confederate symbols

P

Push

Audioholic
And, what they considered to be in their own self-interest, was to maintain the institution of slavery. Any other excuses are mere window dressing.
The Civil War Was About Slavery. Confederate Leaders Were Totally Clear On This. | HuffPost Latest News
Sorry dude, that is a fairly one dimensional Google view of the American Civil War and the causes behind it. If you're really interested, research the northern and English bank loans on southern properties and the tariffs on Southern cotton imposed by the north, with regards to their capitalization and cash flow. Slavery was seen as a means to an end, a way to keep southern land ownership in the south, and not by the large textile firms of the north. If you owned large tracts of land, and someone in the federal government threatened to take it over, what would you be willing to do to ensure the safety and well being of your family? As I said, not quite as black and white as our modern day "scholars" would have you believe.
 
Steve81

Steve81

Audioholics Five-0
And, how did they stand up to it.
FWIW, there was at least some distinction among the various Confederates, ranging from absolutely ghastly individuals to some who were flawed but less objectionable.

Of the major figures, Stonewall Jackson is one of the least objectionable that I know of. While he owned slaves, and obviously was on the wrong side of history, he is also remembered by some for his work in teaching slaves, including teaching some to read and write (a crime at the time).

 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic General
Sorry dude, that is a fairly one dimensional Google view of the American Civil War and the causes behind it. If you're really interested, research the northern and English bank loans on southern properties and the tariffs on Southern cotton imposed by the north, with regards to their capitalization and cash flow. Slavery was seen as a means to an end, a way to keep southern land ownership in the south, and not by the large textile firms of the north. If you owned large tracts of land, and someone in the federal government threatened to take it over, what would you be willing to do to ensure the safety and well being of your family? As I said, not quite as black and white as our modern day "scholars" would have you believe.
I remember covering the Civil War twice in high school history classes in the 1970s. Once in freshman US history then again in AP US History. We must have spent a month on the run up to the war, history of slavery, all the nuances mentioned above including the economics. and finally the war itself, by battle. I had two kids take AP US History in the last 5 years and their teachers just glossed over it. I made them both watch Ken Burns series just to give them some perspective into it's impact on US history.

Another aspect of the war rarely mentioned is the fact that in the run up to the war, it was fairly well known that succession was also about the vision of a Confederate "Empire" stretching south into Latin America. If the Confederacy prevailed, they would have moved south and probably into the Caribbean. Also, not taught is what was happening in Mexico at the time of the Civil War, namely the France's invasion that lasted from 1861 to 67. It's too bad history today is something else.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
Sorry dude, that is a fairly one dimensional Google view of the American Civil War and the causes behind it. If you're really interested, research the northern and English bank loans on southern properties and the tariffs on Southern cotton imposed by the north, with regards to their capitalization and cash flow. Slavery was seen as a means to an end, a way to keep southern land ownership in the south, and not by the large textile firms of the north. If you owned large tracts of land, and someone in the federal government threatened to take it over, what would you be willing to do to ensure the safety and well being of your family? As I said, not quite as black and white as our modern day "scholars" would have you believe.
The other causes for the secession of the southern states stem from the existence of slavery in those states and their desire to spread it to new states and territories. Again, window dressing. Whatever dire economic straits one finds himself in, holding another human being in a state of bondage in order to keep your fiscal status in the black is morally repugnant.

If your business model requires extracting free labour from your workforce, then the model is not viable.

American Civil War - Wikipedia
The causes of secession were complex and have been controversial since the war began, but most academic scholars identify slavery as the central cause of the war. The issue has been further complicated by historical revisionists, who have tried to offer a variety of reasons for the war.[16] Slavery was the central source of escalating political tension in the 1850s. The Republican Party was determined to prevent any spread of slavery to the territories, which, after they were admitted as states, would give the North greater representation in Congress and the Electoral College. Many Southern leaders had threatened secession if the Republican candidate, Lincoln, won the 1860 election. After Lincoln won, many Southern leaders felt that disunion was their only option, fearing that the loss of representation would hamper their ability to promote pro-slavery acts and policies.[17][18] In his second inaugural address, Lincoln said that "slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it."[19]
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic General
If your business model requires extracting free labour from your workforce, then the model is not viable.

American Civil War - Wikipedia
If you are interested in the Civil War, here are some websites with links to primary sources.


As for your last line. Quite agree, one could ask any Eastern European, Cuban, etc about life under communism or any left wing or right wing totalitarian regime.
 
highfigh

highfigh

Seriously, I have no life.
John S Mosby, Robert E Lee (this one has some controversy) and Gen Wheeler are 3 that immediately come to mind. If I cared enough, I could dig out the old books and bring more to the table. History is never black and white, as much as some would like us to believe.
I'm sure there's something out there that doesn't agree with this link, but I would hardly call Lee 'anti-slavery'.

Don't just attack me if you want to hold onto your view that he was, read the article first and do some digging.

 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic General
I'm sure there's something out there that doesn't agree with this link, but I would hardly call Lee 'anti-slavery'.

Don't just attack me if you want to hold onto your view that he was, read the article first and do some digging.

