ARJ Defense ad

Confederate veteran interview.

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • gamboolman

    Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Aug 20, 2008
    133
    46
    Spring, Texas - Retired
    HK - thank you very much.

    I was born in Ft. Worth and raised in East Tx and my great grandfather was in the Confederacy (he survived), and ms gamboolgals folks was in Alabama and had many that served also - not all lived.

    All my life I was taught and have said / argued that the Civil War was fought over "States Rights" and hearing it from a man that lived it was incredible.

    Thank you for posting that.
     

    satx78247

    Member, Emeritus
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 23, 2014
    8,479
    96
    78208
    To All,

    My extended family (which was then resident in Northern GA, AL & MS) were nomadic herdsmen & lumbermen. = Our main family businesses were raising swine & breeding horse/mules.

    NOBODY in our family EVER owned a single slave or were in any other way involved in "the flesh trade".
    Nonetheless, the family sent off at least 28 men/boys & 2 ladies (who served as nurses. - Mary Emily Red Fern, age 23, died of wounds, during the fighting around Atlanta, from shrapnel out of an artillery round that struck the hospital where she served.) to follow GEN Lee & the Starry Cross flag into battle against the invaders in blue uniforms.

    NONE of our family would have even considered fighting/dying for some RICH slave-owning aristocrat's "right to deal in human flesh". Therefore, obviously TWBTS was NOT about "the peculiar institution", preserving slavery or anything else that had to do with "the flesh trade", for families like ours.
    (Only about 10% of US families ever owned a slave & the numbers of slavers were about equal in the North & South.)

    So, what DID our Southron ancestor's fight FOR? = They fought for AL, GA, MS, for Southern INDEPENDENCE from the North, for their family's HONOR & for each other.
    (My advice to all: DO NOT swallow the "pack of lies" constantly spewed from the BIG mouths of the LEFTISTS/REVISIONISTS. = TWBTS was ONLY about driving the BLUE PLAGUE, that flowed down from the North, out of Dixie & self-determination for the Southern States.)

    Note: Of the 28 soldiers in "ragged gray" from our family who went off to war, NINE returned home at war's end.
    FOUR of our family members died in the DY's DEATH CAMPS.& one AL Private died, about 2 hours after returning home, of his wounds.
    (Recuperative Leave in the Rebel military forces was a euphemism for "being sent home to die". = PVT Charles H. Banks, late of 3rd AL INF RGT., died of "Bilious Fever" just before his 17th birthday, which was likely blood-poisoning caused by his belly wounds.)

    yours, satx
    USA, Retired
     
    Last edited:

    satx78247

    Member, Emeritus
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 23, 2014
    8,479
    96
    78208
    Yep, Lincoln made it salvery to get the northern city folks to join up. No one in the north wanted to fight for states rights, or against it.
    Yep, Lincoln made it salvery to get the northern city folks to join up. No one in the north wanted to fight for states rights, or against it.

    Fishkiller,

    Actually Lincoln himself said MANY times the TWBTS was NOT about slavery or ending slavery. - Instead the said that "The Rebellion" was ONLY about "preserving the union"& "restoring peace".
    (Lincoln was well aware that the vast majority of Northerners cared LITTLE or NOTHING about "the plight of the slaves". - Imo, the average citizen SHOULD have cared about ending "the flesh trade" but any fair reading of WBTS period documents will tell any honest reader that the average person before/during TWBTS did NOT see "the peculiar institution" as an issue that was worth fighting a single small skirmish over, much less a major long & bloody war over.)

