Posted on 04/15/2010 1:16:02 PM PDT by wolfcreek
Ten years ago, I received an e-mail from a reader who signed him or herself "J.D." "I am a white racist," wrote J.D., "a white supremacist and I do not deny it."
From that, you'd suspect J.D. had nothing of value to say. You'd be mistaken. J.D. wrote in response to a column documenting the fact that preservation of slavery was the prime directive of the Confederacy. "I was most pleased to see you write what we both know to be the truth," the e-mail said. "I never cease to be amazed at the Sons of Confederate Veterans and similar 'heritage not hate' groups who are constantly whining that the Confederacy was not a white, racist government ..."
That argument, noted J.D. with wry amusement, plays well with "white people who want to be Confederates without any controversy."
(Excerpt) Read more at news-record.com ...
Lincoln and the Republicans knew that there was nothing they could do about slavery where it existed. Their aim was to halt the expansion.
.Hence it wasn’t slavery it was secession that caused it to escalate to war.
But the reason for secession was what the South saw as the threat to the expansion of slavery so we're back to square one.
And what you continue to ignore is that if the confederacy had not started the war there wouldn't have been an invasion to begin with.
Because if it was primarily about slavery I don't think the groundswell of support would have been there.
You just showed that the two were inextricably linked. I would go further and suggest that slavery was more than just the pillar of the Southern economy. It was a foundation of Southern society as well.
And last anyone who thinks Sherman is a "hero" (N-S) is below slime (IMO)
And you're welcome to you opinion, biased as it may be. Sherman beat you, and that's why you can't stand him.
The world just went through what's was called, *an economic meltdown*
Got any idea who initiated that melt down? Any idea who benefited the most from that meltdown?
If not, you need to think outside the box a little. The same folks who did this were around to do it in the 30s and were around to manipulate the fortunes of our country prior, during and after the CW.
Seems the Brits (Bank of England) and others didn't appreciate our secession from their tyranny.
Well that’s pretty much where one always find himself when he discusses this subject.....buts it’s such fun!!!
Sorry that you are offended but this argument you put forth is patently absurd in that you attempt to claim rights for slaves in 1865 by maintaining that the south ignored the constitution when it is obvious the founding father did not consider them as worthy of the same rights as whites. I think they were wrong but never the less that was their thinking so it isn't surprising that people in the south would think the same. The constitution as interpreted at the time made slavery legal.
If they had asserted their authority in an atmosphere when slavery had never been an issue, say for some very real economic shenanigans I read were being forced upon the south by the north, then I think the war would have taken a differet direction. The churches of the north got their moral dander up over slavery and the south would have never won that arguement. If the arguement had simply been about economics and deprivation of the south’s rights to conduct say cotton trade with the factory mills of Europe, the moral conscience of the Christians would never have gotten involved and the outcome would have been different. There might not have even been a national split but a final working out of a solution.
Longstreet was said to have stated” We should have freed the slaves first and then fired on Sumpter” He had grasped that the north would have had no moral imperative to continue the fight and that the powers of Europe would have been more disposed to render aid to the southern cause if slavery had not been the issue!
I agree. Of course there was also a reflexive support for kin and countryman, a big economic tie-in, and regional resentment. But you and he are fundamentally right and it is amazing how tone-deaf some Republicans can be in 2010.
Longstreet never said that, Michael Shaara did. He put those words in Longstreet's mouth when he wrote his novel, "The Killer Angels".
ALL of the 13 original colonies permitted slavery in 1776.
The facts show that the war began in the early morning of April 12th when the rebel batteries opened fire on the federal troops in Fort Sumter.
But only five days after taking the oath of office in March, Lincoln unilaterally determined that his promise not to send troops was invalid...
And when did he make this promise?
...and embarked on a clandestine mission to start the war in the South.
Jefferson Davis didn't need any prompting in order to do that.
My question is why are they so rigid in their stance that slavery was the ONLY reason for the CW.
Who does it really benefit to not consider the other reasons? For most of them, I don’t see their pony in the race.
I had wondered, but I don’t doubt it was the sentiment of many fine southern gentlemen of the time.
Some look back on incidences like this that led to the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Brown_(abolitionist)
You left out the last part of that sentence:
"...against increasing federal encroachment with respect to the humans whom they held as property."
Because it is impossible to imagine the CW starting over any other issue.
If you’re relying on *imagine* tells me you don’t know for sure.
Have you seen the link at #50? There are other reasons to imagine, there.
Then why didn't they secede in 1859?
I'm not aware of any quotes indicating that.
Don’t ask such foolish questions. You know it wasn’t a spur of the moment event.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.