- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Civil War Confederate veteran interview
Posted on 10/27/22 at 2:32 pm to Swamp Angel
Posted on 10/27/22 at 2:32 pm to Swamp Angel
quote:
The institution of slavery fell under the heading of nullification, but did not stand alone, nor was it THE primary motivating cause, for secession as many claim.
What did the secession documents published by Confederate states say?
0
Posted on 10/27/22 at 2:33 pm to GetCocky11
quote:
You'd think we'd be past this, but then I realize that our grandfathers lived during the time of the Lost Cause and also listened to the stories from their Confederate grandfathers. So this history is still really tangible.
It's understandable.
An entire generation of men was neutered at Appomattox, and the world watched. The north then spent the next few decades rubbing it in their faces. So they invented a story in which they were the real victims.
That's how you turn what should be a shameful chapter in our history into a source of pride. That's how you end up with statues of dead traitors being constructed all over the south 40, 50 years after the surrender. That's how multiple states still had some kind of confederate symbol on their state flag into the 21st century.
You can't talk to a confederate apologist about it, because you're going up against 100 years worth of dogma. You'd have more luck convincing a brick wall that it's made of water.
Posted on 10/27/22 at 2:37 pm to fr33manator
quote:
I’m basing it on mortality rates and accounts I’ve read. Not in any way saying one was good.
It’s an objectively awful situation either way you cut it.
Kind of like asking if you’d rather be stuck in Verdun or Vietnam.
Fair enough.
Posted on 10/27/22 at 2:37 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
And I'm explaining the reality of what international negotiations look like, you moron. If Party A has something Party B wants, Party B must have something that Party A wants of equal or greater value in order to gain that concession. This is so fundamental that I'm not sure why you are involving how international settlements are negotiated. I'm not giving an opinion on the matter either.
You’re getting yourself worked up arguing over nonsense. I was not passing judgment, good or bad, on the South’s efforts to find a negotiated settlement to the question of federal forts. You seem to be under the impression I was trying to make a case that they were “right”. That was never my intention. I simply stated the fact of what they were doing and why they were doing it from their perspective. I did the same with Lincoln and why he made the choices he made.
You’re getting mad and pitching a hissy fit thinking I’m an apologist for the Confederacy. I am not. However, nor do I allow my modern day biases cloud my judgment to the point I refuse to understand their actions and the motivations that lead to those actions. By gaining understanding that does not mean I either personally approve it disapprove as though I’m watching a hero vs villain movies. I do not seek understanding in order to either support or not support the confederacy. I seek understanding for the sake of knowledge and to understand how the war came to be.
I feel though you lack the mental capacity to view anything from a detached viewpoint so I am wasting my time with you.
This post was edited on 10/27/22 at 2:39 pm
Posted on 10/27/22 at 2:38 pm to crazy4lsu
From an article. Sums up some good points.
quote:
There are other factors to consider: in both the South and West Indies, there was a big gulf between house slaves and field hands, and life for a house slave in the Caribbean would typically be less harsh than for a field hand in Georgia or Alabama. And conditions varied from island to island in the Indies as well as from state to state or colony to colony on the continent. Finally, much depended on whether the individual slave owner were kind, indifferent, or sadistic. But still, your chances of living to old age and making it through the day without a driver whipping, branding, or doing something else gruesome to you were better overall in the South than the Caribbean.
The fundamental reason was economic: the supply of slaves was much higher in the Caribbean than on the mainland, and slaves were correspondingly cheaper there. West Indian plantation managers made a callous mathematical calculation that it was cheaper to work slaves to death and buy new ones than to feed and care for slaves properly. This calculus did not apply in the South, where slaves were in much lower supply, so if you disabled or killed a slave through mistreatment, it would be a long time and a major expense to replace him.
