just a little sketch dont expect to see more
as a researcher of the civil war, it's my pet peeve when people think it's about slavery
Slavery wasn't even regarded as a major issue in the Civil War until 1863 when Lincoln realized that if he did not emancipate the slaves, the South could win the war. Previously, Abraham Lincoln's first priority had been preserving the Union at all costs, regardless of the existence of slavery in the United States. Again, most southerners especially the Mountain Southerners and even most of the Flatland Southerners did not own slaves, and were often thought of by Northerners and Slave owners as white trash or were a class level below slaves. So why would they fight to preserve an institution that would only serve to degrade them, or at best, not affect them at all? The common southerner fought to protect his homeland and his rights, NOT to defend slavery. Based on the knowledge that the majority of the Southern men were common men, and not the aristocrats that were able to represent the South, the true ideology of the war is theirs. But they aren't able to write the history books are they?
The Civil War was more complex than a few simple documents of secession. It was years of neglect from the North, lack of representation, growing tensions, and the common man that believed in a personal cause to defend their homeland from a foreign invasion. I think people tend to also forget that although the North is often seen as a pious group of men who's soul purpose of fighting was to free slaves, racism and the support of slavery was present in both the South AND North. This war had so many aspects that caused it, but Slavery did not become a major one until halfway through the war.
Do you celebrate Nazi soldiers for the same reason?
The South was taxed at no different a rate than the North. That's an absurd and revisionist argument.
Again, claiming that slavery didn't become a major issue until half-way through the was is bat shit crazy given that the declarations of war mentioned slavery dozens of times. Those, necessaritly happened at the beginning of the war.
If you want to defend slavery, go for it. But don't construct this rationale to defend slavery and then pretend that's not what you're doing.
What I don't understand is why you people all tend to spray out the same Nazi argument. It wasn't even the same thing? I have studied European history and American history, and the Nazi party came to rise with COMPLETELY different ideology than the Confederacy. The Nazis took advantage of the weak German State that had been stripped of power after World War 1. Their radical political and racial views are completely different than the United States issue with slavery-- which not only was 100 years prior, but had been instilled in the country since its birth! The Nazi regime had been a result of years of oppression and war reparations! The United States and specifically the Confederacy first of all: 1) DID NOT have RADICAL RACIAL IDEAS?? 2) DID NOT HAVE A RADICAL LEADER or reason for war like Hitler did! Hitler specifically wanted more "living space" for his Aryans, when the Confederacy was literally fine with their land and was in fact defending it from invasion!! The Nazi soldiers willingly fought for the elimination of races under them, while most Confederate soldiers fought for protection of their homeland, and upholding their way of life, need it be, continuing the institution of slavery. Let me state this again because you seem to be confused. Just remember that BOTH sides were equally corrupt and racist! They had selfish motives, and one was not more pious than the other. I was not CELEBRATING slavery? Please read my argument again then we can talk. Honestly I find it offensive that you're tell me that I'm defending Nazi ideology of White supremacy when I'm part Jewish and POC?
Now onto the South being taxed at a different rate. Would I make this up? Like what? Why? I'm just confused? You think I just brought that up out of thin air? You're only rebuttal for this is just saying that it's made up when I'll bet that you didn't even research if my statement was true. Please research the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861, one of many that caused tensions between the North and South.
"My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.
"I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so," Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year.
There is no proof of Lincoln ever declaring the war was fought to abolish slavery, and without such an official statement, the war-over-slavery teaching remains a complete lie and offensive hate speech that divides Americans, as is being done now by the media and politicians regarding the Confederate flag in South Carolina." (As long as we're using articles, I'd like to bring this one up, one of many. :^) ) www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/2…
Don't try to debate something that you clearly have not researched, or have any experience in. If you're going to rattle on about the same two articles you seem to be posting on everyone's comment, that's fine but that doesn't mean you're credible just because you have a two articles to back you up. As someone who used to believe in the same ideas you do--taught to me through biased textbook propaganda during years of school, I think you should go ahead and spend 2 1/2 years ACTUALLy researching the Civil War, it's motives and real causes before you start going on about this.
I'm laughing right now, I'm just so confused by your last line. Defend slavery? Oh my God, where did you get that? Just? I'm so confused?? If you'd have even READ my argument you would actually have something valid to say.
That's harassment. Your profile has been reported.
Kid, the Civil War was started over slavery. I've shown you the official declarations that say as much. It's not hard unless you're just DYING to celebrate the Confederact, but you know slavery is frowned upon now-a-days.
Don't believe me? Listen to the head of the History Department at West Point - www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV…
The Morrill Tariff started after the South seceded. You're claiming that it caused things that had already happened?
Sloppy, pathetic shit.
You should ask for your tuition money back.
It wasn't Slavery that caused the Civil War. Not initially.