    NOTE: By far the WORST massacre in US history was in NYC, Which is called THE NEW YORK DRAFT RIOTS.
    (In those 3 days of rioting, MORE Black men, women, children & even infants were LYNCHED in NYC than in all of the years since then. - The TRUE number of innocent Black civilians who were hanged may never be known but it certainly was THOUSANDS of victims of the "Anti-Draft mobs".
    (To quote the NY POST newspaper in the days after the rioting ended, "The dead & rotting bodies of Negro men, women & small children decorated every lamp-post for as far as a person could see.")
    By the Fall of 1864 The War was UNPOPULAR in both the North & the South. Had the election of 1864 been even somewhat HONEST, Lincoln would have been defeated & General George McClellan would have "made peace with" The CSA.
    (There was NO SECRET BALLOTS used in the Union Army camps, as the Lincoln & McClellan ballots were DIFFERENT colors & in some Union Army camps the voting was by "a show of hands". It has been reliably reported in period documents that there was NO VOTING allowed in some Union Army camps; in those Camps, the Senior Officers "decided among themselves" what "vote totals" would be reported to "Higher HQ"..= The Union High Command saw to it that the majority of Union soldiers voted for Lincoln.)


    It was nearly a year AFTER Richmond fell AND after the TRUE COST in money & lives that the war had cost the USA that TWBTS in the North suddenly became "A Glorious Crusade Against Slavery".

    yours, satx
     
    Last edited:

    satx78247

    Member, Emeritus
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 23, 2014
    8,479
    96
    78208
    The current generation has been brainwashed to believe it was only about slavery.

    Revisionist history at its finest.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

    Mike_from_Texas,

    VERY TRUE. The RADICAL REVISIONISTS that peddle that FOOLISHNESS know the TRUTH & CHOOSE to LIE to naive/ignorant people.

    To quote British Professor Arnold Toynbee of Oxford University, "History is FICTION, popularly agreed upon by tyrants & conquerors."
    (Emphasis: Mine)

    yours, satx
     

    TX OMFS

    TGT Addict
    Industry Partner
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 3, 2014
    4,756
    96
    San Antonio
    It is possible that the northern leaders were fighting for something different from the southern leaders. The common soldier may have a different take from the leaders.

    The states right in question at the time was slavery. Not gun rights, not property taxes, not banking regulations. It was slavery.

    If slavery had never existed the Civil War would not have happened.

    I learned about states rights & economic concerns in school. I've heard both sides. I've lived my whole life in the south. I cannot see any other reason for the war than slavery & ancillary issues tied to slavery.

    The Democrats supported slavery. The Democrats started the actual hot war. The same Democrats we now fight against. They may have been our kinsmen but let's not let that cloud our judgement.

    States rights rings as true as a woman's right to choose. It's an attempt to make the underlying evil sound more palatable.

    Flame away. Sorry, not sorry.
     

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,022
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    IMO, the Civil War was a very complex war, being fought for different reasons, even on both sides. I don't think that it can be attributed to just one issue of it being fought to either abolish or continue slavery.

    I do believe slavery was one aspect of the Civil Warm but not the only one. I believe state's rights from the federal government was another aspect, and as much resources, money and power.
     

    satx78247

    Member, Emeritus
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 23, 2014
    8,479
    96
    78208
    Ignorance can be overcome. Stupidity can't be.

    Axxe55,

    When "traditionalists" (like me, for example) who do REAL research into the period documents of TWBTS era, are RIDICULED, SHOUTED DOWN, IGNORED & called VULGAR (and often RACIST names = When I was in grad school one of the senior professors of the History Department routinely referred to me as that "F*****G Bl@nket@ss Injun".) names for posting the DOCUMENTED facts, if is virtually impossible to get the FACTS out to the general public.
    (In my case, I'm DISMISSED as just a "genealogist", as if DOCUMENTED FACTS from any person/source are UNIMPORTANT to a search for TRUTH.)

    yours, satx
     

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,022
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    Axxe55,

    When "traditionalists" (like me, for example) who do REAL research into the period documents of TWBTS era, are RIDICULED, SHOUTED DOWN, IGNORED & called VULGAR (and often RACIST names = When I was in grad school one of the senior professors of the History Department routinely referred to me as that "F*****G Bl@nket@ss Injun".) names for posting the DOCUMENTED facts, if is virtually impossible to get the FACTS out to the general public.
    (In my case, I'm DISMISSED as just a "genealogist", as if DOCUMENTED FACTS from any person/source are UNIMPORTANT to a search for TRUTH.)

    yours, satx


    SATX, facts are facts, whether we like them or not, or whether we agree with them or not.