Further to your point, here is an interesting article on Lee's views. Historians are still debating it @150 years later. One cannot read inside the mind of a complex individual but ultimately he did have a choice. Fight for the Union or the Confederacy? He chose "Virginia" warts and all as well as fighting against many of his ex military colleagues who he fought with in the Mexcian-American war in 1846.

 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
If you are interested in the Civil War, here are some websites with links to primary sources.


As for your last line. Quite agree, one could ask any Eastern European, Cuban, etc about life under communism or any left wing or right wing totalitarian regime.
Thanks for the link. The Civil War is interesting. It was probably the first large scale industrial war. And, unlike most prior wars, there is a lot of documentation by the frontline private soldiers, since literacy was far more common. But, most of all, I think its legacy is not fully resolved. When you have politicians who have only recently suggested that black people were better off as slaves, it's clear that there are many people who have not reconciled with the past and are living in a fantasy world.
These Politicians Praise Slavery (thedailybeast.com)

As for people like John Mosby, it required severe cognitive dissonance to both abhor slavery and fight for the Confederacy. It reminds me of some senior German military leaders who detested the Nazi regime, yet still fought for them.
A former Confederate officer on slavery and the Civil War, 1907 | Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History

While life under communist regimes is no bowl of cherries for most people, I wouldn't consider them to be enslaved in the true sense of the term. Of course, those held in labour camps such as the Soviet Gulag certainly qualify.

There's no question about slave labour within the Third Reich.

And, we can't forget, slavery has not been completely abolished in the USA.
Slavery Is Still Legal in the United States (newsweek.com)
 
S

shadyJ

Speaker of the House
Staff member
Who gives a sh!t about Gen Robert Lee's personal views on slavery, or anyone else involved in the confederacy for that matter? They fought for an evil cause, so it doesn't matter if they were Mother Teresa in their personal life. The one thing they did which mattered the most was an affront to humanity. All of their sculptures should be broken apart and melted and turned into a cenotaph to memorialize the history of slavery in the US.
 
MaxInValrico

MaxInValrico

Senior Audioholic
Further to your point, here is an interesting article on Lee's views. Historians are still debating it @150 years later. One cannot read inside the mind of a complex individual but ultimately he did have a choice. Fight for the Union or the Confederacy? He chose "Virginia" warts and all as well as fighting against many of his ex military colleagues who he fought with in the Mexcian-American war in 1846.

Lee chose to be a traitor and as a result, well deserved a traitors fate. He was no hero and he wasn't that great of a General.
 
P

Push

Audioholic
Don't just attack me if you want to hold onto your view that he was, read the article first and do some digging.
I rarely attack first, I'm of the mindset that people should be able to have healthy debates without it turning to ugliness and rhetoric. But if other pigs decide to wallow, I'll happily get dirty :)

Anyway, I'm not a civil war buff, but my information came from an economics 401 class paper I did 30+ years ago. I can't remember my kid's names some days, but I remember much of what I wrote back then. Our University stacks actually had copies of the Robert E Lee journals, and while it didn't really pertain to my paper, I found myself quite interested in what I found so I kept reading for curiosities sake.

I haven't kept up on it, and other than occasionally reading an article or two in the Smithsonian newsletter, I really don't devote much thought to it, other than to abhor the waste of taxpayers money.

Rod
 
P

Push

Audioholic
As for people like John Mosby, it required severe cognitive dissonance to both abhor slavery and fight for the Confederacy. It reminds me of some senior German military leaders who detested the Nazi regime, yet still fought for them.
A former Confederate officer on slavery and the Civil War, 1907 | Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
No severe cognitive dissonance, it requires an understanding of what was considered southern honour (in the case of the Confederates) and Teutonic officers honour (in the case of the German military leaders). Most Southern confederates believed their allegiance was first to the confederate states, then to the union. And their code of honour demanded they put personal feelings aside and support their confederacy. The Nazi thing is whole other ball of wax, but I dare say if someone held a gun to your wife's head or your children's head and demanded something of you that you found abhorrent, you'd at least go through a long gut check moment.

Its easy to judge people if you haven't had to walk in their shoes.

Rod
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic General
And, we can't forget, slavery has not been completely abolished in the USA.
Slavery Is Still Legal in the United States (newsweek.com)
Interesting article. It would most beneficial of them also do an article on the sex trafficking of women slaves. That is a bigger problem than the subject of that article. Not only in the US but Canada, the UK, Europe, Middle East, on and on.



Some stats on modern slavery. Some of them are our trading "partners":

 
lovinthehd

lovinthehd

Audioholic Jedi
My understanding is republicans are moving back to approving slavery, debtor prisons and only closeted gay republicans....oh, and restricting long hair on men as well as any piercings/earrings etc. Saving society!
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
Interesting article. It would most beneficial of them also do an article on the sex trafficking of women slaves. That is a bigger problem than the subject of that article. Not only in the US but Canada, the UK, Europe, Middle East, on and on.



