Virginia Board is Set to Return Names of the Confederate Generals Stonewall Jackson, Turner Ashby and Robert E Lee to two Schools

[Godfatha]

Yes, it is accurate to say. Regardless of their motivations and opinions about slavery, if they were fighting in the Confederate Army they were defending slavery. Were they defending their homes? Yes. Were they defending slavery? Yes.

A great many confederate soldiers cared nothing about slavery. They had no slaves. They didn’t care about the aristocrats that owned them. A great many were fighting because “you’re down here”.

 

[Tnslim1]

Yes, it is accurate to say. Regardless of their motivations and opinions about slavery, if they were fighting in the Confederate Army they were defending slavery. Were they defending their homes? Yes. Were they defending slavery? Yes.

I hope you do understand that the Civil War was NOT started over slavery. It was all about northern greed trampling on states rights. The slavery issue came about far after the war began.

 

[C-south]

It is fashionable these days to vilify Forrest as an incorrigible racist. The fact is that he was both a slave owner and a slave trader. But he was not among those who advocated sending Americans of African ancestry back to Africa. After the war, he actually advocated for African immigration, saying that they are a good and industrious people. Unlike many Southerners who opposed voting rights for former slaves, Forrest was one of very few who supported their right to vote after voting rights were restored to former Confederates. At that time, he was much ostracized by White Memphians because he personally participated in a Black political rally in Memphis to present himself to Black voters as a candidate for public office. In his later years, Forrest lived more among Black people than among Whites. I personally do not think it's a good idea to name schools after former Confederates. But I also think it is wrong to demonize all of them.

How many black people in Africa owned and traded slaves? I’m not sure which Africans are “industrious” considering the civilized western world pretty much left the entire continent behind while they gave away all of their abundant resources away for virtually nothing.

 

[Vol Main]

I hope you do understand that the Civil War was NOT started over slavery. It was all about northern greed trampling on states rights. The slavery issue came about far after the war began.

I don't give AF what you hope, because you could not be more wrong.

 

[AshG]

I hope you do understand that the Civil War was NOT started over slavery. It was all about northern greed trampling on states rights. The slavery issue came about far after the war began.

If you read the Articles of Secession from must of the states, they mention in no uncertain terms that the preservation of slavery was the primary cause of their departure.

 

[Vol Main]

A great many confederate soldiers cared nothing about slavery. They had no slaves. They didn’t care about the aristocrats that owned them. A great many were fighting because “you’re down here”.

Of course Southerners enlisted to defend their homes, but most opposed emancipation of slaves. When the war started, most Northern soldiers also opposed emancipation. The fact was that the Confederacy was formed to preserve slavery, and the Confederate States Army was the slaveholders' great sword and shield.

 

[Vol Main]

That's like saying US troops were fighting for slavery in the War of 1812 since slavery was legal in the US but not the UK.

It really is not like saying that, but if you want to think so, then I suppose you will.

 

[volfanhill]

I hope you do understand that the Civil War was NOT started over slavery. It was all about northern greed trampling on states rights. The slavery issue came about far after the war began.

The following states said the following when seceding from the Union:

South Carolina stated reason:

"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. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety."

Mississippi

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin …"

Louisiana:

"As a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of annexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery."


Texas

"… in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states …"

Alabama

"Upon the principles then announced by Mr. Lincoln and his leading friends, we are bound to expect his administration to be conducted. Hence it is, that in high places, among the Republican party, the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as [a] change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new principles, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions—nothing less than an open declaration of war—for the triumph of this new theory of Government destroys the property of the South, lays waste her fields, and inaugurates all the horrors of a San Domingo servile insurrection, consigning her citizens to assassinations, and her wives and daughters to pollution and violation, to gratify the lust of half-civilized Africans."

I can also provide hundreds or quotes from pre-war confederate leaders stating explicitly that it was bc of slavery. Again all quotes above are from states explaining why they are leaving.

It was about states rights in the sense that the confederacy wanted the right to enslave people.

 

[OrangeTsar]

If you read the Articles of Secession from must of the states, they mention in no uncertain terms that the preservation of slavery was the primary cause of their departure.

Yup, even as a Southerner, I have to deny the oft repeated myth thy slavery wasn’t the dominant driver. There were other factors at play, but compromise could have been reached over those. Slavery was the issue that couldn’t be reconciled and it was the one that ultimately pushed the South into rebellion. Any Southerner clinging to a belief to the contrary is deceiving himself

 

[EasternVol]

If you read the Articles of Secession from must of the states, they mention in no uncertain terms that the preservation of slavery was the primary cause of their departure.

What about the states that seceded but did not do so for the preservation of slavery? Virginia's ordinance mentions slavery only in reference to "the Federal Government having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States". That came right after Lincoln called for troops to 'suppress the rebellion'. I don't think Tennessee's, North Carolina's or Arkansas' ordinances mention slavery.
And as noted above, most troops from even the Deep South were fighting not to preserve slavery but to defend their states.