    Fact is, sometimes the true factual and unvarnished history, isn't sometimes pretty.

    Sort of like these revisionists, wanting to tear down Confederate monuments, as if that erases or changes history, because they don't like it, or it offends them.

    Even the ugly truth serves a purpose, if we can learn from it.
     

    satx78247

    Member, Emeritus
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 23, 2014
    8,479
    96
    78208
    It is possible that the northern leaders were fighting for something different from the southern leaders. The common soldier may have a different take from the leaders.

    The states right in question at the time was slavery. Not gun rights, not property taxes, not banking regulations. It was slavery.

    If slavery had never existed the Civil War would not have happened.

    I learned about states rights & economic concerns in school. I've heard both sides. I've lived my whole life in the south. I cannot see any other reason for the war than slavery & ancillary issues tied to slavery.

    The Democrats supported slavery. The Democrats started the actual hot war. The same Democrats we now fight against. They may have been our kinsmen but let's not let that cloud our judgement.

    States rights rings as true as a woman's right to choose. It's an attempt to make the underlying evil sound more palatable.

    Flame away. Sorry, not sorry.

    TX OMFS,

    IF you are only talking about the RICH ARISTOCRATS (who never comprised more than 10% of the citizens of the North & South), I'll agree that you may have a point, whether you are talking about the Radical Republicans of New England & NY and/or the "Planter Class" of the Southland.

    The REAL TRUTH is that the ARISTOCRATS of BOTH regions spoke for NOBODY but themselves, though their voices & MONEY spoke LOUD.

    IF you believe that "slavery & ancillary issues tied to slavery" was the ONLY (or even the MAIN reason) for TWBTS, pardon me but you need to do some more reading from the period documents/correspondence of TWBTS era, rather than believing the PROPAGANDA out of the Revisionist School of Historiography.

    That said, I will give you this much, quoting one of my Tulane professors of my grad school days/"daze", "Many a non-slaveowner in the South believed that IF the slave-owners could be deprived of 'their human property' without compensation, that there was NO reason to believe that ANYONE's private property OF ANY SORT was safe from being taken by the Unionists".
    (Inasmuch as the invading Army in BLUE often DID deprive Southerners of their private property w/o compensation, that opinion/fear of Southerners was certainly CONFIRMED.)

    Fwiw, Southern families like ours DESPISED the "Planter Aristocrats", as they seldom joined the CSA Forces and/or supported the war effort & often collaborated with the Union Army, in return for promises to allow the aristocrats to keep their slaves forever.
    (FYI, I know a college professor in MD who has collected the ORIGINALS of many "Promise Letters", that are signed by Unionist General Officers, that PROMISED the Planter/Slaver that he could KEEP HIS NEGROES for LIFE & that he would forever be assured that the us Government would PROTECT the slaver's "property interests" FOR LIFE from criminal/civil actions "at law", provided that he NOT support the Rebel government and/or the Rebellion's military forces in any way.)
    Had the "regular folks" of Dixie won the war for Southern Independence, the "planters" would have been NEXT on the Southron's "list of enemies". = The future of the "Planters" would have been HARSH & SHORT, as the "life of an enemy collaborator" is likely to be very unpleasant. = As poor as the CSA would have been (had McClellan won in 1864 & made peace with the CSA) after the war, our ancestors would have found plenty of timbers/lumber for building gallows & sufficient rope for hanging the enemy collaborators.
    (The same thing happened to many a Tory, after the AWI, IF they did not escape to the UK or to Canada. = Many Tories in the Southland found themselves walking to the gallows or simply being "shot out of hand" by Patriots, after the Battle of Yorktown.)

    yours, satx
     
    Last edited:

    oldag

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 19, 2015
    17,430
    96
    It is possible that the northern leaders were fighting for something different from the southern leaders. The common soldier may have a different take from the leaders.

