My dad and I were discussing this and it let to a thought and this seems to be a perfect place to throw that thought out there in a world whose debate and discussion I respect.

 

Now that I have sucked up enough....

 

Rather than this being a Southern way of life to protect wasn't it more of a RICH Southern person trying to protect their way of life?

 

I mean did poor people have slaves? RM would you and I have been a Southern person that would have economically had the opportunity to own a slave?

 

I wondered if this wasn't more of rich Southerners trying to protect their pocketbooks than anything. And the point is being hidden by the argument of Southern way of life?

 

 

Actually poor people did have slaves. If you read up on the settling of Kentucky, you'll see many people who later had much means, came here from places like Pennsylvania. Some brought slaves with them, and others procured them after a while in Kentucky. As people became wealthier and gained more land, they bought or captured more slaves. Thus more wealth was achieved for the family, and the cycle went on.

 

It wasn't just rich Southerners protecting their pocketbooks. It was all southeners.

I agree. Maybe it would have been better for them to continue glorifying racism -- because that's why the Civil War was fought -- so that everybody could openly ridicule them for clinging to outrageous beliefs.

 

And before the whole "state's rights" party shows up, I'm wondering how many of them will wear a swastika on their arm out of support for traditional Hinduism, Buddhism or Jainism (just to name dozens of others groups who used the swastika before the Nazis fouled it up).

 

Or, maybe they just like being called traitors and racists.

 

 

Well I know in India the swastika is still all over a bunch of things. I have a friend over there right now for business who has told me about it.

Actually poor people did have slaves. If you read up on the settling of Kentucky, you'll see many people who later had much means, came here from places like Pennsylvania. Some brought slaves with them, and others procured them after a while in Kentucky. As people became wealthier and gained more land, they bought or captured more slaves. Thus more wealth was achieved for the family, and the cycle went on.

 

It wasn't just rich Southerners protecting their pocketbooks. It was all southeners.

 

Thanks for the info. Like I said one of the things that was discussed and wondered. Figured the correct info could be found on here.

Lincoln's war aim was the preservation of the union and you state the case very well.

 

However to say slavery was not the issue is even more untrue. It wasn't just about the current slavery in the states that formed the Confederacy. It was every bit as tied to the expansion of slavery in new territories and states as they were added. It was the underlying tension of the entire 19th century in the US until the war. (and after it if the truth be known)

 

Every compromise that prevented the war got tougher to make between the two factions and eventually the southern states seceeded because they had lost the power of an equal number of slave states and free states. Slavery was at the heart of everything done in those years, especially among the southern states.

 

Slavery was an issue Pre War, not the war itself.

The argument before the war was whether or not slave owners could bring their slaves which was considered property into another state that was against it. Which was the case with Pro slavery Missouri and antislavery state Kansas. Missouri Border Ruffians rode across state lines and would burn farms and murder antislavery men. Kansas guerrillas, called jaywalkers, retaliated. Eventually the US army got was called to curtail the bloodshed. This was a pivotal moment in which most southerners started believing that southern states could never make peace with a strong national gov't, southern states next move was secession.

 

 

Oh and a quick question....If you told a union solider during the civil war that he was fighting the war to free the slaves rather than preserve the union..what do you think he would say...or should i say do to you??

^ I think we should just go ahead and change all of history and hope that it will push us into a utopian society full of princesses and 4 leaf clovers.

Don't forget the unicorns!

jaywalkers

" Jaywalkers " ?!!! Don't you mean Jayhawkers .

Slavery was an issue Pre War, not the war itself.

The argument before the war was whether or not slave owners could bring their slaves which was considered property into another state that was against it. Which was the case with Pro slavery Missouri and antislavery state Kansas. Missouri Border Ruffians rode across state lines and would burn farms and murder antislavery men. Kansas guerrillas, called jaywalkers, retaliated. Eventually the US army got was called to curtail the bloodshed. This was a pivotal moment in which most southerners started believing that southern states could never make peace with a strong national gov't, southern states next move was secession.

