The Confederacy was About Slavery

The Confederate states feared the end of slavery, but the greater concern was the expansion of slavery into the new territories that the US had come into possession.

Amen.

Throughout 1860, John Floyd, of Virginia, then Secretary of War, shipped 115,000 stand of muskets and rifled muskets to southern armories. He also attempted to ship large caliber artillery to southern ports, but this lead to his discovery, and was thwarted. He resigned his office on December 29, 1860.

In the first week of January, 1861, so-called "state troops" (a constitutional illegality) of Alabama and Florida seized Federal property, notably arsenals, throughout Florida. On January 8, 1861, they attempted to seize Forts McRae and Barancas, but the U.S. Army artillery officer commanding ordered his men to fire over the heads of the mob . . . excuse me, "state troops" who ran back to Pensacola as fast as their fat little legs would carry them. Lt. Slemmer had the guns spiked, and laid trains to the magazines, which he fired as his men were preparing to pull out to Fort Pickins in the harbor. The magazines blew, destroying both forts. He then held out with his command at Fort Pickins until relieved by a squadron of the United States Navy. Either in this thread or another, i have detailed these moves in Florida, and linked the University of South Florida's account. Pursuant to the warping of history in favor of the lost cause myth, most sources ignore these events, and claim that Lt. Slemmer acted because he anticipated Florida's secession on January 10, 1861. Click here for the eyewitness account of the second lieutenant at Fort Barancas, from a page at Civil War Online-dot-com. The next day, in a more famous incident, so-called "state troops" of South Carolina fired on Star of the West as she attempted to land troops and supplies at Fort Sumter.

Finn's comment about Yankees is hilarious. If i'm not mistaken, he recently claimed to be a native of the city of New York, which makes him a yankee. Is he now a reverse copperhead, having moved to Texas and become an ardent rebel?

The south started a war they could not win, they got their collective ass kicked and they've been whining about it ever since. Their greatest victory has been winning the propaganda war with shameless historical distortions in the 20th century.

You might be comparing apples to oranges. Hiding under our desks was only when there wasn't time to go into the hallway and get against the wall, crouched down, with our hands over our heads.

But, that aside, there must have been a reason to teach high school American history classes in the early 1960's that slavery was not the reason for the Civil War. What was that reason? If there is no reason to fabricate, then I have no reason to think it was fabrication.

I have little interest in the Civil War, since my family came about 25 years after the war ended. Plus, the world I grew up in, and still live in, is not Black and White, like some parts of the nation. I live in an amalgam of ethnic groups and races. To be honest, as a secular Jew, I am more alienated from (and avoid) some of the cultures of some socioeconomic groups that identify as white than many non-white groups. As MLK said in a speech, I believe, whites have a drum majorette complex. So, from that perspective, I have discerned too much superiority directed at myself and extended family to really feel that white is how I see myself. Otherwise, I would be no smarter than a box of crayons with its many colors.

But, don't let my lack of interest dissuade you from enjoying arguing over the causes of the Civil War. You can also evolve into arguments over better battle plans, or other Civil War topics. It can really be a great hobby, I've heard. But, it usually is enjoyed best by those whose families were here to fight the war. That leaves me out. I'm only second generation born in the country.

After resting my brain with sleep, I think I might be seeing an angle relating to this thread that does not seem to have been addressed. That being that those that were instrumental in effecting the Confederacy surely knew that much of the rest of the civilized world had already outlawed slavery, or the issue of slavery was something that other countries were wrestling with also. So, it might just have been that the real concern for the Confederacy was to end slavery eventually, AS THEY SAW FIT. In effect, not having the North involved in their evolving into a non-slavery economy. The fact that documentation (for posterity) talks about slavery being the cause for secession might just be, in my opinion, an attempt to not "spill the beans" prematurely, since then the North might think that it was the North's ethical right to officiate, since they already ended slavery.

What makes me think that the above is not just a flippant thought is that 1860 was only 71 years after the U.S. officially became independent of England. And, since England was a world power at that time, I can believe that other world powers were possibly alluding to England being foolish for allowing the U.S. to come to fruition, in context of slavery existing in some states, and England outlawing slavery in the early 1800's. On the world stage, England might have felt it could become the laughing stock of ethical international thinking?

Anyway, the South surely saw the handwriting on the wall for chattel slavery eventually ending. Be that the case, they surely would have wanted to keep the North's nose out of their own paradigm, to effect an end to that type of economic system.

