- 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 6/5/21 at 8:44 am to tigerdup07
Posted on 6/5/21 at 8:44 am to tigerdup07
quote:
keep in mind that this was only a few generations removed from those that left the crown because they didn't like to be told what to do. they sought freedom. their kids' kids' (civil war soldiers) were raised in that same manor. don't tread on me, got dammit. don't tell me what to do.
Kind of hypocritical don't you think? They didn't mind telling slaves what to do.
2
Posted on 6/5/21 at 8:47 am to Abstract Queso Dip
These arguments become oversimplified, but yes: the South was fighting to preserve its socio-economic system, of which slavery was a major component. Also key to it was political decentralization, which is similar to states' rights but not exactly the same thing. The tariff issue was a big factor too. The Northern states supported the tariff for their own interests but it hurt the Southern economy and proceeds from it were then used to build Northern infrastructure but next to none in the South.
The North, however, was fighting to ensure that the nation was preserved, based on contemporary trends of industrializing nations to centralize power with a basis in nationalism. This trend was occurring all over the Western World (Italy and German unification, the 2nd French Empire, etc). Lincoln was the first president to publicly frame slavery in moral terms but wasnt directly threatening to end it. He was more concerned with consolidation of the West and pushing the Federalist/Whig/Republican model of American government that Hamilton and Clay espoused. This model was anathema to Jeffersonian/Jacksonian Democrats. It was also a model that all but ensured the eventual fall of the Plantation elite in the South. At least at a national level. The history of the US up to that point was a struggle between these two philosophies. Hamilton won in the end. If you feel pride singing the national anthem or reciting the pledge. you are a testament to Hamilton's vision over the ideology of most 19th century Southerners
The Secession Declarations surely show that preserving slavery was of paramount concern to the South. In a post Enlightenment world, that requires an ideology of White Supremacy.
That said, it is also worth noting that the Sugar Barons initially opposed secession and war. They were the wealthiest plantation owners with the most slaves. This shows that the war was primarily fought on economic grounds as the tariff did not hurt them and their biggest market was domestic (as opposed to cotton).
Lincoln was a master strategist. At a time when his re-election was in doubt and victory in the war was uncertain, he pushed out the proclamation to free slaves, which in the immediate freed not a single one. However, it reframed the war in moral terms and ensured that Britain would not aid the CSA.
In 1861, abolition played little to no part in the North's war aims. After 1863, it became central. Meanwhile, preservation of slavery was one of, if not the main, motivation for the South from day one.
This soldier's testimony is great. It proves that Confederate soldiers were indeed just men in their own time, doing g what they believed was right. Not the revisionist Nazis portrayed in 21st century classrooms and pop culture. As to his claims for " what they were fighting for," the young soldiers of the War of 1812, Spanish American War, WW1, Korea, Vietnam, and GWOT can't be expected to understand the geo political background of what they were doing either. They generally fight for the men next to them rather than a cause, ideology, or moral crusade. The soldiers in blue and gray were no different.
The North, however, was fighting to ensure that the nation was preserved, based on contemporary trends of industrializing nations to centralize power with a basis in nationalism. This trend was occurring all over the Western World (Italy and German unification, the 2nd French Empire, etc). Lincoln was the first president to publicly frame slavery in moral terms but wasnt directly threatening to end it. He was more concerned with consolidation of the West and pushing the Federalist/Whig/Republican model of American government that Hamilton and Clay espoused. This model was anathema to Jeffersonian/Jacksonian Democrats. It was also a model that all but ensured the eventual fall of the Plantation elite in the South. At least at a national level. The history of the US up to that point was a struggle between these two philosophies. Hamilton won in the end. If you feel pride singing the national anthem or reciting the pledge. you are a testament to Hamilton's vision over the ideology of most 19th century Southerners
The Secession Declarations surely show that preserving slavery was of paramount concern to the South. In a post Enlightenment world, that requires an ideology of White Supremacy.
That said, it is also worth noting that the Sugar Barons initially opposed secession and war. They were the wealthiest plantation owners with the most slaves. This shows that the war was primarily fought on economic grounds as the tariff did not hurt them and their biggest market was domestic (as opposed to cotton).
Lincoln was a master strategist. At a time when his re-election was in doubt and victory in the war was uncertain, he pushed out the proclamation to free slaves, which in the immediate freed not a single one. However, it reframed the war in moral terms and ensured that Britain would not aid the CSA.
