Calling all proud Southerners. I Just finished a movie on the cadets from VMI that fought in the Market Valley battle. It has peeked my interest in the southern side of things. I freely admit I am uneducated when it comes to the CW. My paternal family was from Ohio so therefore the north. My Maternal side from GA but I have no info on my family military wise there. I have often understood the southern Gent to be quite proud of family heritage during this time and am interested to any family or local stories that one would care to write for us to read.
Southerners...Civil War......GITT.
- Thread starter crusader
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
The Civil War had nothing to do with abolishing slavery. As for secession, all states have the right to nullify laws that are unconstitutional. What I cannot demand from you is to abide by point 1 2 3 and 4 despite the fact I have failed to carry out point 1 myself. If I did this, I´d be giving you a notice of anticipatory repudiation or anticipatory breach. In common law this is defined as "repudiation," that is, when one party, by words or conduct, evinces an intention not to perform part or all of the contract
I would like to add that the war did have to do with the abolition of slavery. While this was not in the entirety, both northern and southern soldiers formed groups that essentially turned the war into a south/north hate war, with a lot of the north's motive being that they started to see slavery as a true evil.
Apart from the the nonsense about the war's motives, I do enjoy the tactics involved in the civil war, between the sieges and Sherman's March, things of that nature that really showed how brutal the war was for both sides. We have a park over here in Vicksburg; I haven't been in years, but I thoroughly enjoy learning about the war and how important Vicksburg was.
As a southerner who is proud of his roots, I find the history of the south to be one of both an elegant society and a dark past. If one can get past the dark times of racism and slavery that encompassed much of the south, antebellum society was quite interesting! :D I live in Mississippi, and going in town to Port Gibson and looking at all of the old antebellum homes is a lovely experience!
Apart from the the nonsense about the war's motives, I do enjoy the tactics involved in the civil war, between the sieges and Sherman's March, things of that nature that really showed how brutal the war was for both sides. We have a park over here in Vicksburg; I haven't been in years, but I thoroughly enjoy learning about the war and how important Vicksburg was.
As a southerner who is proud of his roots, I find the history of the south to be one of both an elegant society and a dark past. If one can get past the dark times of racism and slavery that encompassed much of the south, antebellum society was quite interesting! :D I live in Mississippi, and going in town to Port Gibson and looking at all of the old antebellum homes is a lovely experience!
If this is the case, why is it Robert E. Lee did not own slaves? Moreover, in contrast, many Union generals did. When his father-in-law died, Lee took over the management of the plantation his wife had inherited and immediately began freeing the slaves. By the time Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, every slave in Lee’s charge had been freed. Notably, some Union generals didn't free their slaves until the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.
What nonsense?
I'm afraid you took that part out of context. It did not begin with the abolition of slavery, but the war would eventually begin to become a hate war between the north and south, stemming directly from slavery, as the northerners began to see it as an incredible evil. So though not entirely, the war most certainly did involve slavery and its abolition. Not to mention the possible abolition of slavery would begin the secession of states (under the premise of a loss of state power, hence the confederacy)
As for the whole nonsense part, this thread wasn't really meant to argue or discuss the civil war in this manner. I feel the OP was intending to discuss specifically southern life and society, as well as the southern family ties to the war.
I meant no harm by my post, but one can most definitely not say the war had nothing to do with the abolition of slavery.
As for the whole nonsense part, this thread wasn't really meant to argue or discuss the civil war in this manner. I feel the OP was intending to discuss specifically southern life and society, as well as the southern family ties to the war.
I meant no harm by my post, but one can most definitely not say the war had nothing to do with the abolition of slavery.
The Civil War had nothing to do with abolishing slavery. The war was fought with only but one purpose: to further strengthen the power of Washington over the nation states. This is a letter that Robert E. Lee penned himself: it was written for his wife to express his position on slavery and the tensions in between North and South:
Robert E. Lee and Slavery, to his wife, letter dated December 27, 1856
"I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South [ a euphemism for human slavery]are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?"
Robert E. Lee and Slavery, to his wife, letter dated December 27, 1856
"I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South [ a euphemism for human slavery]are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?"
Crusader, I had prepared a post about my G-G Grandfather fighting with the Confederacy for the duration of the war, losing his older brother fighting for the same cause, and what our family lost as a result of a hardline Reconstruction policy after the war. But since this thread has turned into politics & slavery I will withhold from posting it. It's perhaps a little lengthy but I'll consider sending it to you in a PM as I think it is what you were asking for.
What about further strengthening the power of Washington over the nation states? The whole idea was to gain jurisdiction over the nation states to be able to tax them accordingly.
I am intrigued by Civil War history as well, but perhaps a new thread should be started on the politics of the war so this thread can return to the original poster's intent.
Wrong again Jorge. That the under laying cause of the War Between the States was in fact slavery and the attendant economics of slavery in the cotton industry is argued against by only a few. It was the basic argument which drove the discussion regarding the right of the individual states to make certain determinations. It was the driving motivation for the compromises. The southern states realized that they had to maintain a balance of slave versus non-slave states in order to preserve the "peculiar institution" of slavery.