Some stats on modern slavery. Some of them are our trading "partners":

You may be missing my point, which is that the institution of state-sanctioned forced labour still exists in the US. While the trafficking of women as sex slaves is most certainly a problem, it's illegal. There should be a special section of Hell reserved for those criminals.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Spartan
No severe cognitive dissonance, it requires an understanding of what was considered southern honour (in the case of the Confederates) and Teutonic officers honour (in the case of the German military leaders). Most Southern confederates believed their allegiance was first to the confederate states, then to the union. And their code of honour demanded they put personal feelings aside and support their confederacy. The Nazi thing is whole other ball of wax, but I dare say if someone held a gun to your wife's head or your children's head and demanded something of you that you found abhorrent, you'd at least go through a long gut check moment.

Its easy to judge people if you haven't had to walk in their shoes.

Rod
I think we may be drifting from the main argument over the reasons behind the outbreak of the Civil War. While I don't disagree that there was a culture of "honour" in the antebellum south - it was a very hierarchical, aristocratic society - honour didn't cause the war. The disagreement over slavery caused the war.

Regardless, the culture of honour was illusory and a synonym for vanity, pride and social standing. Its best characteristics - bravery, self-sacrifice, placing others before self - certainly weren't universal. Many affluent men paid substitutes to join in their place in order to avoid conscription. And, desertion was a huge problem for the Confederate Army.

Don't get me wrong though. I'm not saying every greycoat was a racist supporter of slavery. Many joined in order to put money in his pocket and food in his mouth - as is the case with most wars. Others joined because of peer pressure. And, not every bluecoat was filled with abolitionist conviction. Indeed, many were as racist as their southern cousins.

Make no mistake. While there were many different factors motivating individual participants to fight, the war itself was primarily over slavery - by a wide margin.
 
Dan

Dan

Audioholic Chief
FWIW, there was at least some distinction among the various Confederates, ranging from absolutely ghastly individuals to some who were flawed but less objectionable.

Of the major figures, Stonewall Jackson is one of the least objectionable that I know of. While he owned slaves, and obviously was on the wrong side of history, he is also remembered by some for his work in teaching slaves, including teaching some to read and write (a crime at the time).

As far as Jackson goes, I consider him highly over rated. He also probably shot more of his own men for disciplinary reasons than any other general in the war. As brilliant as his Valley campaign was, he was awful in the seven days battles. His troops deserted en masse during the invasion of Maryland in 1862. He missed an opportunity to counter attack during the battle of Fredericksburg when the union troops had their backs to the river. Finally, he had no business being where he was ahead of the lines when he was mortally wounded.

I am an avid student of the Civil war, have a large bookcase full of books and have been to most every major and minor battle site in the Eastern theater including more obscure ones like Ball's bluff and Cross Keys. I cannot recommend strongly enough "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James MacPherson. It won a Pulitzer and is the best one volume work there is on the subject. Half the book leads up to the civil war. When you are done, you will realize how wrong the South was about everything.800 pages and well worth your time. Ken Burns series has aged rather badly, one of the few things he has done that has done so.
 
SithZedi

SithZedi

Audioholic General
As far as Jackson goes, I consider him highly over rated. He also probably shot more of his own men for disciplinary reasons than any other general in the war. As brilliant as his Valley campaign was, he was awful in the seven days battles. His troops deserted en masse during the invasion of Maryland in 1862. He missed an opportunity to counter attack during the battle of Fredericksburg when the union troops had their backs to the river. Finally, he had no business being where he was ahead of the lines when he was mortally wounded.

I am an avid student of the Civil war, have a large bookcase full of books and have been to most every major and minor battle site in the Eastern theater including more obscure ones like Ball's bluff and Cross Keys. I cannot recommend strongly enough "Battle Cry of Freedom" by James MacPherson. It won a Pulitzer and is the best one volume work there is on the subject. Half the book leads up to the civil war. When you are done, you will realize how wrong the South was about everything.800 pages and well worth your time. Ken Burns series has aged rather badly, one of the few things he has done that has done so.
Agree with you on Burns, but video is sometimes the only way to get something in front of the younger generations. James MacPherson is a great author and storyteller. Out of the many times I have went back and revisited this war, it is always striking how foolhardy it was to begin it given the industrial economic capacity of the North. I take it that some in the Confederacy thought they would receive outside help to fight the North. According to some, they might have had it had the French won at the Battle of Puebla (Cinco de Mayo) in 1862.

https://www.history.com/news/cinco-de-mayo-battle-puebla-civil-war.

Don't know if you have this in your collection but it's a good read on the subject of outside US impact of the war..

 
Dan

Dan

Audioholic Chief
Thanks for the mention of this book, I haven't seen it. I have a book on Kit Carson I am reading now and then one:
Ways and Means: Lincoln and His Cabinet and the Financing of the Civil War to follow.

The South was of two minds about the best way to receive foreign aid, first was to embargo cotton. The British switched to Egyptian cotton. The British were never going to support a slave country, it was not politically feasible at the least. The French had no such compunction, but lacked the military and political power to act alone. The Mexicans beat them badly, hardly a match for more advanced Union troops.

I also agree with you about kids with books and video, your solution was better, MacPherson, is a college reading level book. He was a professor at Princeton.
 

Latest posts

newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top