61
   

The Confederacy was About Slavery

 
 
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 05:43 am
Heres an article from the Charleston SC PILOT. Its an editorial written in January 1865, in the closing months of the Civil War .
WE WANT NO CONFEDERACY WITHOUT SLAVERY

Quote:

In 1860 South Carolina seceded alone from the old union of States. Her people, in Convention assembled, invited the slaveholding States (none others) of the old Union to join her in erecting a separate Government of Slave States, for the protection of their common interests. All of the slave states, with the exception of Maryland and Kentucky, responded to her invitation. The Southern Confederacy of slave States was formed.

It was on account of encroachments upon the institution of slavery by the sectional majority of the old Union, that South Carolina seceded from that Union. It is not at this late day, after the loss of thirty thousand of her best and bravest men in battle, that she will suffer it to be bartered away; or ground between the upper and nether mill stones, by the madness of Congress, or the counsels of shallow men elsewhere.

By the compact we made with Virginia and the other States of this Confederacy, South Carolina will stand to the bitter end of destruction. By that compact she intends to stand or to fall. Neither Congress, nor certain makeshift men in Virginia, can force upon her their mad schemes of weakness and surrender. She stands upon her institutions—and there she will fall in their defence. We want no Confederate Government without our institutions. And we will have none. Sink or swim, live or die, we stand by them, and are fighting for them this day. That is the ground of our fight—it is well that all should understand it at once. Thousands and tens of thousands of the bravest men, and the best blood of this State, fighting in the ranks, have left their bones whitening on the bleak hills of Virginia in this cause. We are fighting for our system of civilization—not for buncomb, or for Jeff Davis. We intend to fight for that, or nothing. We expect Virginia to stand beside us in that fight, as of old, as we have stood beside her in this war up to this time. But such talk coming from such a source is destructive to the cause. Let it cease at once, in God’s name, and in behalf of our common cause! It is paralizing [sic] to every man here to hear it. It throws a pall over the hearts of the soldiers from this State to hear it. The soldiers of South Carolina will not fight beside a nigger’to talk of emancipation is to disband our army. We are free men, and we chose to fight for ourselves—we want no slaves to fight for us.... Hack at the root of the Confederacy—our institutions—our civilization—and you kill the cause as dead as a boiled crab.[/b]


farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 05:47 am
@farmerman,
PErhaps someone should have told the author of that article that the Confederacy was about some more noble causes than slavery.
electronicmail
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 06:07 am
@farmerman,
Remember how you've already conceded dates and names and numbers overwhelmingly support the idea the Confederacy was about States' Rights and not about slavery?

So now the only historical records you can find to agree with your lame argument is some contemporaneous editorial opinions.

If you don't understand how bankrupt your argument must be in order to reach that low point then you're either as crazy as Snoody or as stupid as the "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit!" artist Setanta.

I'm glad to see y' all make the case for States' Rights (to secession) even if you do it by default. Carry on Laughing Laughing
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 06:19 am
@farmerman,
Farmerman an editor of a newspaper even in 1865 was not a policy maker.

Second please take note of the following in your posting.

"The soldiers of South Carolina will not fight beside a nigger’to talk of emancipation is to disband our army"

It surely sound like he was bended way out of shape because some of his fellow citizens was willing to consider ending slavery to get more manpower in order to try to keep the Confederacy alive even at that cost.
farmerman
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 06:24 am
@electronicmail,
Quote:
So now the only historical records you can find to agree with your lame argument is some contemporaneous editorial opinions.

We call this "a preponderance of evidence". I wish to call your attention to the fact that youve put up nothing but presonal opinion and insults at everyone else who tries to preswent the facts dispassionately. Im sorta through arguing with you and ANUS, you guys are actually laughable. I was away yesterday and came back late last night and saw ANUS actually posting his "opinion" that someone (other than he) should be BANNED. That almost made me ralph up my coconut cake.