So, perhaps, this thread should be re-titled "The Confederacy was About Autonomy In Ending Slavery Before the Turn of the 20th Century"? Can anyone, in the North or South, imagine slavery continuing into the 20th Century? Only 40 years after the start of the Civil War?

Was there any other country that had slavery into the 20th century? The handwriting was on the wall, so to speak, and I conjecture that the South saw it vividly, and for a multitude of reasons did not want the North meddling into their changed economic system.

Lastly, only through secession, and then developing a paradigm for ending slavery, could the South be sure that the demographic of agrarian workers not leave (go North). By being a separate country, those workers could be "manipulated" to stay and work under a new economic paradigm.

I would think some historian would have thought these thoughts previously. I surely couldn't be original.

This is so laughably chuckle-headed that it does not merit a response.

After resting my brain with a weekend, I think I might be seeing an angle relating to this thread that does not seem to have been addressed. That being that those that were instrumental in effecting the Confederacy surely knew that much of the rest of the civilized world had already outlawed slavery, or the issue of slavery was something that other countries were wrestling with also. So, it might just have been that the real concern for the Confederacy was to end slavery eventually, AS THEY SAW FIT. In effect, not having the North involved in their evolving into a non-slavery economy. The fact that documentation (for posterity) talks about slavery being the cause for secession might just be, in my opinion, an attempt to not "spill the beans" prematurely, since then the North might think that it was the North's ethical right to officiate, since they already ended slavery.

What makes me think that the above is not just a flippant thought is that 1860 was only 71 years after the U.S. officially became independent of England. And, since England was a world power at that time, I can believe that other world powers were possibly alluding to England being foolish for allowing the U.S. to come to fruition, in context of slavery existing in some states, and England outlawing slavery in the early 1800's. On the world stage, England might have felt it could become the laughing stock of ethical international thinking?

Anyway, the South surely saw the handwriting on the wall for chattel slavery eventually ending. Be that the case, they surely would have wanted to keep the North's nose out of their own paradigm, to effect an end to that type of economic system.

So, perhaps, this thread should be re-titled "The Confederacy was About Autonomy In Ending Slavery Before the Turn of the 20th Century"? Can anyone, in the North or South, imagine slavery continuing into the 20th Century? Only 40 years after the start of the Civil War?

Was there any other country that had slavery into the 20th century? The handwriting was on the wall, so to speak, and I conjecture that the South saw it vividly, and for a multitude of reasons did not want the North meddling into their changed economic system.

Lastly, only through secession, and then developing a paradigm for ending slavery, could the South be sure that the demographic of agrarian workers not leave (go North). By being a separate country, those workers could be "manipulated" to stay and work under a new economic paradigm.

I would think some historian would have thought these thoughts previously. I surely couldn't be original.

Repeating it doesn't make it any less chuckle-headed.

England did not "outlaw slavery." They outlawed the slavery of Africans or the descendants of Africans. They did this in the 1830s, more than 50 years after the declaration of American independence. They solved the problem of African slavery by replacing African slaves with Indian and Chinese coolies. While the c0olies from India and China were ostensibly contract or indentured labor, as many as 90% of them never returned home. Indian coolies became the preferred "contract laborers" of the West Indies because they endured the climate more easily than the Chinese. The first coolie labor used in the West Indies were 200 Chinese delivered to Trinidad in 1807.

To call Miller/Foofie chuckle-headed is an insult to chuckle-headed fools everywhere--unintended, i'm sure.

So, am I to believe that the South thought that their version of slavery could continue forever, in a century when there was a growing movement to end slavery in Europe and the Americas? I believe that the so called Southern Aristocracy was well aware that their version of slavery had to end at some point, and before that it had to change. And, I also believe that the South was so alienated from the North to want no input from the North when the day came to deal with their archaic system. Plus, if the South was a separate country, when they ended chattel slavery, they could prevent those freed slaves from leaving, not to mention that they could assign their own paradigm to a replacement labor system.

But, referring to me with silly disparaging monikers does not make the above conjectures invalid. Also, only two forum males are willing to address these thoughts? Have I hit a nerve on this topic? That makes me wonder why it might be so important to define slavery as the essential meaning to the Confederacy? Is the memory of the Confederacy so abhorrent, aside from slavery? Or, is it that today the progressives in the U.S. have a less than favorable opinion about those that would memorialize those that were part of the Confederacy? I would guess that there are ulterior motives behind the prior participation in the thread. However, as a nation, burying the memory of the Confederacy is just divisive today, in my opinion.

