Posted on 06/13/2005 6:08:24 AM PDT by sheltonmac
There were islands of quiet opposition but any public notice and they were doomed. Eastern Tennessee was also relatively slave free and pro-Union but these are exceptions which prove the rule.
Well, as a North Carolinian by way of Maryland, I wouldn't have any reason to keep it secret. =]
Well, as a North Carolinian by way of Maryland, I wouldn't have any reason to keep it secret. =]
"Gone With the Wind amply illustrates that."
Yes, all you'll ever need to know about "those people" in the south can be learned from Gone With The Wind. You need to stop while you're ahead, LOL.
Some of my ancestor suffered under the same delusions as yours. So what? There was NOTHING under attack by the Union prior to the Revolt. If people didn't see what the realities of the time were they often simply did not have the education sufficient to understand what was happening.
RAT propaganda was just as effective in 1860 as in 2004 and gulled millions to move against their best interests.
We would simply prefer that sanctimonious Ynakees quit meddling.
As for fighting, Southern white boys disproportionately have always fought in our nations wars and continue to do so today.
If you'd like a link on that go to my links page and scroll down. It's a USA Today report, hardly a NeoConfederate organ.
The immigration problem is so thorny precisely because of the recent tone that has swamped all reasonable discourse in this country, in that all issues must be addressed through race. The fact that you clamour for the Minutemen who themselves have been called racists by important folks on this board and at the same time admonish Southerners and others here who reject South bashing for the exact same reason is part of the problem.
That's just my take. I can't speak for others here.
Just ask for Hannibal.
True, perhaps...but most such interventions happened after slave-owners became a manageable minority in terms of political and economic power, having been reduced to such status through market forces.
Who has ever said on this debates here that the North's hands were clean? Confederate sympathizers have used the idea of a perfect North as a strawman.
*applause*
I am seeing so many aleged facts from one group of posters, that are entirely the opposite of aleged facts presented by the opposing side, that the more I read, the more confused I become.
We are on a topic here that genuinely needs to be discussed in detail, with links to unimpeachable sources. God only knows where we can find the real nitty gritty and how we will separate it from the pure unadulterated, self serving, citizen dividing bull sh*t that is being flung in our faces from the manure spreaders of history.
Let's try to keep this hot topic thread smoking with facts, rather than burning it down with flame wars.
For the sake of the salvation of this wonderful land and it's citizens and for our children and grandchildren, American's all, let's devote ourselves to searching out the source of the wound from which this scar came, and ask ourselves why the scar is causing us more pain and conflict than we felt while the wound was still raw and our life blood was draining away?
Actually most of those defending the RAT Rebellion take their arguments right from Margaret Mitchell. Her book does an excellent job of examining the Insanity which destroyed the South. It contains many truths as you know.
I would not cite it as a text but, like all good fiction, contains valuable insights.
It's more of a stones and glass house thing.
Somthing Yankees have never been concerned with since the Puritans.
So how long do you suppose it would have been before slaveowners in the south became a 'manageable minority'? How long before they would have lost their political and economic power?
The policy was falling out of favor, & the blacks that were there were free people who worked the land for part of the crops, and a sense for belonging. Was it right to own another person, NO it is not, and this way of living was coming to an end befoe the war had started. It was only the extermly large plantions had owned slaves, but that was costing more money to keep them there forcefully, but instead if the had wanted to stay that made the job easier. Why whip a person into submission, when you could entice them into staying by choice. They would produce much more in the way of crops, timber ect... by choice not by force.
"There was NOTHING under attack by the Union prior to the Revolt. If people didn't see what the realities of the time were they often simply did not have the education sufficient to understand what was happening."
The reality of the time was that their homes, land and possessions were threatened by hostile invasion. That they had no hand in provoking the invasion is immaterial; you defend your home and family. Simple as that. If I am following your logic, I suppose my family should have abandoned all they had and fled across the Blue Ridge and kept on going. Not really practical, and fraught with more potential peril than staying and fighting. As I said, things were far from monolithic, and it is very easy for you to sit in judgement 150 years after the fact. You've fallen prey to a class warfare mentality, much like modern Democrats, in their attempts at maintaining control over the minority vote... all African-Americans think the same, according to Democrats, and all want the same thing. Sound familiar?
That they were comfortable with that "incompatibility" for another 70 years?
It was about State Rights with the South.
Nope. The colonial Georgia government under Oglethorpe abolished slavery circa 1745.
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.