I really believe that most people will thank Set for his wealth of knowledge and his ability to share it with us in an accurate objective manner.
SO far , The argument that slavery was at the heart of the Confederacy has only gotten stronger. Whether you know it or not, your posted opinions sound empty and without substance.

Theres more stuff out there, I havent even scratched the surface of the resources available from actual historical centers and Universities.

(I even have the resources of how Shelby Footes own revisionits view has been quietly dismantled while he was still alive)

Remember the Ken Burns series? Shelby Foote was pissed that his revisionist Mississippean-centered "white slaveholding" views were not used by Burns. SO Foote started a small row and was put in his place by historians less agenda centered. As Burns himself said"I only used Dr Foote for his avuncular style and sweet southern accent" (After all, it was entertainment). The decennial CD of the CIVIL WAR has a lengthy discussio about how slavery WAS the center of the Confederacy . It was right to the point I think.

Youre easily dismissed,

0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 06:44 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
It surely sound like he was bended way out of shape because some of his fellow citizens was willing to consider ending slavery to get more manpower in order to try to keep the Confederacy alive even at that cost


That is true, there was a "last stand" mentality that had already invited several of the Indian tribes and "negro troops" were considered by both sides(the North much earlier though).
In 1862 The North had already begun a "Black Brigade" In Cincinnati to combat Morgan.ALSO, Ben Butler had raised the Louisiana "Native Guards" another NG , a regiment sized contingent from SC was raised. ALl these wre vetoed by Lincoln.
After the EMancipation Proclamation Lincoln called for four regiments of Blacks. By end of war , the Union had over 300000 black troops in over 100 regiments. The combat records are all available in official war docs.
AS the South Carolina article implies, not too popular was the idsea of black soldiers fighting for the CSA. CSA used blacks as porters and servants but not soldiers. In 1863 a proposal ws made to arm slaves was only briefly considered. Pat Cleburne (of the "Yell Rifles") tried to organize a batallion of slaves with a reward of freedom. This was vetod by DAVIS and then Cleburne was killed in Franklin tenn that year so his idea was permanently put on hold. AFter dicking around DAVIS proposed that 300000 black slaves be conscripted. (That was in MArch 1865, sort of like Hitler and his " Penemunde Projects" or his ME 206).

I would imagine that the article in the PILOT was in reference to the proposeal that had been under discussion between DAVIS and LEE during late 1864. Whether the slaves would have gladly fought for their captors was always open to debate.
The end of the war sort of got in the way.
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 06:48 am
@BillRM,
Quote:
Farmerman an editor of a newspaper even in 1865 was not a policy maker.
I think that evidence is evidence. A NEwspaper today, is often quoted as evidenece of policy and opinion throughout an issue. For example, Much of what the right has presented about Health CAre, has been disseminated through public records such as newspapers and more immediate media (Which, had it been available in the Civil War era, would have been used to stir up public opinion).

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 06:49 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
ALl these wre vetoed by Lincoln.


Border States concerns I would assume by Lincoln.
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 06:56 am
@BillRM,
That makes sense, the original "peace conferences" attempted to alllw the retention of slavery as peace efforts. In fact, the hold out states like Virginia had voted AGAINST secession in early APril voting and the whole thing could have been (maybe) talked out and the Union preserved . BUT , as we know, the South Carolinians decided to open fire at Ft SUmter on a facility that was undergoing discussions for orderly withdrawal at the time that the firing began. Then when Lincoln said "**** it" and called for the raising of 75000 troops, Virginia did a 180. Was this a ploy by SC to Start the hostilitioes and invite even more secession? Historians debate this today.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 07:03 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
WE WANT NO CONFEDERACY WITHOUT SLAVERY
WHY ?

