Posted on 07/18/2022 1:02:13 PM PDT by Dr. Franklin
Recording made in 1947 when he was 101 years old as an oral history of the American Civil War, (or the War Between the States, as it is known in South). This man joined the 24th Virginia Calvary in 1862 at the age of 16 and and half. He was eventually taken prisoner in the Spring of 1965 at what must have been the Battle of Hillsman's House since her refers to Gen. Ewell's surrender. He was held at Point Lookout, Maryland until the end of the war.
He is quite emphatic that the South didn't fight for "the preservation or extension of slavery", but for states rights. When he begins by reminiscing about the "early 50's", he was, of course, referring to the 1850's.
West Virginia was added to the Union on June 20, 1863.
Bookmark
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/reasons-secession
Slavery
1) Each declaration makes the defense of slavery a clear objective.
READ MORE
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 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.
Texas: 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.
South Carolina: Those [Union] States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States.
Georgia: That reason was [the North’s] fixed purpose to limit, restrain, and finally abolish slavery in the States where it exists. The South with great unanimity declared her purpose to resist the principle of prohibition to the last extremity.
2) Some states argue that slavery should be expanded.
READ MORE
3) Abolitionism is attacked as a method of inciting violent uprisings.
4) Mississippi and Georgia point out that slavery accounts for a huge portion of the Southern economy.
READ MORE
States’ Rights
1) The states argue that the Union is a compact, one that can be annulled if the states are not satisfied with what they receive in return from other states and/or from the federal government.
READ MORE
2) The states argue that the North’s reluctance to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 (mandating that fugitive slaves be returned to the South) means that the compact is no longer satisfactory.
Other Grievances
1) All of the states negatively mention Abraham Lincoln’s election and his suspected abolitionist leanings.
READ MORE
You will like these observations very much, especially the last part.
His accent is a mystery to me. It doesn’t sound like the Virginia accents I heard in Northern Virginia during the 1950s and 60s, which were much more exaggeratedly Southern. He speaks almost like a television announcer; and possibly did do speaking tours in his life due to his experiences. In his voice, I hear traces of Scotland and England;, and the emphasis, tone and phrasing similar to that which audiences heard in the first “talkie” movies of the 1920s and 1930s.
He sounds like he came from a good family, but middle class, not planters; and his story reveals he was very involved in his schooling.
A REAL Cowboy doesn’t care.
Texas was here long BEFORE the United States (yes, you can look that up), and Texas will be here long AFTER the United States.
We have already had 6 flags flying over this God-loving country, but few are strong enough to stay.
But he probably voted for Biden as many his age did.
These may be in the written reasons for secession, but they are not necessarily reasons why the men fought and died. To know that, you would have to ask them, or their heirs to whom they shared the knowledge.
Indeed, most of the men who actually fought and died could neither read nor write.
I think the units of cotton are referred as “bales” not “bails”
Bail is money paid for the conditional release of a defendant with the promise to appear in court when required
When you get down to individual reasons for fighting, that is as varied as each individual.
Most, probably, fought for their state.
Exactly my point. So why do people still say the southerners fought for slavery?
They have no clue why the boys in grey were fighting.
The USA will stand forever! There is no way that Texas would have left the Confederacy though.
Yep. Some people never reach the point of intellect to realize applying their modern values as how it should have been in another time is a non sequitur.
I somehow do not share your optimistic view.
Every empire eventually falls, and it usually happens after the government becomes so corrupt it cannot stand and the people will no longer support it.
Some Texans wore blue. Following good old Sam Houston.
Southern Unionism is a neglecting topic in the Civil War.
“…or the War Between the States, as it is known in South.”
—————
That’s wrong, it is known as the “War of Northern Aggression” throughout the South.
This was fascinating! Thanks for posting. I shared with others too.
Are you counting Missouri as out then?
What part of TX are you you from?
“Eisenhower was a near traitor for what h÷did to Mccarthy. His “ Modern Republicanism” suckered as well. The orginal Rhino.”
—————
Assuming, just for the sake of argument, that your analysis of Eisenhower is correct (and I don’t believe that it is), then how, exactly, does that make his assessment of Robert E. Lee’s character incorrect? IOW, it seems pretty clear that you’re making an ad hominem argument that utterly fails to address the substance of what Ike said about Lee.
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.