Patriot Mobile

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!
  • cbigclarke

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Feb 24, 2009
    21,007
    96
    cypress
    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.

    Only 6% of southerners owned slaves


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
    Military Camp
     

    jrbfishn

    TGT Addict
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Aug 9, 2013
    28,316
    96
    south of killeen
    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.
    NOBODY here is saying slavery was right. It was NOT. But it was not a reason, just a symptom of the causes of the War.
    Lincoln, as did a lot of northern politicians, actually despised blacks. He couldn't have cared less about what happened to them. He wanted to send all of them, freed blacks as well, back to Africa.
    What they cared about was that the Southern States where getting rich from growing and sending cotton and tobacco to Europe, using slaves, where they got better prices rather than selling them to Northern mills for less. Thereby ending the power of the Northern mills to set the prices. With that economy came more political power the traditionally powerful Northern States did not want to give up. So they started taxing the hell out of the Southern States.
    Slaves to the North, was just a way to economically ruin the South. The reason Lincoln did not free ALL the slaves in the Emancipation Proclamation was He was afraid too many in the North would revolt as well. So he only freed those in OCCUPIED areas.
    Slaves were not freed everywhere for several years after the war. After the war, there was such a glut of cheap labor, it was cheaper to hire than to keep slaves. So very little public opposition to it. Many Northerners still had slaves when the Ammendment was passed.
    Slavery was an issue only as a means of control over the South. If it was THE issue for the War, they would have freed ALL the slaves long before they did.

    Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
     

    Wolfwood

    Self Appointed Board Chauvinist
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    May 12, 2009
    7,547
    96
    this thread is great. lots of information here. keep going guys!

    I kind of wish i had the balls to go to school and get a history major.

    though i wonder if i would be better served with independent research.

    @satx78247 what are some good resources for one looking for TRUE history?
     

    oldag

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 19, 2015
    17,427
    96
    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.
    We can play the "what-ifs" all night long.

    If Stonewall had not gotten shot in the dark, the South would have negotiated a peace with the north and we might not be in this mess right now.
     
    Last edited:

    cbigclarke

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Feb 24, 2009
    21,007
    96
    cypress
    NOBODY here is saying slavery was right. It was NOT. But it was not a reason, just a symptom of the causes of the War.
    Lincoln, as did a lot of northern politicians, actually despised blacks. He couldn't have cared less about what happened to them. He wanted to send all of them, freed blacks as well, back to Africa.
    What they cared about was that the Southern States where getting rich from growing and sending cotton and tobacco to Europe, using slaves, where they got better prices rather than selling them to Northern mills for less. Thereby ending the power of the Northern mills to set the prices. With that economy came more political power the traditionally powerful Northern States did not want to give up. So they started taxing the hell out of the Southern States.
    Slaves to the North, was just a way to economically ruin the South. The reason Lincoln did not free ALL the slaves in the Emancipation Proclamation was He was afraid too many in the North would revolt as well. So he only freed those in OCCUPIED areas.
    Slaves were not freed everywhere for several years after the war. After the war, there was such a glut of cheap labor, it was cheaper to hire than to keep slaves. So very little public opposition to it. Many Northerners still had slaves when the Ammendment was passed.
    Slavery was an issue only as a means of control over the South. If it was THE issue for the War, they would have freed ALL the slaves long before they did.

    Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

    True he did not care for the negro situation, but Frederick Douglas visited the White House often while Lincoln was president. So it wasn’t a total dislike.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
     

    satx78247

    Member, Emeritus
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 23, 2014
    8,479
    96
    78208
    this thread is great. lots of information here. keep going guys!

    I kind of wish i had the balls to go to school and get a history major.

    though i wonder if i would be better served with independent research.

    @satx78247 what are some good resources for one looking for TRUE history?

    Wolfwood,

    It really depends on what EXACTLY that you want to know the FACTS about. = Unless you have nearly unlimited time & many years, I suggest that you START by getting & reading the INDEX to "The OR" & deciding what you are MOST INTERESTED in researching.
    ("The OR" is entitled: THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE UNION & CONFEDERATE ARMIES IN THE WAR OF THE REBELLION. - Fyi, "The OR" has 128 VOLUMES & would take a person YEARS to read & digest.)

    Once you have done that "time consuming task", come back to me with a "laundry list" of what you want to research & I'll try to get you started on your search.
    (ImVho, a person cannot get an understanding of the complex subject of TWBTS, W/O "a starting point" that interests YOU.)

    Fyi, I started my journey into TWBTS while seeking information on ONE Rebel Officer from my Mother's family: BG Smith P. Bankhead, when I was 16YO & I guess you could say that, "things got a bit out of hand", as researching/reading/writing about TWBTS was for over 2 DECADES my major interest. - I'm nearly 74yo & have hundreds of subjects that I would research IF I could & had that many more years to do research.

    I wish you WELL on your hunt for what you FIRST want to know about. ======>NOBODY CAN KNOW IT ALL.

    yours, satx
     

    satx78247

    Member, Emeritus
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 23, 2014
    8,479
    96
    78208
    We can play the "what-ifs" all night long.