To call Miller/Foofie chuckle-headed is an insult to chuckle-headed fools everywhere--unintended, i'm sure.
[/quote]

So, am I to believe that the South thought that their version of slavery could continue forever, in a century when there was a growing movement to end slavery in Europe and the Americas? I believe that the so called Southern Aristocracy was well aware that their version of slavery had to end at some point, and before that it had to change. And, I also believe that the South was so alienated from the North to want no input from the North when the day came to deal with their archaic system. Plus, if the South was a separate country, when they ended chattel slavery, they could prevent those freed slaves from leaving, not to mention that they could assign their own paradigm to a replacement labor system.

But, referring to me with silly disparaging monikers does not make the above conjectures invalid. Also, only two forum males are willing to address these thoughts? Have I hit a nerve on this topic? That makes me wonder why it might be so important to define slavery as the essential meaning to the Confederacy? Is the memory of the Confederacy so abhorrent, aside from slavery? Or, is it that today the progressives in the U.S. have a less than favorable opinion about those that would memorialize those that were part of the Confederacy? I would guess that there are ulterior motives behind the prior participation in the thread. However, as a nation, burying the memory of the Confederacy is just divisive today, in my opinion.




[/quote]


If I remember correctly, your family didn't wash up on these shores until well after the Civil War and thus you have no opinion since it had nothing to do with you. But yet you opine about the temperature of the Southern Aristocracy and their disdain for Yankees. Surely you cannot have an opinion, yet you continue to offer your opinion on matters you claim you are not interested in. I think you should leave history to honest historians, but I'm pretty sure you won't.

True. It's the utter absurdity and complete lack of historical evidence that make it invalid.

You are deciding that my opinion is not appropriate? And, what constitutes an "honest" historian?

I still believe Southern intellectuals understood that 40 years hence, the 20th century would not be like earlier centuries for their "peculiar institution." The need to have autonomy at slavery's demise was essential to maintaining an agrarian economy, with a demographic of freed slaves.

The title of this thread is just the colloquial popular notion. Notice the hostility raised from my premise. And, it's not just Southern disdain for the North that I touched on, but also the belief by some that Southerners had no tactical ability to see the changing future.

I sort of feel like an ancestor that was laughed at by the pagans for the "silly" notion that there could only be one God.

Lastly, what the Confederacy really showed was that the South was willing to only play a zero sum game to deal with the future. The alternative was to compromise again with the North, and concede that there would be a paradigm to freeing the slaves, and it would have to include utilizing the freed slaves as agrarian paid workers. Eight-hundred thousand lives might have been spared, but the Confederacy would only play a zero sum game. Why? That might include the unwillingness to negotiate with a North that was held in high contempt? As many a therapist would agree, some are captives of their emotions.

Your memory is not correct.

My family was present in this Country, well before the Civil War.

Wow, Miller is really losing it. The first evidence of the Miller/Foofie sock puppet was when Foofie responded to a post addressed to Miller, and then denied knowing who Miller was. It was a fiasco.

But this is even better. Now Miller is responding to a post address to Foofie. What a tangled web.

My remark was addressed to Foofie who claims his/her family arrived 25 years after the Civil War, I didn't address you at all. Unless of course you are both Foofie and Miller. If you ARE both, pick a family history and stick with it.

oops

Could it get any better than that?

lol - watching for response

Yeah, I hope the bullshit fairy drops by her house with something clever she can parrot.

So, what's the deal with your multiple screen names? I'm guessing you don't really know do you. It gets difficult when you pose as two people, especially when you seem to think you might be the sharpest tool in the tool box. Maybe that's worked for you in some situations (but honestly, probably not nearly as well as you think), let me remind you that this forum has members with diverse experience, expertise, and we also have the advantage of no longer being teenagers.

Many have been on to you for quite some time, your error today just proves you are a scam artist having trouble keeping your story straight. Why do you open yourself up to ridicule???? I suspect you think you're smarter than the average poster, but today should be a light bulb moment.

When you constantly post as multiple folks of multiple ethnicity, you're bound to be found out. I get it to a certain extant, you see yourself as exceptionally bright, good for you. Your weak spot is that you think you are smarter than everyone, and as you demonstrated tonight......you are not the genius you want to be. Try telling the truth, it's easier to remember. Putz