Fall of the Confederate Wall - Confederate Symbols Debate (Merged)

#1,551
#1,551
Vol8188 said:
Any proof. Anything at all. He offered absolutely nothing. He just said it was about money, not slavery. That's it.
Click to expand...

He didn't even specify if the money he claims it was related to was slave money or not.

Then he started rambling about police brutality and a bunch of other ****.
 
#1,556
#1,556
Pacer92 said:
Free enterprise. The northern states had no choice.

Only did Lincoln make that choice when he Saw they were losing...only then!
Click to expand...

Yes. No one has said, "they left because slavery was banned". But it's a simple fact that only slave states left and the reason they left because they saw the writing on the wall, from the election of Lincoln to the inability to have new slave states admitted.
 
#1,558
#1,558
Vol8188 said:
Yes. No one has said, "they left because slavery was banned". But it's a simple fact that only slave states left and the reason they left because they saw the writing on the wall, from the election of Lincoln to the inability to have new slave states admitted.
Click to expand...

There were slaves in the north too bro
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,560
#1,560
Pacer92 said:
Slavery was only made an issue when the north's back was to the wall....it was a desperate ploy...
Click to expand...

Slavery was an issue because the South's political leadership made it about slavery. You see it in the secession ordinances and you see it in the military decisions made by the political leaders of the Confederacy. Patrick Cleburne argued for mass use of slaves as soldiers in exchange for their freedom:

Patrick Cleburne's Proposal to Arm Slaves

Here is a quote from that letter from January 1864:

It is said slavery is all we are fighting for, and if we give it up we give up all. Even if this were true, which we deny, slavery is not all our enemies are fighting for. It is merely the pretense to establish sectional superiority and a more centralized form of government, and to deprive us of our rights and liberties. We have now briefly proposed a plan which we believe will save our country. It may be imperfect, but in all human probability it would give us our independence. No objection ought to outweigh it which is not weightier than independence. If it is worthy of being put in practice it ought to be mooted quickly before the people, and urged earnestly by every man who believes in its efficacy. Negroes will require much training; training will require much time, and there is danger that this concession to common sense may come too late.
Click to expand...

The politicians who reviewed this letter rejected the proposition. If it had truly been about Northern "aggression," if it had truly been about obtaining liberty from tyrannical rule, then the CSA leadership would have moved heaven and earth to secure freedom even if that meant weakening the institution of slavery to do it.

The problem was that slavery was too important to the political leaders of the CSA to sacrifice for the sake of independence. It was their reason for secession...and it would take a moment of absolute despair before they finally gave in to Cleburne's idea at the closing stage of the war. Too little and too late.

Interesting to note that Cleburne serves in the Western Theater of the Civil War. He is one of a handful of major Confederate officers who comes out of that theater with any credit. You say Lincoln pushed forth the Emancipation Proclamation because he was losing. Problem with that assumption is that it completely ignores what is going on in the West at that time. Grant, Sherman, and even Rosecrans were advancing and taking control of territory. In the Deep South, Farragut took control of New Orleans.

Lee and the Army of Northern Virginia were having a good run where the population existed and the media focused the attention. But they were largely a defending force, failing to make any lasting impression on American supply and transportation lines.

Out West, the CSA was getting stomped. That rout had a massive impact on Lee's ability to feed and cloth his Army properly. Winfield Scott's strategy was working.

Lincoln issues the Emancipation Proclamation after the "victory" at Antietam to deny his political opposition the chance to accuse him of desperation. Note that he didn't need a comprehensive victory; all he required was his eastern force to hold the field after a major battle. He issues it primarily to put pressure on the South at a point where it is at its weakest. He also issues it to make certain the United Kingdom will not form an alliance with the rebels. That almost happened...and such an event would have led to a CSA victory.

Once the United States decides to turn it into a war to free the slaves in the South, a Great Britain heavily-influenced by the ideals espoused by Wilberforce and other abolitionists will stay on the sidelines and watch it play out even as their ports in Liverpool and Bristol suffer economically.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,562
#1,562
Velo Vol said:
Is Andrew Jackson the next person we will scrub from history?
Click to expand...

Probably. Congratulations to the history scrubbing crowd. They're right in the same category with the Taliban that destroyed centuries old Buddhist statues, monuments, et al. because it didn't fit their present day narrative/religion. The present day narrative/religion in this country is now "Victimization" and "Let's Get Even". Fanatastic! I can see this country has it's best days ahead of it (tic). :no:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,563
#1,563
Velo Vol said:
Is Andrew Jackson the next person we will scrub from history?
Click to expand...

Already starting here

Democratic Party of Arkansas considers name change for 'Jefferson-Jackson' Dinner | Local News - Home

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. -
Members of the Democratic Party of Arkansas are talking about changing the name of the annual Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, party officials confirmed.

Communications director, Candace Martin, said they are considering the name change because of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson's associations with slavery.

"It is our history, but it's not reflective of where the party is now," Martin said.

"The party stands for many of the values the men represent, but they no longer stand for many of the other values they did," she told 40/29 News.

Martin said the party has discussed possible future names, but isn't ready to release them to the public. She said the name change is still in the discussion stage, and it's not ready for a vote.

The "Jefferson-Jackson" name has been used for 150 years, and the state party wants to "come up with a name that will last another 150 years," Martin said.

Martin said State Party Chair Vincent Insalaco supports the name change.

Earlier this month, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton attended the "Jefferson-Jackson" Dinner in Little Rock.

Connecticut, Missouri and Georgia have made similar name changes for their fundraisers.
 
#1,568
#1,568
Carl Pickens said:
You saying it was about slavery doesn't mean it was either..... Facts bro..... Share some
Click to expand...

Only slave states left the union. They left due to an inability to have additional slave states join the union (most notably Kansas and the mayhem that ensued their) and the election of Lincoln (South Carolina even named their succession act the resolution to call the election of Lincoln a hostile act) who was considered an abolitionist. Those were your main reasons. You had other issues that increased tensions as well, such as the Dred Scott ruling and John Browns raid.
 
Last edited:
#1,569
#1,569
If any of you truly doubt why the south left the union, all you have to do is look at the actual legislation passed. This is the first sentence from The Resolution to Call the Election of Lincoln a Hostile Act passed by SC:

"That this the general assembly is satisfied that Abraham Lincoln has already been elected president of the United States, and that said election has been based upon principles of open and vowed hostility to the social organization and peculiar interests of the slave holding states of the confederacy."

http://www.teachingushistory.org/pdfs/lincdoc_000.pdf

It could not be more plainly stated. The reason they left the union was slavery. They even go on to ask for the support of other slave holding states.

To deny this as the primary reason is absurd.
 
Last edited:
#1,571
#1,571
Vol8188 said:
If any of you truly doubt why the south left the union, all you have to do is look at the actual legislation passed. This is the first sentence from The Resolution to Call the Election of Lincoln a Hostile Act passed by SC:

"That this the general assembly is satisfied that Abraham Lincoln has already been elected president of the United States, and that said election has been based upon principles of open and vowed hostility to the social organization and peculiar interests of the slave holding states of the confederacy."

http://www.teachingushistory.org/pdfs/lincdoc_000.pdf

It could not be more plainly stated. The reason the left the union was slavery. They even go on to ask for the support of other slave holding states.

To deny this as the primary reason is absurd.
Click to expand...

South Carolina! South Carolina! Why don't you people reference any other states declaration? Oh, I know why.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top