    The states right in question at the time was slavery. Not gun rights, not property taxes, not banking regulations. It was slavery.

    If slavery had never existed the Civil War would not have happened.

    I learned about states rights & economic concerns in school. I've heard both sides. I've lived my whole life in the south. I cannot see any other reason for the war than slavery & ancillary issues tied to slavery.

    The Democrats supported slavery. The Democrats started the actual hot war. The same Democrats we now fight against. They may have been our kinsmen but let's not let that cloud our judgement.

    States rights rings as true as a woman's right to choose. It's an attempt to make the underlying evil sound more palatable.

    Flame away. Sorry, not sorry.

    You really do need to study more.

    Slavery was the flashpoint and no one denies that, but the crucial issue was states rights. As SATX mentioned, southerners felt that the federal government was overstepping its bounds and feared this could spread to other matters.

    75% of those fighting for the South did not own slaves. Stonewall and Lee opposed slavery. The South had an abolitionist general. Why would these people fight a war if it was only about slavery? Answer - they would not. It would be foolish to believe otherwise. SATX is accurate.

    You really do not understand how the "union" was viewed in that day and time. And you have lots of company. Nor the important of states autonomy, within the (then) limited bounds of the Constitution. Why were the Federalist papers written as such length and with such effort? To convince states to give up full autonomy to form the United States. This formation was very much in doubt.

    Lincoln's saber rattling precipitated the war. As Lee stated, he never thought he would see the day that the President would raise an army to invade his own country.

    And if you want to be honest, the Democratic party that you mention is in reality the Republican party today. The conservative southern Democrats left the Democratic party for the Republican party years ago.
     
    Last edited:

    TX OMFS

    TGT Addict
    Industry Partner
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Nov 3, 2014
    4,756
    96
    San Antonio
    No, I don't need to study more.

    Lee & Jackson wouldn't have had anything to fight about if slavery did not exist. If slavery had never existed and was never a state's rights question the war wouldn't have happened.

    Name one other state's right issue that was anywhere close to starting a war.

    None of use are responsible for slavery or the Civil War. It doesn't reflect on us to say slavery was wrong & the south was wrong. Not sure why people refuse to admit our ancestors were wrong.
     

    satx78247

    Member, Emeritus
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 23, 2014
    8,479
    96
    78208
    You really do need to study more.

    Slavery was the flashpoint and no one denies that, but the crucial issue was states rights. As SATX mentioned, southerners felt that the federal government was overstepping its bounds and feared this could spread to other matters.

    75% of those fighting for the South did not own slaves. Stonewall and Lee opposed slavery. The South had an abolitionist general. Why would these people fight a war if it was only about slavery? Answer - they would not. It would be foolish to believe otherwise. SATX is accurate.

    You really do not understand how the "union" was viewed in that day and time. And you have lots of company. Nor the important of states autonomy, within the (then) limited bounds of the Constitution. Why were the Federalist papers written as such length and with such effort? To convince states to give up full autonomy to form the United States. This formation was very much in doubt.

    Lincoln's saber rattling precipitated the war. As Lee stated, he never thought he would see the day that the President would raise an army to invade his own country.