Another reason was psychological. Southern slave owners lived on their plantations and saw their slaves every day. They developed various rationalizations for their exploitation of the slaves, telling themselves that the slaves were better off than in Africa, and that by Christianizing them they were in some way benefiting the slaves in a way that compensated them for the loss of their freedom and labor. Southerners often treated their slaves with terrible cruelty, but most often needed some excuse for doing so such as "laziness" or "insubordination." But in the West Indies, the slave owners were mostly absentee landlords who never saw their own plantations. Their slaves were no more to them than numbers on a ledger. The West Indian plantations were run by hired managers whose sole incentive was to wring every penny they could out of the plantations, often for just a year or two before moving on to other employment. They had not the slightest connection with their slaves, not even the paternalistic one that might develop between the house slaves and the family on a Southern plantation. Their mistreatment of slaves was not limited by any comforting rationalizations, and if they felt any pangs of conscience they could always blame it on the absentee landlord. In all, Southern slave owners treated people like animals; West Indian slave owners treated them like machine parts.
Finally, much of the South was simply a healthier place to live than the West Indies; it had fewer tropical diseases, fewer mosquitoes and a more temperate climate.
There were also better escape opportunities in the South than the Caribbean. On the really small islands like Barbados, Guadeloupe, or Antigua, escape was nearly impossible; virtually the whole island had been cleared and brought under cultivation, and there was no place to hide. On bigger islands like Cuba or Jamaica, there were inland mountains and woods where slaves could run, and there formed groups of maroons or cimarrones, runaway slaves who sometimes joined surviving Indian populations and held out for decades; there are a few left even today. At best, the life of a maroon was one of constant siege, danger, and risk of re-enslavement. But continental North America offered vastly larger areas to hide in. Some of the Native Americans were friendly to escaped slaves (notably the Seminoles), although others weren't and some even had slaves of their own.
This post was edited on 10/27/22 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 10/27/22 at 2:41 pm to wadewilson
quote:
The north then spent the next few decades rubbing it in their faces.
I'm a descendent of the 15th New Jersey. In fact, hanging by my desk, I have a photo of my ancestors regiment at a reunion at Gettysburg in the early 1900s. I take pride that they could reunite on the battlefields where they actually won.
Posted on 10/27/22 at 2:43 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
I feel though you lack the mental capacity to view anything from a detached viewpoint
Insults are all you have.
Here's your participation trophy:
Posted on 10/27/22 at 2:44 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
You’re getting yourself worked up arguing over nonsense.
Nah.
quote:
I simply stated the fact of what they were doing and why they were doing it from their perspective. I did the same with Lincoln and why he made the choices he made.
Firstly, I don't trust your recitation of any side's perspective since I read your Russian perspective post, which was nonsensical and directly contradicted by Dugin, who I have to believe over you. Secondly, I too am commenting on how negotiations work, and why the Southern policy as stated by you was going to fail. Read my post again.
quote:
However, nor do I allow my modern day biases cloud my judgment to the point I refuse to understand their actions and the motivations that lead to those actions.
Then my argument about leverage should make perfect sense.
quote:
I feel though you lack the mental capacity to view anything from a detached viewpoint so I am wasting my time with you.
Brother, you are the one who exhibits extreme victimization with regards to the 'modern' viewpoint, and don't seem fond of actually citing sources. Those are your posts and not mine.
Posted on 10/27/22 at 2:46 pm to fr33manator
quote:
From an article. Sums up some good points.
That isn't what I meant by accounts. I meant accounts from the slaves viewpoint, of which there are several thousand, both from the US and other places in the Western Hemisphere. Those accounts shape my viewpoint, not some randomly found, unsourced apologia for the moral equivocation.
Posted on 10/27/22 at 2:46 pm to Landmass
quote:
The Civil War was much more complex than just slavery regardless of the revisionist and reductionist history that you believe in.
It actually is. One of my ancestors, buried in Tishomingo County, MS, joined the CSA Calvary in Memphis,TN.
He was in Memphis, TN working on Steamboats. Some little known officer, at the time, named Nathan Forrest was recruiting and he joined. This man was on my Grandmother’s side. His Bible journals are in the Tishomingo County, MS archives. He writes about him joining and never once mentioned slavery. He was at Shiloh with the rest of his company unable to do much with the overall battle since the terrain made Calvary basically useless. He was also at Fallen Timbers when Forrest was shot.
On my grandfather’s side, after Shiloh, another ancestor of mine signed up later when they came through Ms and recruited again.
After this.. an ancestor of mine on my grandfathers side and my grandmothers side, who didn’t know each other. was at the battle of Brice’s Crossroads on opposite ends of the battle lines.