In 1861, abolition played little to no part in the North's war aims. After 1863, it became central. Meanwhile, preservation of slavery was one of, if not the main, motivation for the South from day one.
This soldier's testimony is great. It proves that Confederate soldiers were indeed just men in their own time, doing g what they believed was right. Not the revisionist Nazis portrayed in 21st century classrooms and pop culture. As to his claims for " what they were fighting for," the young soldiers of the War of 1812, Spanish American War, WW1, Korea, Vietnam, and GWOT can't be expected to understand the geo political background of what they were doing either. They generally fight for the men next to them rather than a cause, ideology, or moral crusade. The soldiers in blue and gray were no different.
Posted on 6/5/21 at 9:32 am to rantfan
quote:
Kind of hypocritical don't you think? They didn't mind telling slaves what to do.
i tell my employees what to do too. so, i guess it's a catch 22
Posted on 6/5/21 at 9:44 am to klrstix
quote:
True... However, I would be careful not to judge his 16 through the lense of our culture and 16 year olds... I suspect his 16 was more seasoned in life experiences...
Idk, kids younger than that joyriding and taking lives. This dude probably couldn't use a cellphone like the kids today. Diff times fir sure, but fast forward from the Civil War to ww2 and my grandparents were fighting at 17. Fast forward from ww2 til now....
Posted on 6/5/21 at 10:10 am to BAMAMAN73
quote:
The war was all about states rights. Slavery was a very minor cause, if one at all.
This is laughable. Read the southern states’ declarations of secession.
Posted on 6/5/21 at 10:42 am to greenbean
quote:No, but cherry picking some documents and making the war as only being about the slavery issue is dishonest at best, it is extremely difficult to find any of the real history on the southern side of the Civil War. Look for photos online of the confederate side, all of it has basically been scrubbed completely. Many African Americans fought for the confederacy as well and that has been covered up and hidden.
So these articles of sucession are fakes?
Posted on 6/5/21 at 10:43 am to BAMAMAN73
quote:
Straight from the source. The war was all about states rights. Slavery was a very minor cause, if one at all.
Rich start wars and poors fight them. Depending on the state anywhere from 20-40% of residents were slave owners, less than 10% of confederate soldiers owned slaves, and most of those were high commanders. Slavery definitely had a cause for the war, not necessarily the only cause, but it was one. Now you can say the vast majority of confederate soldiers weren’t fighting to keep slavery and that’s perhaps very true, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t a major cause. The vast majority of U.S soldiers in Vietnam probably didn’t give a frick about our reasons being there either, they were just there.
Posted on 6/5/21 at 10:53 am to Sus-Scrofa
quote:It is when Whites are the ones enslaved. It is a fact that white Irish and poor English children were being shipped here as slaves before the African slave trade took off, and they were treated far worse, as they were cheaper for their jew masters to buy and discard.
it can’t be downplayed or brushed aside.
Posted on 6/5/21 at 10:55 am to windshieldman
The First slave owner in America was black, there were over 3500 black slave owners in America at the time of the civil war, American Indians owned thousands of slaves, none of the confederate soldiers owned slaves. this wasn't a so much of a race issue as it was a rich/poor issue.
People seem to forget that black on black slavery had existed for thousands of years in Africa prior to America even existing. And it wasn't just blacks who were slaves either.
People seem to forget that black on black slavery had existed for thousands of years in Africa prior to America even existing. And it wasn't just blacks who were slaves either.
Posted on 6/5/21 at 11:24 am to Man With A Plan
quote:
The First slave owner in America was black, there were over 3500 black slave owners in America at the time of the civil war, American Indians owned thousands of slaves, none of the confederate soldiers owned slaves. this wasn't a so much of a race issue as it was a rich/poor issue.
People seem to forget that black on black slavery had existed for thousands of years in Africa prior to America even existing. And it wasn't just blacks who were slaves either.
I realize all that, doesn’t mean slavery had nothing to do with it. I love CW history, especially the southern side, I’m from Louisiana. The interview in OP was a good listen. I think most confederate soldiers just fought in their minds for their state, or even town/city, communication and information wasn’t spread fast or far back then, most had no idea why the Yanks were invading
This post was edited on 6/5/21 at 11:25 am
Posted on 6/5/21 at 11:31 am to windshieldman
Well damn he said the slaves at his family house were happy and he didn't have any kids his age near him so all his friends were black slave kids.
