Monuments To The Confederacy

States had the right to have slaves. So we who argue the true nature of the war are actually very accurate. It was not about segregation. Slavery was legal. You are so mixed up you added other stuff trying to validate your argument.

 

What country celebrates their heritage after a military defeat? Almost every one of them, a culture and its memory lives on in the people. Rome throughout its history (Rome suffered many significant defeats), the Jewish people, Gauls, Franks, and a host of others. In more modern times, Poland (and all the Warsaw Pact countries), Cuba, Ukraine.

Its false to claim the Civil War was primarily about the morality of slavery, or even of slavery in general. The primary issues were economic and states rights, the issues were propelled by the Northern states using the federal govt to impose economic constraints on Southern states, constraints which benefitted the North at the expense of the South. Read the diaries and writings of the day.

Note that slavery existed in the North throughout the war. It was abolished in the South during the Civil War as a tool to cause disruption in the South, it not abolished in the North until after the Civil War ended.

Learn American history.

 

Thanks for the photos. I have been to Stuttgart Germany two times but never any further south than that. So the monument is south and east of Stuttgart. I was never sure where Rommel committed suicide.

 

No, not really.
From Lincoln's inaugural address:

The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.

Threre you have it. Straight from the horse's mouth. It was a war to collect "duties and imposts". I don't think he even cared if the South wanted to consider itself outside the Union, so long as he got his money. Notice he didn't say he would use force to preserve the Union; only to collect "duties and imposts".

 

Here is a great lynching story where those that were key to the lynching were later put on trial and jailed.

""Only once in its history has the United States Supreme Court conducted a criminal trial. The trial, taking place in both Tennessee and the District of Columbia in 1907 and 1908, resulted in the conviction of a sheriff, a deputy sheriff, and four members of a Chattanooga lynch mob. Outraged justices ordered the trial on criminal contempt charges after an almost certainly innocent black man, having been convicted of raping a white woman, was lynched less than a day after word reached Chattanooga that his scheduled execution had been stayed by the U. S. Supreme Court.

The trial of Joseph F. Shipp et al. is a story of tragedy and heroism that had been all but forgotten until Mark Curriden, a Dallas reporter, and Leroy Phillips, Jr., a Chattanooga attorney, published their 1999 book, Contempt of Court: The Turn-of-the-Century Lynching that Launched a Hundred Years of Federalism.""

http://www.famous-trials.com/sheriffshipp/1118-home

 

They did not fight to preserve slavery.

Robert E. Lee was highly respected by the North an South. Lee opposed secession, but left the US Army and joined his home state of Virginia. In those days, states were above the nation, state loyalty trumped federal loyalty in both the North and the South.

Lee was also not pro-slavery, but not an abolitionist either. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/us/robert-e-lee-slaves.html

Its modern "progressive" BS to claim the Civil War was all about slavery and the South fought to preserve slavery.

 

You did not say it was over slavery. Though you mentioned to hold and occupy and possess property of the Feds, you focused on one matter. Money in other words.

 

And they pretend the lynchings were rampant post the Civil war. The lynchings were not only in the South, but most of them took place post WW1 and not prior to 1900. Again, some lynchings happened in the North.

Here is where they happened and the largest number were around 1920.

 

Since the Civil War was about slavery, then Lee most certainly did fight to preserve it.

He could have stayed home.

 

every decleration of secession from the Union was about preserving slavery.

the Vice-President of the CSA declared:

Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth

 

You poor deluded victim of revisionism.

See posts 51 and 52.

 

100% false

 

Yes, because that was why he used force. He said so himself. You stated in your posted that it was to preserve the union.

So, the war wasn't over slavery nor over preserving the union. It was, as Lincoln stated, over money.

 

The Confederacy's fatal flaw was that it was motivated by the obsessive desire to maintain human slavery.

 

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."

 

Wrong.

See posts 51 and 52.

 

I would rather go by the words of Lincoln himself. They would be considered original source material.

If you want to argue them, dig up old Abe.

 

At the time of the Constitution's ratification, slavery was dying out. That is why ending the slave trade by 1808 was acceptable to the South as part of the compromises during the convention. See Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution.

But that was before the South's cotton industry took off. And that took off when the demand for cotton exponentially climbed in Britain with the advent of technological advances in textiles in that country. A technology the US later stole.

The demand for American cotton exploded at the beginning of the 19th century, and thus the need for slave labor exploded. And so when 1808 rolled around, and the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves was enacted by Congress in 1807, the South refused to abide it.

And so the slave population rocketed upward from 700,000 in 1790 to 4 million by 1860. You can see in the link the explosion in the slave population was in the agricultural South, while it declined in the North.

Cotton was king in the South well into the 1930s. Which is why the subjugation of blacks, regardless of their freedom from slavery, continued to that period. Cotton picking was "N***** work".

 

Um...hello? Posts 51 and 52 are the declarations of succession. Original source material.

You didn't even look at them, did you. Willful blindness.

 

Cotton exports were the primary US export from 1800 to 1930. You can see from the chart below that cotton was responsible for 57 percent of all US exports when the war broke out. You will not find any other export which had as big a footprint nor one which was the number one export for as long a period. Go ahead and try.






As I stated earlier, the slave population in the South was 650,000 at the time the Constitution was ratified. This is why the South was agreeable to the compromise in the Constitution which ordered the end of the importation of slaves by 1808.

However, between 1790 and 1808, the English and US textile industries exploded due to technological advances having nothing to do with the cotton gin. Everyone has heard of Eli Whitney, but few have heard of Samual Slater, "Father of the American Industrial revolution". This industrial advancement made textiles much cheaper, and thus greatly increased the demand for cotton. The demand for cotton drove the invention of the cotton gin, not the other way around.

The increased demand for cotton, in turn, required more slave labor.

So when the 1808 timeframe rolled around, the South began reneging on the Constitutional ban.

The slave population steadily and rapidly increased to the point that the slave population was 4 million in the South at the outbreak of the war.

And that is why the South fought so vigorously to preserve slavery.

 

It was Lincoln's war. On his inauguration, he said this in relation to using force:

The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.

Until Lincoln, secession was seen as a political issue. He is the one that made a war of it.

And, yes, I've read the Declarations of Causes ..... more than once. Also the Florida Declaration and the Cherokee Declaration, which you omitted .... likely because you are ignorant of them. I've also read Sewards "Irrepressible Conflict" speech and the South Carolina Address to the Slaveholding States, both of which you also omitted (ignorance again?), both of which are pertinent documents.

Instead you think I should read your silly posts that read like a word cloud study as if that alone makes a valid point?

Well, it's probably good enough for you, but that speaks to your own ignorance more than anything.

 

and yet the CSA started hostilities.

why so much FAKE NEWS today?

 

The declaration of succession make it unequivocally clear that the war was about slavery.

It is simply undeniable. Anyone who does attempt to deny it only makes an ass of themselves in public.

 

every decleration of secession from the Union was about preserving slavery.

the Vice-President of the CSA declared:

Our new government is founded upon exactly [this] idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth

 

Sure ..... now show where secession automatically equals war. Then you may have a point. Otherwise, the ass would be in your mirror.