    If Stonewall had not gotten shot in the dark, the South would have negotiated a peace with the north and we might not be in this mess right now.

    oldag,

    The same thing could be said IF GEN Jeb Stuart had not been KIA at Yellow Tavern & IF General LEE had turned Stuart & some other "unconventional warfighters" LOOSE to terrorize the North in 1863-64.

    yours< satx
     

    satx78247

    Member, Emeritus
    Emeritus - "Texas Proud"
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jun 23, 2014
    8,479
    96
    78208
    True he did not care for the negro situation, but Frederick Douglas visited the White House often while Lincoln was president. So it wasn’t a total dislike.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

    cbigclarke,

    The number of times that Frederick Douglas visited the WH has ZILCH to do with how much that Lincoln HATED & FEARED Blacks, Jews, Asians, Mormons, Latinos, Native Americans, "muddy coloured people" (Mixed bloods like ME) & anyone else who was not LILY-WHITE. = FYI, Lincoln was a STONE BIGOT.
    (Like almost all politicians, Lincoln would "meet with" MOST ANYONE who might give him "good press" or influence.)

    yours, satx
     

    oldag

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 19, 2015
    17,427
    96
    Wolfwood,

    It really depends on what EXACTLY that you want to know the FACTS about. = Unless you have nearly unlimited time & many years, I suggest that you START by getting & reading the INDEX to "The OR" & deciding what you are MOST INTERESTED in researching.
    ("The OR" is entitled: THE OFFICIAL RECORDS OF THE UNION & CONFEDERATE ARMIES IN THE WAR OF THE REBELLION. - Fyi, "The OR" has 128 VOLUMES & would take a person YEARS to read & digest.)

    Once you have done that "time consuming task", come back to me with a "laundry list" of what you want to research & I'll try to get you started on your search.
    (ImVho, a person cannot get an understanding of the complex subject of TWBTS, W/O "a starting point" that interests YOU.)

    Fyi, I started my journey into TWBTS while seeking information on ONE Rebel Officer from my Mother's family: BG Smith P. Bankhead, when I was 16YO & I guess you could say that, "things got a bit out of hand", as researching/reading/writing about TWBTS was for over 2 DECADES my major interest. - I'm nearly 74yo & have hundreds of subjects that I would research IF I could & had that many more years to do research.

    I wish you WELL on your hunt for what you FIRST want to know about. ======>NOBODY CAN KNOW IT ALL.

    yours, satx
    I would also recommend reading biographies of Lee and Stonewall, especially the older books. They will give you a feel for their character as well as for the times.
     

    oldag

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Feb 19, 2015
    17,427
    96
    I would add reading the Federalist Papers (or at least about the origin and intent of them) will be useful in understanding how strong states rights were held in the earlier days of our country. Today, we really have no concept of this.

    As Lee said, his first priority was to Virginia. The union of the states was second.
     

    jrbfishn

    TGT Addict
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Aug 9, 2013
    28,316
    96
    south of killeen
    We can play the "what-ifs" all night long.

    If Stonewall had not gotten shot in the dark, the South would have negotiated a peace with the north and we might not be in this mess right now.
    And if Lee had taken the Capital the first time he had a chance things would be different as well.
    What ifs are pointless.

    Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
     

    jrbfishn

    TGT Addict
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Aug 9, 2013
    28,316
    96
    south of killeen
    I would add reading the Federalist Papers (or at least about the origin and intent of them) will be useful in understanding how strong states rights were held in the earlier days of our country. Today, we really have no concept of this.

    As Lee said, his first priority was to Virginia. The union of the states was second.
    Understanding that helps as well.
    It started many Northern States fearful that the Southern States would become economically independent. Once the taxing started, the Federal Govn. pretty much got drunk and started claiming more power and influence. Mostly over the South and the western territories. The South quickly figured out that they were going to have very little say in the future. So they split.
    Even though most people were for States Rights and were more loyal to the State than the Fed, they also knew that their future as an independent Country was limited without the Southern products in Northern mills. Although they had manufacturing, a lot of the Northern textile mills, a big part of their economy, needed Southern cotton. Not to mention the meat supplies and produce that came from mostly Southern states at the time.
    Most armies were State armies. On both sides. IIRC, the only 2 Fed armies were Lee and the one Grant finally controlled. Mostly autonomous armies under Fed command. They both had a Fed Navy though.
    The North knew they had to preserve the Union. Without the Southern agriculture, much of the Northern economy was going to be in trouble. I don't think any sane person on either side WANTED a war, but at that point it was probably inevitable.
    Slavery was not the big issue. It was already on it's way out anyway. It was becoming less and less economically viable. It only became a war issue when Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation to further economically cripple the South. Both during and after the war to keep the South from rebuilding.
    Ask yourself this. If slavery was THE main reason for the War, why did they wait 3 years to free ANY salves? Why not as soon as the South seceded? And why wait for over 2 years after the war to free NORTHERN slaves?

    Sent by an idjit coffeeholic from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk
     

    BRD@66

    TGT Addict
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 23, 2014
    10,772
    96
    Liberty Hill
    States rights vs slavery - heck, I'm spending all my time wondering if this "1947" recording is real or made-for-internet.
     
    Top Bottom