I thought the blacks were beaten senseless daily by the white devils and given moldy grains to eat.
Wish we had just left them alone in the dark continent where abundant food, technology and law and order gave them a much higher quality of life.
Wakanda forever!!!
YouTube needs to scrub this video of such lies and misrepresentations!!
South was fighting for states rights? How dare he say that!
I thought the blacks were beaten senseless daily by the white devils and given moldy grains to eat.
Wish we had just left them alone in the dark continent where abundant food, technology and law and order gave them a much higher quality of life.
Wakanda forever!!!
YouTube needs to scrub this video of such lies and misrepresentations!!
South was fighting for states rights? How dare he say that!
This post was edited on 6/5/21 at 11:33 am
Posted on 6/5/21 at 11:37 am to windshieldman
Lincoln invaded because the southern states paid the majority of taxes and after SC and a few other states seceded he couldn't afford to lose that, after his invasion the rest of the southern states quickly followed with secession from Lincoln's tyrannical government.
It was never about slavery, that was the excuse later in the war to make the north the "good guys" especially after sherman's war crimes against women and children in the illegal burning of Columbia and Atlanta.
It was never about slavery, that was the excuse later in the war to make the north the "good guys" especially after sherman's war crimes against women and children in the illegal burning of Columbia and Atlanta.
This post was edited on 6/5/21 at 11:40 am
Posted on 6/5/21 at 12:18 pm to West Palm Tiger561
quote:
"I didn't have any white children associates, so I played around with the nigruh children"
I find it amusing how old south pronounces the N word.
The N word he was using was Negro.
Posted on 6/5/21 at 12:45 pm to tigahbruh
Thank you for the effort of making a thoughtful post.
My great great grandfather on my dad's side was in Hood's First Texas Brigade. Texas had just become a state a few years before the Civil War, having fought for its own independence from Mexico to become a republic. There is considerable information available online about them, including their reunion gatherings for decades after the war, and the texts of the speeches given reveal that the ordinary soldiers were not slave owners and went to fight with their neighbors to protect their state and the other southern states from invasion by the Federals. That is not to say that slavery was not a major issue or cause in terms of the political forces in play leading up to the war.
My ancestor joined up with 155 of his neighbors to form a company, in a manner similar to the formation of units on both sides. Men fought with their friends, neighbors and other residents of their localities. As the First Texas was considered Lee's best troops, he saw some of the fiercest fighting and was wounded at both Antietam and Gettysburg. Of the 155 men of his company, only 5 privates were still able to participate at Appomatox. My gggrandfather was then in a union prison camp. The formal surrender was presided over by the now-famed Gen. Joshua Chamberlain, who recalled it as follows:
"Instructions had been given; and when the head of each division column comes opposite our group, our bugle sounds the signal and instantly our whole line from right to left, regiment by regiment in succession, gives the soldier’s salutation, from the “order arms” to the old “carry”— the marching salute. Gordon at the head of the column, riding with heavy spirit and downcast face, catches the sound of shifting arms, looks up, and, taking the meaning, wheels superbly…with profound salutation as he drops the point of his sword to the boot toe; then facing to his own command, gives word for his successive brigades to pass us with the same position of the manual, honor answering honor."
The bravery of the common soldiers on both sides of the conflict should not be forgotten or attributed to the sole motivation of preserving slavery. It is a shame that the battle flag has been corrupted by white supremacists in the same way that the swastika was adapted by Nazi Germany. I am proud that my gggrandfather was such a brave man to endure what they did. At the same time, I am now also embarrassed by my neighbor's ignorance of current sensibilities shown by his flying of the confederate flag next door.
My great great grandfather on my dad's side was in Hood's First Texas Brigade. Texas had just become a state a few years before the Civil War, having fought for its own independence from Mexico to become a republic. There is considerable information available online about them, including their reunion gatherings for decades after the war, and the texts of the speeches given reveal that the ordinary soldiers were not slave owners and went to fight with their neighbors to protect their state and the other southern states from invasion by the Federals. That is not to say that slavery was not a major issue or cause in terms of the political forces in play leading up to the war.