None of any of their writings said anything about slavery. They did, however, have a lot about protection of their property and belongings.
It was noted in the archives, in his journal entries, that there was a lot of items being taken by the Union Army when they would come through and that was one of the reasons he joined.
Basically you have three reasons for the war:
1) Slavery. This was the cause of the upper class. The big cotton producers. These were the slave owners. The same people that, in present day, help make the decisions on sending people to the Middle East and elsewhere to fight while they live in luxury.
2) States Rights. This was the cause of a large portion of the south. No arguments. This was the rally call to arms that got people to sign up.
3) Protection of homeland and property. The people, once the war kicked off, felt there was an invasion. This rallied other people to take up arms. The Union army was destroying southern crops, southern infrastructure, southern towns, etc. this was the rallying call from the south from 61 on. The newspapers were full of the stories. The talk was about it. Just like people think and talk of Ukraine now. Southerners thought of Lincoln like people now think of Putin.
This post was edited on 10/27/22 at 2:48 pm
Posted on 10/27/22 at 2:47 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:Beauregard, Pickens, and Davis knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Fort Sumter would soon run out of food. Lincoln told Pickens that fact. Anderson himself told South Carolina's representatives that his garrison would run out of food in less than a week.
It’s embarrassing that you’re oblivious one of the most widely accepted historic truths that historians agree upon is that Lincoln masterfully maneuvered the South to fire the first shots of the war. It’s still recognized as a brilliant political move on his part.
With these unassailable facts in hand, Davis, Pickens, and Beauregard decided to open fire on Fort Sumter.
Posted on 10/27/22 at 2:49 pm to GetCocky11
quote:
I'm a descendent of the 15th New Jersey.
Yeah, mine were on the losing side. Supposedly, some of them were slave owners, but I have my doubts about that.
quote:
Gettysburg
Been their once. As a kid, I was obsessed with Shaara's book.
They do reenactments a couple towns over from me. They're cool, but it's tiny compared to what they do at Gettysburg.
Posted on 10/27/22 at 2:53 pm to Salviati
quote:
Anderson himself told South Carolina's representatives that his garrison would run out of food in less than a week.
Thats the crazy part.
It was no secret. Ft Sumter would fall, quickly, without a shot being fired.
Posted on 10/27/22 at 2:54 pm to crazy4lsu
I don’t know what to tell you. I read this stuff a decade or more ago, in physical books. I don’t have them on hand.
The accounts of American slaves ran the gamut, and are more available than the tales of those that escaped in the islands. But those that did, the maroons, told of horrific tales. Extremely high death rates, horrific treatment, barbaric conditions.
They weren’t even treated as livestock, just expendable meat, easily replaced.
Look up the Belgian Congo.
The accounts of American slaves ran the gamut, and are more available than the tales of those that escaped in the islands. But those that did, the maroons, told of horrific tales. Extremely high death rates, horrific treatment, barbaric conditions.
They weren’t even treated as livestock, just expendable meat, easily replaced.
Look up the Belgian Congo.
Posted on 10/27/22 at 2:57 pm to fr33manator
quote:
The accounts of American slaves ran the gamut
Like which ones? Were there ones that supported American chattel slavery? If that is what you mean by 'ran the gamut,' then could you cite which ones?
quote:
Look up the Belgian Congo.
I can assure you, I don't need to look up anything. None of that changes the intensely idiotic equivocation you yourself made.
Posted on 10/27/22 at 3:03 pm to wadewilson
quote:
quote:
Gettysburg
Been their once. As a kid, I was obsessed with Shaara's book.
They do reenactments a couple towns over from me. They're cool, but it's tiny compared to what they do at Gettysburg.
Yeah what I love about this photo is that it is before all the sidewalks and shite. They're behind the General Gouverneur Warren statue on Little Round Top.
I have his Grand Army of the Republic medal around here somewhere.
Posted on 10/27/22 at 3:12 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
Were there ones that supported American chattel slavery?
Yeah man that’s totally what I said. If you can’t wrap your head around the situations of some enslaved people being comparatively better than others (hell in 12 years a slave Northup gives comparative examples) then I can’t help you.
