Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: central_va

Although I’m not seeing anyone on these boards stating that it was “all about slavery” (you do understand the difference between proximate cause and contributory cause, right?) the correct answer to your specific question could most likely be a resounding “yes”. Look at your own evidence.

Forrest tells his slaves that the war “was a war upon slavery” and that their future prospects and indeed their very lives depend upon the outcome. How could they think anything else?

Interestingly, even though individuals like Forrest and REL advocated emancipation in exchange for service, the official csa policy stubbornly refused to acknowledge the necessity - right up to the end.


56 posted on 01/03/2013 8:33:50 AM PST by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies ]


To: rockrr; central_va

A slave ordered to fight for the South was no more a volunteer than a horse or mule. His being armed says absolutely nothing about his beliefs or choices. That is the whole point and horror of slavery, that it removes free will from humans to whom God granted it.

Now admittedly an armed slave had the option of shirking, or even fragging during battle, but no more so than any other soldier. Including of course draftees who were equally given no choice of whether to serve.


57 posted on 01/03/2013 9:13:14 AM PST by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson