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.
“The CSA was nothing more than a collection of pompous southern oligarchs, and semi retarded dirt poor whites who keep slavery going.”
That is an interesting comment.
Is it your contention that because southern states had slavery they were disqualified from seeking independence from Union states?
Yep.
We went to Gettysburg and there is a plaque that states the north fought the South because the South wanted to keep slaves.
Lies.
Slavery was just a vehicle. States Rights was the real issue.
Telling them they could no longer own them was tantamount to telling them they had to do anything else... like, say.. Buy health care.
You clearly know nothing about the CSA or Southerners, then or now. How ignorant, hateful, and insulting you are.
“After the Emancipation Proclamation, the north gained the moral high ground.”
The CSA had slaves. The USA had slaves too.
The CSA Constitution included protection of slavery. The USA Constitution included protection of slavery too.
The presidents of both the CSA and the USA took oaths to protect and defend their pro-slavery constitutions.
After the Emancipation Proclamation, one of those presidents added a slave state to his nation. Do you know which one?
And he’s still more open for questions today than Joe Biden.
To be fair, the real turning point was Antietam. True, the battle was merely a draw, but it was enough to allow Abe to issue the EM.
More importantly, that battle kept France from declaring support for the CSA. Otherwise, France could have broken the Union Blockade, and the war would have ended differently.
This is a forum for conservatives. Not the likes of you.
New York was taking about 60% of all the value of the South's entire production, and if the South became independent, New York would lose about 230 million dollars per year in 1860 dollars. Worse still, European manufactured goods would have flooded the continent through Southern ports at prices deeply undercutting the North Eastern manufacturers, and thereby causing a double financial whammy to the power barons who would have lost significant market share and income.
The existing power structure in New York and Washington DC, then as now wanted all the nation's money funneling through their pockets, and when the South threatened to take control of their own trade and finances, this was more than the existing power structure could tolerate, and so they launched a war to subjugate the South.
Lincoln clearly had no intention of freeing the slaves when he began his presidency, and he did in fact urge the passage of an amendment that would have made slavery virtually permanent. (The Corwin Amendment.)
Lincoln and his New York backers knew where all the trade money came from, and they were not going to tolerate it getting out of their control. Their initial efforts was to get control back quickly so that everything could resume as it was before the war. When Southern doggedness kept them from winning quickly, they eventually decided it would be better to break the economic back of the South than to allow it to escape their control, and this is why they moved to abolish slavery.
In point of fact, the Northerners didn't really care about the black people, and they would have kept them in slavery had the North won quickly, but after almost two years, they saw it as a useful tactic to help them win the war, and so they made it one of their goals.
The whole affair is a lot more complex than people realize, and this is why people just generally accept the commonly repeated claim that the entire thing was over slavery. It was really about who would control that money, not about who was creating it.
Also, the Northern powers were mostly English, and the Southern powers was mostly Scottish, and so there was a continuation of the bad blood that existed before back in the old country.
“No, it was for the choice of slaves that the South fought.”
If the South was fighting for slavery, who was fighting against slavery?
The commies were the ones doing that. Which was who Franco fought against.
He we go with the stupid lost causers who polite this site.
The Confederacy was rightfully destroyed.
Most Southern soldiers would say states rights was the reason they fought.
“Lee should have been hung and his body been torn apart by dogs in the DC gutter.”
I would remind you what a nasty idiot you are, but I think I would just as soon talk to a blank wall.
Maryland couldn’t secede - Lincoln garrisoned Baltimore with federal troops fearing that DC would be surrounded.
Not lost causers. Just people who want to ensure the truth is remembered.
This is real history … not The 1619 Project.
This is a board that celebrates the USA, there are plenty of pro-Confederate boards you can go to.
That, I didn’t know. It wasn’t part of Texas history and my family wasn’t there.
That is also why I enjoy reading these threads.
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.