 

 

Oh and a quick question....If you told a union solider during the civil war that he was fighting the war to free the slaves rather than preserve the union..what do you think he would say...or should i say do to you??

 

It was an issue that began the war. Why? Because it was THE issue for Secession.

 

You describe the "need" to take slaves into new territories. Why? Because it meant those states would elect reps to Congress that would vote in line with Southerners. When they realized they were losing power in Washington they then talked of Secession (sp?). It was about the power they were losing in taking their "way of life" elsewhere. (See Missouri Compromise and Kansas/Nebraska Act) By 1860 they felt their voting block was lost with the election of Lincoln. (who btw did not appear on some southern ballots so there's a 'state's rights' issue that was used, probably for the last time)

 

I have never said the war was "pitched" by the North as a war for the Union for the most part. If you asked an "abolitionist" soldier (see Robert Shaw's diary and letters) you would get their version of the reasons for the war or why they were fighting.

 

I believe once the war began to become so costly in blood, Lincoln seized on the opportunity to turn the moral front of the war and issued the Emancipation Proclamation. His later speeches then spent the time making certain the war had some moral outcome to vindicate the sacrifice of so many.

It was an issue that began the war. Why? Because it was THE issue for Secession.

 

You describe the "need" to take slaves into new territories. Why? Because it meant those states would elect reps to Congress that would vote in line with Southerners. When they realized they were losing power in Washington they then talked of Secession (sp?). It was about the power they were losing in taking their "way of life" elsewhere. (See Missouri Compromise and Kansas/Nebraska Act) By 1860 they felt their voting block was lost with the election of Lincoln. (who btw did not appear on some southern ballots so there's a 'state's rights' issue that was used, probably for the last time)

 

I have never said the war was "pitched" by the North as a war for the Union for the most part. If you asked an "abolitionist" soldier (see Robert Shaw's diary and letters) you would get their version of the reasons for the war or why they were fighting.

 

I believe once the war began to become so costly in blood, Lincoln seized on the opportunity to turn the moral front of the war and issued the Emancipation Proclamation. His later speeches then spent the time making certain the war had some moral outcome to vindicate the sacrifice of so many.

 

Secession and and the war itself are two different things. It was not THE main issue, more so the last straw in the souths eyes.

 

Thank you for elaborating my point in the second paragraph. I can see no matter how long we discuss this neither one of us will change our stances!!!:isurrender:

We've become such a soft society it makes me cringe a lot of times now days it seems.

For the record, the civil war was less about overt racism, as it was about being able to continue conducting business in their industry standard. Racism, specifically, was a contributing factor, but it was economics. The souhtern states needed slavery to continue to thrive in cotton, tobacco and sugar industries. Slavery wasn't ONLY Africans. The majority..yes. But there was a significant amount of white slaves, and indentured servants as well.

 

I don't personally have an issue with the symbols and trappings of the historical southern past. It would be as silly as being upset at seeing the Union Jack somewhere, etc.

 

:thumb:

Is it so bad to think people sport rebel stuff to remember the heritage of thier grandparents growing up in the south.

Is it so bad to think people sport rebel stuff to remember the heritage of thier grandparents growing up in the south.

 

You mean like owning a slave?

You mean like owning a slave?

 

Thats exactly what I meant!!!! No, I mean like rich southern pride like most people of the south have. I'm sick of the general assumption that if people fly rebel colors they are a racist that own slaves.

Thats exactly what I meant!!!! No, I mean like rich southern pride like most people of the south have. I'm sick of the general assumption that if people fly rebel colors they are a racist that own slaves.

 

You can have rich southern pride very easily without flying a rebel flag that for better or worse has become a symbol of a nation divided over slavery.

You can have rich southern pride very easily without flying a rebel flag that for better or worse has become a symbol of a nation divided over slavery.

 

To me it just doesn't seem like something to raise cane about.