OT: Gen. Grant is being promoted.

[greenbean.sixpack]

Many slave holders were actually small farmers who owned only a few slaves, not large plantation owners.

I'd wager that most foot soldiers for the CSA didn't own any slaves.

 

[Bill Shankly]

The south would have still seceded when they did. The war was not about maintaining slavery. It was about the expansion of it and that is what Lincoln was stopping. Slavery as it existed and where it existed was going nowhere. There was even an amendment (which Lincoln spoke in favor of during his inaugural address) that had passed congress and was out being ratified by the states that slavery would be allowed to exist forever where it was already legal. At the time of the war, the south was paying for the overwhelming majority of the government through tariffs but only the north was benefitting from industrialization. The south was wanting to expand slavery to the new western states and territories to create a larger voting footprint in congress to keep the northern states from passing tariffs favorable for themselves. The first of these tariffs almost caused succession and a war about 20 or 30 years earlier before Old Hickory told John C. Calhoun he would personally come down to South Carolina and whip his ***.

The expansion of slavery WAS about maintaining it. The slave states knew that if slavery wasn't expanded to the new states coming into the Union it would eventually be voted out. It had nothing to do with tariffs. That is Lost Cause stuff.

 

[bruiser.sixpack]

I'd wager that most foot soldiers for the CSA didn't own any slaves.

This is correct. Many thought they were simply fighting to “preserve” the legacy of the South as the Grow Crop supplier of the Union. They were told of the excess tariffs on the southern states and felt obligated to join in the fight. Neither of my Great-Great Granfathers owned slaves. They were themselves merely Sharecroppers, who followed their neighbors into battle. Both were wounded, but neither died in the war. There is a lot more history to be learned from descendants of our ancestors than from a school text book. History continues to be re-written today to satisfy those who prefer to remove it rather then learn from it.

 

[dorndawg]

Great point that was not mentioned very much when I was going to school a long time ago in MS as much as that state's right thing that was the real reason for the Civil War.

State's rights to do what?

 

[jethreauxdawg]

I’ll take your word for it

Actually most plantation owners were NOT rolling in money. They were wealthy for sure but their wealth was tied up in land and slaves. Lots of wealth, not much cash. I found that very interesting when I discovered it. It explains a lot about why they did what they did.

They still risked everything for a potentially very small gain. It has always seemed to me the cost of paying their labor could’ve just been passed through to the north/rest of the world without going to war. It always seemed to me like a case of ego overpowering intelligent decision making.

 

[Bill Shankly]

This is correct. Many thought they were simply fighting to “preserve” the legacy of the South as the Grow Crop supplier of the Union. They were told of the excess tariffs on the southern states and felt obligated to join in the fight. Neither of my Great-Great Granfathers owned slaves. They were themselves merely Sharecroppers, who followed their neighbors into battle. Both were wounded, but neither died in the war. There is a lot more history to be learned from descendants of our ancestors than from a school text book. History continues to be re-written today to satisfy those who prefer to remove it rather then learn from it.

The rewriting of history occurred in the aftermath of the war when the Lost Cause myth, part of which is what you just espoused, was promoted. The South went to war, and they knew secession meant war, to preserve to right to hold slaves. The livelihoods of nearly everyone in the South were dependent on slavery in one way or another. it was the basis of the economic system.

 

[Bill Shankly]

State's rights to do what?

Read the states' own statements about it from 1861. It was slavery. They make no bones about it.

 

[thatsbaseball]

I've often wondered what if the Bible had been 100% anti-slavery and not somewhat ambivalent on it. Would that have made a difference....probably not but I've still always wondered.

 

[bruiser.sixpack]

The rewriting of history occurred in the aftermath of the war when the Lost Cause myth, part of which is what you just espoused, was promoted. The South went to war, and they knew secession meant war, to preserve to right to hold slaves. The livelihoods of nearly everyone in the South were dependent on slavery in one way or another. it was the basis of the economic system.

Sorry. But having the truth passed down from the actual participants gives me a little more incite. My family had nothing to gain from slavery. They lived much like the slaves did, including the housing and food. What they did have is the freedom to leave and go find another way to make it which the slaves did not have. Me thinks you know very little about the “original” sharecropper. At the time, they understood it to be a “just war”.

After the war, my great-great grandfathers and their families went back to share cropping and lived near freed slaves that they often worked with. hunted with and fished with. That is a FACT.

 

[dorndawg]

Sorry. But having the truth passed down from the actual participants gives me a little more incite. My family had nothing to gain from slavery. They lived much like the slaves did, including the housing and food. What they did have is the freedom to leave and go find another way to make it which the slaves did not have. Me thinks you know very little about the “original” sharecropper. At the time, they understood it to be a “just war”.

After the war, my great-great grandfathers and their families went back to share cropping and lived near freed slaves that they often worked with. hunted with and fished with. That is a FACT.

LOL

 

[dorndawg]

I've often wondered what if the Bible had been 100% anti-slavery and not somewhat ambivalent on it. Would that have made a difference....probably not but I've still always wondered.

The Bible is amazingly clear on loving our neighbor, and... well...

 

[Bill Shankly]

Sorry. But having the truth passed down from the actual participants gives me a little more incite. My family had nothing to gain from slavery. They lived much like the slaves did, including the housing and food. What they did have is the freedom to leave and go find another way to make it which the slaves did not have. Me thinks you know very little about the “original” sharecropper. At the time, they understood it to be a “just war”.

After the war, my great-great grandfathers and their families went back to share cropping and lived near freed slaves that they often worked with. hunted with and fished with. That is a FACT.

Me thinks you are wrong on what I know about sharecroppers, and why they fought. Me thinks you have read very little of what the actual people of the day said. I think you also know almost nothing about the way the southern economy worked before the war. You didn't have to own any slaves to be touched by the economic impact of slavery.

 

[bruiser.sixpack]

Me thinks you are wrong on what I know about sharecroppers, and why they fought. Me thinks you have read very little of what the actual people of the day said. I think you also know almost nothing about the way the southern economy worked before the war. You didn't have to own any slaves to be touched by the economic impact of slavery.

Well, when i heard the truth from the children of the participants, tell me what my grandfathers had to gain from lying about their experiences, before, during and after the War. They had nothing to gain from lying about their experiences.

Remember that dear leader JF Kennedy thought Vietnam was a “just war”.

There are no just wars! Young people die in wars. 12-14 year olds died in the Civil War. On both sides.
I fear this country may not have learned its lesson that ALL men and women and Children should live free, unencumbered by an oppressive government, making laws that limit that freedom.

 

[Irondawg]

I've often wondered what if the Bible had been 100% anti-slavery and not somewhat ambivalent on it. Would that have made a difference....probably not but I've still always wondered.

The problem, as I understand it from limited study, is the translation. While a lot of translation states slaves in most passages it was slavery as we think about it in America. Bondservant is the more applicable meaning typically so it’s been applied in some cases out of context.

Forced subjugation I don’t think was ever painted in a good light.