Tensions were rising in the North and South since the late 1700s anyway. The claiming of new land was a factor, as well as the awful lot of slander coming from the North about the South. And remember, by the Civil War time, most the world had already done away with slavery. This, along with Lincoln's possibly less that legal election as president, and possibly a few other things I've missed, hit the snapping point. South Carolina succeeded, and things kept getting worse.
Add to the mix of state rights, the fact that Lincoln actually started an army before any really government actions began, and then boom.
Slavery just added fuel to the fire, and while its not a good thing, it sadly seems to overrule what was going on at the time.
To add to this confusion, lets jump to the Confederacy itself. Most of its generals didn't care for Slavery to begin with. They were on the Confederate side because their State was on that side. Yes yes, there probably were those to defend the right for slavery, but that's beside the point. Near the end of the war, the Confederacy was already doing away with slavery, they were even adding black regiments to their armies. Funnier thing is, the black regiments of the Confederacy were being paid in equal amount the white Confederate regiments, unlike the Union.
And for more things added, any one every hear of a "Carpetbagger"? What happened after the Civil war could be considered worse, as the South wasn't "Recontructed" per say, as it was raked. The South was ravaged after the war by the North. Land given to people who didn't know what they were doing to Carpetbaggers taking all they could from it.
Wow, I think I just rambled again. I really need to stop doing that.
Cute picture by the way.
At the time, the governments that decided to leave the US were crystal clear about why they left - they wanted to protect and expand the slave trade.
And this happened before Lincoln even made it to DC to start governing, so it doesn't make much since to blame him, right?
As for Confederate black soldiers, that was approved in the final days of the war when the Confederacy had no other choice. Also, these people were slaves and not free www.history.com/this-day-in-hi…
“What did we go to war for, if not to protect our property?”
“If slaves will make good soldiers, our whole theory of slavery is wrong.”
But if you wish to make an argument....
Give me five other links from several different sites going for and against your argument (Each), from the same user account, you get no help in this, and then explain in exceptional detail of why you are right and I am wrong and why I should eat my words. Other restrictions are you can't use government sites or anything written by the mid-west US and you can't use anything associated with any groups that are known for being derogatory or dangerous to anyone especially if Halloween is apart of their wardrobe.
And once you do that, I want a full history report on the Slave Trade Everywhere Period. From before colonization of the Americas.
And if you have the patience after that, or if I've driven you crazy enough, when before you tell me anything about the report....
Tell me Why You Don't Click on Strange Links From Strangers On the Internet.
There's no "fighting" going on here.
Again - I posted the actual declarations of secession written by the confederate governments. If you want to support the Confederacy, but don't believe it when the Confederate governments tell you they left the US to support slavery, then I just don't know what to tell you, kid.
Support the Confederacy? Madam, you don't have to support anything, but you will defend your own values even if that means either willingly or being forcefully conscripted into something. A majority seems to believe that guilty by association automatically makes you the eviliest thing alive. Sometimes, they are right, sometimes they are wrong, but mostly misunderstood.
Or perhaps its better to think like this, if one of your top values is your family, and you are on the side of the war that possibly fighting for a great evil (depending on what society is upholding at the time) then you are going to fight for that side to protect your family, because the opposing side is going to do horrible things simply because of association and/or the side you're fighting for will to make you fight.
The greatest issues of simplifying Wars with Nations, especially if its the nations themselves trying to simplify it, is that the Winners Write the Rules (and damn anyone else) and that you're trying to simplify thousands of people, and Governments will make their own assumptions and generalizations and most of the time follow their own views because they can't understand what millions of voices are telling them, or don't want to.
But that is another can of wyrms all together.
If you want to argue that individual soldiers in any conflict, might be good people, that's fine. I agree with that.
But any historian and any primary source document you can find makes it clear that the Civil War was fought over slavery.
So why do you wish to pretend otherwise?
I wouldn't say Colony, as several of the states of the Confederacy were part of the Original Thirteen, but yeah.
And lets not forget the States in the Middle of the North and South, most which were slave states but were Union supported and/or neutral, and those got torn up really bad in the war.
Its mistaken for the "Stars and Bars", which is actually something more akin to a mix of the Colonial American Flag and the Texas flag. A flag with a blue square at the right corner, containing a circle of stars, exact upgrade of it increased enough stars to match the Confederate States, which include Missouri and Kentucky. It also has one white strip and two red.
Funny enough, Stars and Bars is based off of the Stars and Stripes, makes sense for the Colonial American flag influence.
But the issue with this one was the confusion it would cause because it looked a lot like the Union flag.
There are two others, the Stainless Banner, which had the Battle Flag in the corner while the rest was white. This was used as a Naval flag and as a partial Battle Flag. However, there were complaints that the flag was too white, and would be signaled as surrender. (Reminds me of Italy from Hetalia, go figure.)
Then the Blood Stained Banner. This one was the last National flag, and it was said to have influences of British and France (They can't seem to make up their mind). Like the Stainless Banner, this one only different was the red strip on the left of the Battle Flag design.