You unadulterated idiot.....WHY did they want slavery ? Because of sheer hatred or because it made them money ? Why are you so dense ? It must be very important to you that the South behave in an unreasonable manor....to you they wanted slavery not because it made them money but because they just hated niggers.....Why dont you like southerners so much that you have to go through this ridiculous argument ?
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 07:16 am
@Ionus,
Is there a buzzing noise here?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 07:44 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Because of sheer hatred or because it made them money

Quote:
Is there a buzzing noise here?


Come on guys and I forgot the figures but off hand the total work force of slaves book value were a large fraction of the total wealth of the nation both north and south at least on paper before the war.

Billions of dollars in the 1850s!!!!!!!!
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 07:52 am
@BillRM,
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/wahl.slavery.us

Jenny B. Wahl, Carleton College
Slavery is fundamentally an economic phenomenon. Throughout history, slavery has existed where it has been economically worthwhile to those in power. The principal example in modern times is the U.S. South. Nearly 4 million slaves with a market value of close to $4 billion lived in the U.S. just before the Civil War. Masters enjoyed rates of return on slaves comparable to those on other assets; cotton consumers, insurance companies, and industrial enterprises benefited from slavery as well. Such valuable property required rules to protect it, and the institutional practices surrounding slavery display a sophistication that rivals modern-day law and business.

0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 08:15 am
I dont remember ever hearing about this man, and the only reason I am including it here is because he was an escaped slave.

http://artofmanliness.com/2011/04/24/lessons-in-manliness-from-bass-reeves/#comments

And here is a wiki article about him

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bass_Reeves

This guy sounds like the model that every hollywood marshal used to be convinceing.
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 08:21 am
@mysteryman,
Kinda reminds me of the tales of "Dave the Slave". who was a famous potter in stoneware and was a poet in antebellum SC.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 08:22 am
A side issue if I were living in a border state that did not rebelled I would had at the time had been very annoy that the thanks we got for not joining the South were that our slaves were free without any payments for them by the Federal government.

The border states got the short end of the stick in that regard at least.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  2  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 08:26 am
@farmerman,
My mother has a small pot made by him.
It has been authenticated by some experts at the San Diego museum.

I dont know what its worth, but I am told its quite valuable.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 08:31 am
@mysteryman,
SOme "Dave the slave" pots are worth up to 75000 bucks. He could throw huge pots and had been able to write and was a caricaturist in a "folk art" style. If youve got a face jug thats 12" tall and has a two line poem on the bottom it could be worth a lot of money even in todays depressed antiques market.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 08:47 am
@farmerman,
The Journal of The Organization of American Historians Is a rather well respected techy journal pof Historiography and History. In the April 2011 issue, theyve begun a series of the "reasons for the confederacy". They decry the fcat that 4 of 5 Americans still dont wish to accept the core issue of slavery as the basis of secession and the confederacy and ultimately, the Civil War. I will post seratim fashion, some of these issues. Opening the article was the proclamation of South Carolina and Mississippi.(Ive already posted the SC proclamation of Dec 20 1860, TWO TIMES , (trying to make a point woth one person who was purposely trying to confuse an issue of DATES v SUBSTANCE )
Here is Miss proclamation of Secession

Quote:
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery, the greatest material interest of the world . . . [A] blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization . . . There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union …” — Mississippi Declaration of Secession, January 9, 1861.


BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Apr, 2011 09:11 am
@farmerman,
Farmerman sometimes 4 out of 5 Americans are at least partly right.

I guess it how you define the core issues.

The south whole economic where base of agriculture and the north on manufacturing and this in and of itself cause a great deal of stress on the union.

The north population was growing like crazy power by waves if immigration and therefore constantly gaining more political power in the House over the south and over the choice of President.

The only place they could hold their own was in the senate assuming the new states was evenly divided.

To sun up do I think that there would had been a civil war if but for the slavery issue hell no!!

Do I think if the others stress had not exist there would had been a civil war over the slavery issue along also hell no.

Without slavery no civil war and without mass immigration for example into the Northern states also no civil war.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.07 seconds on 11/27/2024 at 11:49:19