My ancestor joined up with 155 of his neighbors to form a company, in a manner similar to the formation of units on both sides. Men fought with their friends, neighbors and other residents of their localities. As the First Texas was considered Lee's best troops, he saw some of the fiercest fighting and was wounded at both Antietam and Gettysburg. Of the 155 men of his company, only 5 privates were still able to participate at Appomatox. My gggrandfather was then in a union prison camp. The formal surrender was presided over by the now-famed Gen. Joshua Chamberlain, who recalled it as follows:
"Instructions had been given; and when the head of each division column comes opposite our group, our bugle sounds the signal and instantly our whole line from right to left, regiment by regiment in succession, gives the soldier’s salutation, from the “order arms” to the old “carry”— the marching salute. Gordon at the head of the column, riding with heavy spirit and downcast face, catches the sound of shifting arms, looks up, and, taking the meaning, wheels superbly…with profound salutation as he drops the point of his sword to the boot toe; then facing to his own command, gives word for his successive brigades to pass us with the same position of the manual, honor answering honor."
The bravery of the common soldiers on both sides of the conflict should not be forgotten or attributed to the sole motivation of preserving slavery. It is a shame that the battle flag has been corrupted by white supremacists in the same way that the swastika was adapted by Nazi Germany. I am proud that my gggrandfather was such a brave man to endure what they did. At the same time, I am now also embarrassed by my neighbor's ignorance of current sensibilities shown by his flying of the confederate flag next door.
Posted on 6/5/21 at 1:52 pm to windshieldman
quote:The guy was 16 & barely owned anything like most fighting age soldiers , but he was from a slave owning family. Those slaves were his future inheritance/ right/ family property. I'm sure that the number(10%) sky Rockets if you count the young volunteers from slave owing Households.
less than 10% of confederate soldiers owned slaves,
Overall slave owning Households 1860 Census:
Ms-49%
S.C.- 46%
Ga- 37%
Bama-35%
Fla-34%
La-29%
Tx-28%
N.C.28%
Seems like slavery was an important way of life in the South. They were willing to go to war to preserve it.
Posted on 6/5/21 at 2:29 pm to tigahbruh
Well said.
Posted on 6/5/21 at 2:29 pm to sugar71
quote:
The guy was 16 & barely owned anything like most fighting age soldiers , but he was from a slave owning family. Those slaves were his future inheritance/ right/ family property. I'm sure that the number(10%) sky Rockets if you count the young volunteers from slave owing Households.
Not sure if sky rockets or not, 16 back then many that age were already having families, average age of confederate soldier was 26 during the war. I’ve seen the breakdowns before and from what I’ve seen right around 10% of confederates in the war owned slaves, something like 80% of those were generals and high commanders.
Slavery can and should be frowned upon in today’s time, important to remember up until then, and in some countries a little past that, slavery had been used since as far back as we can go in history. I understand there is still some today in certain countries but I’m speaking of where it was generally accepted world wide time period, granted many countries were getting out of it already prior to CW.
Your average southerner didn’t have money to feed, buy, and house slaves. Across the entire south it averages to right around 30% of people owned slaves. Again, approximately 90% of those never stepped foot on a battlefield, vast majority of that 30% would have been the elite in those years.
Posted on 6/5/21 at 2:33 pm to PhantomMenace
quote:
Instructions had been given; and when the head of each division column comes opposite our group, our bugle sounds the signal and instantly our whole line from right to left, regiment by regiment in succession, gives the soldier’s salutation, from the “order arms” to the old “carry”— the marching salute. Gordon at the head of the column, riding with heavy spirit and downcast face, catches the sound of shifting arms, looks up, and, taking the meaning, wheels superbly…with profound salutation as he drops the point of his sword to the boot toe; then facing to his own command, gives word for his successive brigades to pass us with the same position of the manual, honor answering honor."
Gave me goosebumps. Honorable men all...
Posted on 6/5/21 at 2:54 pm to rantfan
quote:
Kind of hypocritical don't you think? They didn't mind telling slaves what to do.
And if the slaves had formed an army and beaten them on the field of battle, there is ample evidence that they would have accepted that.
Posted on 6/5/21 at 2:56 pm to windshieldman
He said back in those days they didn’t pay attention to time. Just an interesting tidbit I picked up. Other than the dying easily from getting sick, post CW era, also taking out how blacks were treated all over the country until Civil Rights era, I’d imagine that would be an interesting time to live. Say 1870, living in a small town maybe in north Arkansas, on a beautiful river and woods all around, not having to deal with 1000s of tourists, liberals moving in and taking over, just mostly peaceful, yet lots of work
Page 3 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News