Posted on 07/26/2021 4:33:01 PM PDT by ammodotcom
It’s a wonderful article, well written and with a wonderful point.
“And secession was over what? Slavery. Pure and simple.”
If the South was fighting for slavery, who was fighting against slavery?
Presumably you mean the flag flown by pirates to let their prey know they were not going to take prisoners?
Wow. Statues of Gen. Forrest are being torn down, when in fact I’d say he deserves more put up just for so instructing his men.
I believe the money quote from him was “the war started in my front yard and ended in my front parlor.”
U.S. Grant’s biography is full of comments about the war being fought over slavery. He did not agree with slavery and went so far as to make sure blacks were part of the union troops. Look up Port Hudson and the Siege of Vicksburg. The leader of the entire union army would disagree with you about the reason for he war.
Yeah, and look how well that turned out for the South. Reconstruction, with continued hatred and privation caused by the North. They STILL hate us to this day, even 156 years later.
We here in Alabama are taking care of General Forrest. I know several who went with his bones when they were removed from Memphis, and travelled with them, until they are re-interred in TN.
You are exactly correct - places like Northern Ireland and Kosovo have had blood feuds that have continued for generations - as I understand it, significant sentiment to persist in resistance through guerrilla-like action was common among Confederate factions at that time, and it was the leadership of great and noble men like Lee and Forrest that kept us from going down that bloody path.
I’m a transplanted Yankee city boy who spent the best years of his life in the Deep South, and you’re right about those pinheads up North who hate anything about the South, its people and its culture - but they’re not the majority, and they’re mostly jackoffs who despise anybody and anything that doesn’t align with their radical lefty agenda.
No…didn’t you hear the news? It was Juneteenth when the slaves were freed. It was in all the papers this year. It’ll be a federal holiday next year.
Oh yeah , ok .....
As Mark Twain said “If you don’t read the newspaper, you’re uninformed. If you read the newspaper, you’re mis-informed.”
One of Lincoln’s first acts was to free the slaves in Washington DC. He knew that he didn’t have the authority to unilaterally free the slaves nationally. For that an amendment to the constitution was needed. That is the province of congress and the states, not the president.
Everyone points to those speeches and documents, brought by the Southern societal elite and conclude it was only about slavery, dismissing all the other evidence that points to freedom to make their own choices; which slavery just happened to be the immediate point of contention.
It is ridiculous to think that tens of thousands of men would force march to battle to fight for something they had no share in.
If it wasn’t slavery, it could have been something else; chiefly that the north and south were two different peoples that didn’t have a lot in common.
Bkmk
“ Everyone points to those speeches and documents, brought by the Southern societal elite and conclude it was only about slavery, …”
Everyone, including the southerners writing the secession declarations in Georgia, Virginia, Mississippi, Texas, and the one that got the party started, South Carolina.
But in the end, the slaves were freed, something the secessionists had been desperate to avoid.
One of Lincoln’s first acts was to free the slaves in Washington DC. He knew that he didn’t have the authority to unilaterally free the slaves nationally. For that an amendment to the constitution was needed. That is the province of congress and the states, not the president.
This is absolutely wrong. Abraham Lincoln was sworn into office on March 4, 1861. President Lincoln signed legislation to free Washington DC slaves on April 16, 1862, one year and one month after his inauguration. So his first acts was not to free the slaves in DC. Another thing, it was not President Lincoln who signed an EO to free the slaves in DC. This legislation was brought forward by a Jr. Senator from Massachusetts in December 1861 and took awhile for Congress to pass it. Lincoln did not free the slaves in DC, Congress did on April 3, 1862. Lincoln only signed the Bill. The Civil War started on April 15, 1861. Lincoln hadn’t even been in office 1 month when the war started.
The legislation titled “An Act for the release for the release of certain persons held to service or labor in the District of Columbia,” it freed the 3,100 women, men and children who were still enslaved in 1862. The act also allowed for slaveowners to be compensated up to $300 for each individual they had legally owned. In addition, newly-freed African Americans could receive up to $100 if they chose to emigrate to another country. (Reparations)
One of Lincolns first acts was to go to war with the South by issuing the Call for Troops. The Emancipation Proclamation was a Presidential Proclamation and Executive Order on January 1, 1863.
The War came first then the freeing of the slaves.
Please get your history correct.
No, that is the propaganda we have been fed in the intervening 150 years to justify why a bunch of states invaded other states and killed people because those states wanted to leave the Union.
The war had absolutely nothing to do with slavery. We've just been taught that crap all our lives.
Or else they had dealings with the “the South was Right!” crew and got really tired of their eternal, repetitive BS ...
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.