You are right. I’m completely wrong. All slavery was exactly the same and in one way could one bad situation be comparatively worse than another horrible situation.
There is no variance in human experience.
Thank you for helping me see the light. Now I have to go choose between tuna casserole and fresh sushi. How could I, it’s all just fish and carbs. Exactly the same.
This post was edited on 10/27/22 at 3:13 pm
Posted on 10/27/22 at 3:15 pm to Salviati
quote:
Beauregard, Pickens, and Davis knew, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Fort Sumter would soon run out of food. Lincoln told Pickens that fact. Anderson himself told South Carolina's representatives that his garrison would run out of food in less than a week.
With these unassailable facts in hand, Davis, Pickens, and Beauregard decided to open fire on Fort Sumter.
The decision to fire on Sumter was made after Lincoln notified Pickens he was sending supplies to Fort Sumter. Pickens then notified Beauregard and Davis. Lincoln’s notification basically started the clock ticking. The Confederates either had to reduce the fort before the arrival of supplies or accept federal control of the fort. Davis ordered Beauregard to call for the fort’s surrender once again and if they did not then he was to open fire.
You should know this.
The bolded part is the cux of the matter. The Confederates we’re seeking recognition of their independence. That was impossible long as the federal held forts in what they wanted the world to know as the Confederate States of America. From their perspective, they had to take control of those forts.
Conversely, Lincoln had to hold the forts to not lend credibility to the Southern claim of independence. And he absolutely could not negotiate handing them over as this would all but grant the Confederacy the recognition it wanted.
But Lincoln had other considerations to take into account, ones I’ve already mentioned. First there was public opinion where many northern either were glad to be rid of the Southerns and many even were sympathetic or at least understanding of their desire to leave the country. Plus at that time states like Virginia were still on the fence and really could have gone either way. Then there was the matter of world opinion where he did not want to foster sympathy for the South in France & Britain. He did not want the South to be able to claim a war of defense.
All these considerations I’ve laid out went into the thinking of men in Washington, Charleston, and Montgomery and lead them to make the decisions they made. The Confederates had to get the Federals out, the Federals had to stay and neither wanted to be the one to start a war that was inevitable. The difference was Lincoln was able to get the Confederates to do so. When you think about it, it was a brilliant move on his part.
This post was edited on 10/27/22 at 3:17 pm
Posted on 10/27/22 at 3:15 pm to fr33manator
quote:
Yeah man that’s totally what I said. If you can’t wrap your head around the situations of some enslaved people being comparatively better than others (hell in 12 years a slave Northup gives comparative examples) then I can help you.
You said it 'ran the gamut' without specifying what you meant. I was asking for details. This is your response.
quote:
You are right. I’m completely wrong. All slavery was exactly the same and in one way could one bad situation be comparatively worse than another horrible situation.
You haven't mentioned the major aspect that separated European chattel slavery from other versions. And again, you brought up the equivocation. Why does that matter? Why is it important? Do you have some evidence from a slave narrative (the literary genre) that the slaves themselves had this perspective?
quote:
Thank you for helping me see the light. Now I have to go choose between tuna casserole and fresh sushi. How could I, it’s all just fish and carbs. Exactly the same.
Nah, you are just dumb as shite and don't understand arguments you make. You should read a book for once and stop listening to podcasts. You 100% wrong on any historical topic and have been for a while. Are you going to quote one of your all-time favorites, 'muh why Africans didn't invent the wheel' any time soon?
quote:
There is no variance in human experience.
You certainly aren't the one to narrate that nuance.
This post was edited on 10/27/22 at 3:17 pm
Posted on 10/27/22 at 3:24 pm to GetCocky11
quote:
Anderson himself told South Carolina's representatives that his garrison would run out of food in less than a week.
quote:
Thats the crazy part.
It was no secret. Ft Sumter would fall, quickly, without a shot being fired.
You’d think someone who claims such heritage from the Civil War would be aware of the fact Lincoln notified South Carolina on April 6, just 6 days before the bombardment started, supplies were being shipped to Sumter which means the fort was not going to fall from lack of supplies.
It was this notification from Lincoln on April 6, 1861 that lead to the decision to fire on the fort.
This post was edited on 10/27/22 at 3:37 pm
Page 10 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News