 

[Godfatha]

Of course Southerners enlisted to defend their homes, but most opposed emancipation of slaves. When the war started, most Northern soldiers also opposed emancipation. The fact was that the Confederacy was formed to preserve slavery, and the Confederate States Army was the slaveholders' great sword and shield.

I can’t really disagree with that to be honest. Just saying the average soldier didn’t have a dog in the fight when it came to slavery.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Yes, it is accurate to say. Regardless of their motivations and opinions about slavery, if they were fighting in the Confederate Army they were defending slavery. Were they defending their homes? Yes. Were they defending slavery? Yes.

like most, this shows an ignorant view of the history of the civil war.

 

[Wireless1]

And if you can’t see the parallels to our country today. States have the right to choose slavery/abortion to be legal. Federal government can impose selective tax - free slaves (tax on slave owners) / Student loan forgiveness (tax on everyone who didn’t go to college or paid for college)
We are one charismatic firebrand away from another war

 

[landscapingvol]

Of course Southerners enlisted to defend their homes, but most opposed emancipation of slaves. When the war started, most Northern soldiers also opposed emancipation. The fact was that the Confederacy was formed to preserve slavery, and the Confederate States Army was the slaveholders' great sword and shield.

That’s a pretty good assessment

 

[Weezer]

Slavery was the issue, but it was demonstrating the federal government overstepping their Constitutional boundaries and interfering with a state's rights to self-govern. Both arguments can be and are true. I don't think anyone on here will argue slavery was okay, or that it should have continued, but the viewpoint of the time was that the federal government was looking to dictate what a state could or could not do within its own boundaries. I've said it before, I'll say it again, the federal government was never meant to have as much power as it has accrued as each state had its own sense of independence. The Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution with the idea that it would protect state's rights, though it has often failed to do so. People of the time identified more by their state identity than they did as "Americans". Robert E. Lee chose to fight for the Confederacy because he considered himself a "Virginian". Most of the Confederate forces were made up of non-slave holders who fought for their states. Yes, many of the individual state governments cited the threat to slavery as their reasoning, but they did not feel the federal government was within its rights to end slavery. (And technically, based on the Constitution as it existed at the time, they were right.) As evil as it was, slavery was the backbone of the Southern economy at the time. State governments felt their very way of life was being threatened by a totalitarian government.

Sorry for rambling on. But if you want an accurate picture of the Civil War, you have to stop looking at it from a viewpoint of today's world and try to see it from the viewpoint of the people of the time. The Southern States felt the federal government would attempt to overstep their authority, so they acted pre-emptively and seceded from a Union they had voluntarily entered and felt they should be able to voluntarily leave.

 

[AM64]

Slavery was the issue, but it was demonstrating the federal government overstepping their Constitutional boundaries and interfering with a state's rights to self-govern. Both arguments can be and are true. I don't think anyone on here will argue slavery was okay, or that it should have continued, but the viewpoint of the time was that the federal government was looking to dictate what a state could or could not do within its own boundaries. I've said it before, I'll say it again, the federal government was never meant to have as much power as it has accrued as each state had its own sense of independence. The Tenth Amendment was added to the Constitution with the idea that it would protect state's rights, though it has often failed to do so. People of the time identified more by their state identity than they did as "Americans". Robert E. Lee chose to fight for the Confederacy because he considered himself a "Virginian". Most of the Confederate forces were made up of non-slave holders who fought for their states. Yes, many of the individual state governments cited the threat to slavery as their reasoning, but they did not feel the federal government was within its rights to end slavery. (And technically, based on the Constitution as it existed at the time, they were right.) As evil as it was, slavery was the backbone of the Southern economy at the time. State governments felt their very way of life was being threatened by a totalitarian government.

Sorry for rambling on. But if you want an accurate picture of the Civil War, you have to stop looking at it from a viewpoint of today's world and try to see it from the viewpoint of the people of the time. The Southern States felt the federal government would attempt to overstep their authority, so they acted pre-emptively and seceded from a Union they had voluntarily entered and felt they should be able to voluntarily leave.

If the Ukrainian John Deere tractors and other farm equipment had been around in the mid 1800s, slavery wouldn't have been a necessity. Slavery existed all over the world - sometimes by other names such as serf, tenant, etc; but it was still slavery. Automation more than attitudes changed that - people have to eat. Factories in the north that processed cotton weren't exactly friendly places - even if they paid wages that barely provided sustenance. That was work or starve. When people talk about slaves and treatment, I would suggest "do you abuse your car or other necessary possession simply because you own it and you can?"

 

[Tnslim1]

I don't give AF what you hope, because you could not be more wrong.

So how about you tell me why the northern ships blockaded Charleston harbor. That wasn't about the slavery issue. It was about cotton.

 

[AshG]

So how about you tell me why the northern ships blockaded Charleston harbor. That wasn't about the slavery issue. It was about cotton.

*Clears throat*

Britain had outlawed slavery by this point in world history, but they were not above buying goods from countries where slavery was still in progress. Britain offered to buy cotton from southern states in large quantities and very inexpensively, which would prompt a significant increase in the need for slaves to work the fields as plantations expanded operations to meet demand.

So, yes; it ties back specifically to slavery.