    And if you want to be honest, the Democratic party that you mention is in reality the Republican party today. The conservative southern Democrats left the Democratic party for the Republican party years ago.

    old ag,

    My research illustrates that a little less than SIX PERCENT of the CSA's Military Forces EVER owned a single slave and ONLY about TEN PERCENT of CSA soldiers/sailors/marines came from slave-owning families.
    (Slaves were very EXPENSIVE & the vast majority
    of Southerners could ever even hope to own a single slave, IF they wanted to. In 1850s SC the cost of a "field hand" was more than the average small farmer's entire GROSS assets. - A researcher from ARKANSAS AM&N UNIVERSITY found that LESS than ten percent of southerners had the funds required to even RENT/LEASE a slave.)

    yours, satx
     
    Last edited:

    satx78247

    Member, Emeritus
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 23, 2014
    8,479
    96
    78208
    No, I don't need to study more.

    Lee & Jackson wouldn't have had anything to fight about if slavery did not exist. If slavery had never existed and was never a state's rights question the war wouldn't have happened.

    Name one other state's right issue that was anywhere close to starting a war.

    None of use are responsible for slavery or the Civil War. It doesn't reflect on us to say slavery was wrong & the south was wrong. Not sure why people refuse to admit our ancestors were wrong.

    TX OMFS,

    PITY that you evidently believe the absurd FOOLISHNESS that you claim to believe. = What other FAIRY TALES out of the FAR LEFT have you swallowed, hook, line & sinker??

    I'm 100% aware that you posted is what a great number of "otherwise intelligent & educated people" have been FORCE-FED a pack of lies about TWBTS in their school "DAZE". - Nonetheless what you believe is FALSE & (on the part of the Revisionist Left) is knowingly false.

    PLEASE tell me WHY General ROBERT E LEE & GEN STONEWALL JACKSON, who BOTH were firmly opposed to slavery, were fighting for the CSA.
    (In point of fact, GEN Lee freed his WIFE's slaves, when he had NO lawful right to do so. - Had he NOT been Robert E. Lee & from a prominent VA family he would have been arrested for THEFT of another person's lawful

    Generals Lee & Jackson were leading the CSA forces because the TRUTH IS that TWBTS was NEVER about slavery or even "mostly about slavery". = TWBTS was for exactly the SAME reasons that the American Revolution was fought. = To FREE the South from a "faraway government" that TO SOUTHERNERS appeared to be becoming evermore DICTATORIAL & LIKELY to NOT preserve the LIBERTY of ordinary citizens in the future.

    ImVho, IF you are serious & not just trying to start a fight, both your thesis & your OPINION of the primary causes of TWBTS are HALF-educated, SILLY & CONTRARY TO KNOWN FACTS.

    YES, you certainly DO need to do some REAL research from the PRIMARY SOURCES & STOP reading FOOLISHNESS & knowing/intentional REVISONIST LIES. = WHEN/IF you go do the research from the PRIME SOURCES, I'll patiently listen to your opinions but not until then.
    (FYI, I've spent over 20 years doing research on TWBTS & the CSA's diplomatic history & was "ABD" at Tulane until my beloved wife died, - After Vickie Kay was diagnosed with AML, I spent every cent that we had & all that I could borrow trying to get her well & had to go back to "money-making work", rather than trying to write monographs/articles/books on the war. = No, I never completed my Doctorate.)

    yours, satx
     

    Six.Eight

    New Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 19, 2020
    6
    11
    Kileen
    Yep, Lincoln made it salvery to get the northern city folks to join up. No one in the north wanted to fight for states rights, or against it.
    Well, I'm not certain that the war was so firmly associated w/ Lincoln being anti-slavery until the Emancipation Proclamation, which incidently added several hundred thousand Negro troops to the Union Army's strength.

    Many years ago, I was able to enhance faded, pencil-written, Civil War letters from members of my father's mother's family well enough to read. Her family, then in Indiana, fought w/ the Union Army. Upon hearing of the Emancipation Proclamation, they wrote home that if that is what this war is about, they would just as soon go home. They stated that, heretofore, they thought that they were fighting to preserve the Union.
     
    Last edited:
    Every Day Man
    Tyrant

    Support

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    116,119
    Messages
    2,953,347
    Members
    34,941
    Latest member
    Irowland1994
    Top Bottom