re: Southern hero Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson crossed over the river 154 years ago today

Once again, I'm not a liberal. I don't give a shite who sold them into slavery or why that would make a difference. Its a godless land full of savages that does many things I find deplorable. Nor do I care that blacks owned slaves or some slaves really liked their masters. None of that matters. It all comes down to simple facts. Slavery is wrong and evil. It had to be stopped and eliminated in this country (as it should be everywhere). The people that participated in it should be chastised for their involvement and shamed for their actions. It really is that simple..

So we can consider contemporary views and morals for the tribes in Africa as an excuse but not for the Europeans or Americans. Awesome.

quote:

---

Yes, let's look to Brazil for guiding lights of civilization and justice.

---

You said the south was the only place slavery was still around in the western hemisphere. You were wrong. Cute deflection though.

quote:

---

Keep beating that neo-Confederate Lost Cause drum.

---

I haven't? What I HAVE done, is prove you wrong and clear up common misconceptions.

quote:

---

The South fought over slavery and lost, and then successfully managed to propagandize the war as a patriotic defense of their way of life

---

Oh you.

I said Western World. Which as anyone who's studied history with a modicum of seriousness would know is referring to Western Civilization, which is traditionally considered Greece/Rome/Western Europe and then the US. Not literally the Western Hemisphere dude.

Please rebut that quote though there's like a million more. Pretty much all modern historical scholarship agrees that the Lost Cause was a concentrated effort by Southern veterans and writers to rewrite the reasons for the war, downplay slavery, and paint themselves as the heroic defenders of justice instead of the men betraying their vows to defend their home states, which had seceded in order to keep slavery.

The cause of the war was secession and Lincolns decision not accept it. The cause of secession was slavery. At least principally. Seceding over states rights...please.

"We have dissolved the late Union chiefly because of the negro quarrel."-Alabama Senator in 1861

"African slavery as it exists amongst us; the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."-Alexander Stephens, Georgia Governor, Later Vice President of the Confederacy. Also one of the leading Lost Cause proponents, told everyone who'd listen after they lost the war that they were heroes fighting solely for original states rights, slavery wasn't even a consideration. Based on this thread, he did a phenomenal job narrative shifting.

Btw, my stances are not intended to take away from the military prowess of the south, and army of northern Virginia in particular. I mean how can you not root for Lee and Jackson to whup the bumbling, arrogant Yankee commanders with speed and daring. But that's not the issue I'm debating

quote:

---

More like lsu to bama

---

Well, In all fairness, we have beaten them more than once in the last 24+ years.

quote:

---

I said Western World. Which as anyone who's studied history with a modicum of seriousness would know is referring to Western Civilization, which is traditionally considered Greece/Rome/Western Europe and then the US. Not literally the Western Hemisphere dude.

---

I got a minor in history. And have several first hand journals and accounts from this time period.

Also, South America and central America still were under the influence of Spain/France et al. So even with your semantic arguement, you're still wrong.

quote:

---

Pretty much all modern historical scholarship agrees that the Lost Cause was a concentrated effort by Southern veterans and writers to rewrite the reasons for the war, downplay slavery, and paint themselves as the heroic defenders of justice instead of the men betraying their vows to defend their home states, which had seceded in order to keep slavery

---

Slavery was wrong. But once again. Let's see your first hand accounts. How many personal journals of confederate generals and admirals have you read? How many plantation logs? Slave accounts?

All I've done is clarify common misconceptions. Slavery was wrong and I'm glad it got abolished. And guess what, I have not one, but TWO family plantation homes that have been in our family since before the war. I have not defended slavery. I've clarified common misconceptions. I've done an arse load of research on this topic and spent MANY days in the LSU archives reading first hand accounts, hell, LSU has one of our plantations slave list. As well as my ancestors journal.

So... How many FIRST HAND accounts have you read? Or are you going to continue to look at it through the lens of hindsight?

quote:

---

Brazil became independent in 1822 for starters.

---

Under western influence =/= under western control.

Also, not once have I brought up Brazil.

quote:

---

Some of them were basically like servants, some of them lived a living hell. What's your point?

---

My point is that widespread abuse to the tune that a poster spouted earlier was incorrect. Was there abuse and all kinds of bad shut? Yes. But to think the slave owners woke up day after day just to beat and torture their slaves like a sadist is just being willfully ignorant.

quote:

---

Actual diaries? Not a ton. I've read all of Shaara's stuff though which is first hand from the Generals view and is based off their diaries and letters. And I've read a bunch of books based off their personal notes, memoirs, accounts, etc.

---

You really should. First hand accounts are wonderful and give you a REAL look at the inner workings of the time. Anything published second hand has an agenda. Either to shy away from certain things, or to up play certain things.

quote:

---

My point is the home states seceded bc of slavery, not for some trumped up notion of Justice and states rights and northern oppression

---

The secession was for neither one nor the other, but a grey in between. Slavery was a crutch, yes, but states rights were as well. You can't downplay one or the other as they went hand in hand in the decision making.

quote:

---

You may have read documents from Confederate generals and legislators that explicitly say otherwise, and if so they almost undoubtedly come from 1869-1885. When the successfully rewrote their own causes for the war.

---

I've read sorce material from the early 1800s-early 1900s. And you'd be surprised. Most don't try to hide what they did or their reasoning behind what they did. Like I have said several times. Take the time to go read some first hand accounts. Not just of the generals, but the common man. It'll open your eyes tremendously to the revisionist history we are fed on the subject.

My family didn't won slaves and weren't fighting so that rich families could keep their slaves.

What gives you the right to be the final arbiter on why my family fought and died defending their home?

I assume if the Federal government military were to march into Louisiana and start rounding up / shooting your friend, family, and neighbors you would just shrug your shoulders and go along with it?

quote:

---

that rich families could keep their slaves.

---

Slaves weren't just for the rich, hoss.

quote:

---

What gives you the right to be the final arbiter on

---

That sounded a lot better in your head... Huh? I mean.. What exactly are you trying to say here?

So.... What... Did your family fight and die for?