 

[EasternVol]

*Clears throat*

Britain had outlawed slavery by this point in world history, but they were not above buying goods from countries where slavery was still in progress. Britain offered to buy cotton from southern states in large quantities and very inexpensively, which would prompt a significant increase in the need for slaves to work the fields as plantations expanded operations to meet demand.

So, yes; it ties back specifically to slavery.

Do you mean Britain wanted to continue to buy American cotton as before, or that they reduced their offer price after secession?

 

[AirVol]

Terrific. More "look at me being spiteful" politics.

Hey LG, are you as outraged over Ponce De Leon name all over parts of Florida? He was a murderer ya know.

 

[AirVol]

Yes, it is accurate to say. Regardless of their motivations and opinions about slavery, if they were fighting in the Confederate Army they were defending slavery. Were they defending their homes? Yes. Were they defending slavery? Yes.

So black confederate soldiers were fighting for slavery.

 

[GroverCleveland]

I believe @Weezer to be the closest to the pin on this. The first states seceded over the economics of slavery. And as mentioned in other posts, the subsequent seceding states did so because they believed Lincoln to be incorrect in calling for invasion. In east Tennessee, only one county voted for secession the first time. After Lincoln called for 75,000 troops, four more counties joined the pro-secession camp in the second vote. Did four counties suddenly decide they really were for slavery after all?

And if the war was really about freeing slaves, why didn’t Lincoln’s war aims specifically state that from the start? The Emancipation Proclamation very clearly ignored non-seceding states and was really aimed at keeping Great Britain (and the Royal Navy) from interfering as well as adding a more emotional underpinning to the sacrifices being made than the abstract Preservation of the Union. Accuse him of a lot, but I do believe Lincoln was a very smart politician and exceptional war leader.

The issues causing the War Between the States were many and complicated. Slavery was undoubtably the biggest underpinning. It is not, however because people of the South were hell-bent to subjugate blacks for the sake of subjugating the black race or because all free Southerners wanted to have house servants, as some seem to claim. It was because the economy of the South depended on slave labor. No economic interest and I seriously doubt a single state secedes.

It was economics stupid.

 

[Weezer]

I believe @Weezer to be the closest to the pin on this. The first states seceded over the economics of slavery. And as mentioned in other posts, the subsequent seceding states did so because they believed Lincoln to be incorrect in calling for invasion. In east Tennessee, only one county voted for secession the first time. After Lincoln called for 75,000 troops, four more counties joined the pro-secession camp in the second vote. Did four counties suddenly decide they really were for slavery after all?

And if the war was really about freeing slaves, why didn’t Lincoln’s war aims specifically state that from the start? The Emancipation Proclamation very clearly ignored non-seceding states and was really aimed at keeping Great Britain (and the Royal Navy) from interfering as well as adding a more emotional underpinning to the sacrifices being made than the abstract Preservation of the Union. Accuse him of a lot, but I do believe Lincoln was a very smart politician and exceptional war leader.

The issues causing the War Between the States were many and complicated. Slavery was undoubtably the biggest underpinning. It is not, however because people of the South were hell-bent to subjugate blacks for the sake of subjugating the black race or because all free Southerners wanted to have house servants, as some seem to claim. It was because the economy of the South depended on slave labor. No economic interest and I seriously doubt a single state secedes.

It was economics stupid.

Lincoln basically tore up the Constitution. I get his desire to preserve the Union, but he shat all over the very document that formed the Union to accomplish his goals.

 

[AM64]

I believe @Weezer to be the closest to the pin on this. The first states seceded over the economics of slavery. And as mentioned in other posts, the subsequent seceding states did so because they believed Lincoln to be incorrect in calling for invasion. In east Tennessee, only one county voted for secession the first time. After Lincoln called for 75,000 troops, four more counties joined the pro-secession camp in the second vote. Did four counties suddenly decide they really were for slavery after all?

And if the war was really about freeing slaves, why didn’t Lincoln’s war aims specifically state that from the start? The Emancipation Proclamation very clearly ignored non-seceding states and was really aimed at keeping Great Britain (and the Royal Navy) from interfering as well as adding a more emotional underpinning to the sacrifices being made than the abstract Preservation of the Union. Accuse him of a lot, but I do believe Lincoln was a very smart politician and exceptional war leader.

The issues causing the War Between the States were many and complicated. Slavery was undoubtably the biggest underpinning. It is not, however because people of the South were hell-bent to subjugate blacks for the sake of subjugating the black race or because all free Southerners wanted to have house servants, as some seem to claim. It was because the economy of the South depended on slave labor. No economic interest and I seriously doubt a single state secedes.

It was economics stupid.

Exactly. Large scale agriculture requires lots of bodies or machinery. Machinery wasn't available at the time. Time changes what can be done, but it doesn't retroactively change what could be done, and that's how you have to look at past and present.

 

[AM64]

Lincoln basically tore up the Constitution. I get his desire to preserve the Union, but he shat all over the very document that formed the Union to accomplish his goals.

In January 1848 Lincoln said: “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.” Apparently his position evolved when he was running the existing government.