. The slaves built the Transcontinental Railroad. With out slaves the south would not be much because the Africans lived and were born with disease carrying Mosquitos everywhere. The whites died a lot from the heat, disease, and Mosquitos that Africans were immune to.
After all I quote from Lincon himself “I have no intention for negros to be of equal state or status as a white man.” So if you say it was because Lincon wanted to get rid of slavery you are terribly misguided. He only did what he did because he needed the vote and aproval of the North and attempted the same with the South by using Johnson as the VP because he had very pro South opinions and did not hide them.
And James, dillon, strider72 and others with me thank you for supporting the cause.
im going to avoid the political issue and just ask why an artilleryman (identifiable by the roman-style short-sword and red coloring of the cuffs and isignia) is wielding an infantryman’s weapon.
Comments are closed.