CSA soldiers fought for a myriad of reasons, peer pressure, states rights, repelling invasion, excitement, the desire to "see the elephant," economic, etc. But, the institution of slavery drove the politics that led to secession and then to war. The Northern anti-slave side controlled the pre-election discussions and debates. Strong anti-slavery newspapers disparaged the slave holding states. The threat to the economy in the south, should slavery not be allowed, insured that those in power there, almost all wealthy slaveholders, their wealth totally dependent on slavery, drove the debate in the south.
Much as today, many business people believe Americans will not perform work for low wages so they work to insure a continuing influx of people across our southern border. Little has changed over the past years. Even the chambers of commerce champion, more or less, open borders so as to insure sufficient workers for cheap labor jobs. The south learned after the war that cotton and tobacco could still be profitable, especially with the arrival of certain mechanical inventions.
While the end of slavery, not racial discrimination (we're still working on that wrinkle), was a grand result of the fighting, the greatest impact was to turn the United States in a true union of states as opposed to a confederation of states. Rightly or wrongly, America became a country with a supreme, central government. Without that result we would not be the country we are today. Whether or not one likes what the country has evolved into the "late unpleasantness" was the impetus for our strong central government and subservient state government. And, slavery and the abhorrence of slavery drove the debate, the politics, and the people to the war. "States rights' was a consideration only in so far as the wealthy land owners in the southern states wanted slavery to continue, while the majority in the north did not.
The Federal government, at the point of a gun, established that the individual states had no such power to secede. Far as I know, Texas is the only state that can leave the Union. That right was agreed to by the governments of both countries when it was agreed to admit Texas as a state. If, in fact the right of secession did exist, that right was lost due to the inability of the Confederacy to defend that right.
I suppose if you want to get to one single cause for the war, it would be . . . economics. The southern land owners wanted to preserve their life style, which certain people found against the laws of God. That's an oversimplification of course, but it's very true.
CSA soldiers fought for a myriad of reasons, peer pressure, states rights, repelling invasion, excitement, the desire to "see the elephant," economic, etc. But, the institution of slavery drove the politics that led to secession and then to war. The Northern anti-slave side controlled the pre-election discussions and debates. Strong anti-slavery newspapers disparaged the slave holding states. The threat to the economy in the south, should slavery not be allowed, insured that those in power there, almost all wealthy slaveholders, their wealth totally dependent on slavery, drove the debate in the south.
Much as today, many business people believe Americans will not perform work for low wages so they work to insure a continuing influx of people across our southern border. Little has changed over the past years. Even the chambers of commerce champion, more or less, open borders so as to insure sufficient workers for cheap labor jobs. The south learned after the war that cotton and tobacco could still be profitable, especially with the arrival of certain mechanical inventions.
While the end of slavery, not racial discrimination (we're still working on that wrinkle), was a grand result of the fighting, the greatest impact was to turn the United States in a true union of states as opposed to a confederation of states. Rightly or wrongly, America became a country with a supreme, central government. Without that result we would not be the country we are today. Whether or not one likes what the country has evolved into the "late unpleasantness" was the impetus for our strong central government and subservient state government. And, slavery and the abhorrence of slavery drove the debate, the politics, and the people to the war. "States rights' was a consideration only in so far as the wealthy land owners in the southern states wanted slavery to continue, while the majority in the north did not.
The Federal government, at the point of a gun, established that the individual states had no such power to secede. Far as I know, Texas is the only state that can leave the Union. That right was agreed to by the governments of both countries when it was agreed to admit Texas as a state. If, in fact the right of secession did exist, that right was lost due to the inability of the Confederacy to defend that right.
I suppose if you want to get to one single cause for the war, it would be . . . economics. The southern land owners wanted to preserve their life style, which certain people found against the laws of God. That's an oversimplification of course, but it's very true.
Long story short, the war was about the south wanting power in the states. North knew that the gov't needed to have control over the states. Slavery just happened to the be spark that ignited that flame.
Anyway, I would like to discuss southern society and not the cause of the civil war. Does anybody else here live near towns with a strong antebellum influence still present? As in, the old buildings and such? It's such a wonderful thing
Anyway, I would like to discuss southern society and not the cause of the civil war. Does anybody else here live near towns with a strong antebellum influence still present? As in, the old buildings and such? It's such a wonderful thing
I will tell you that the last battle of the "War Between the States" took place in the Bering Sea off the coast of Alaska. That little piece of trivia will win you a beer in damned any bar in the south.
If you want to learn a lesson with regard to Southern chivalry, read about the "CSS Shenandoah." Dead whaling ship captain preserved in a cask, ships sunk, fortunes lost, a lengthy and perilous voyage halfway around the world . . . it's all there.
If you want to learn a lesson with regard to Southern chivalry, read about the "CSS Shenandoah." Dead whaling ship captain preserved in a cask, ships sunk, fortunes lost, a lengthy and perilous voyage halfway around the world . . . it's all there.
I believe blood was the currency used to resolve the disagreement.
God! Sucked in again! Will I never learn?
God! Sucked in again! Will I never learn?
You said you wouldn´t. Anyway, we are not fighting, but debating. We should not take things personally. I might be wrong like you said, but I mean you no harm.
Slavery has been an issue in this country since the first indentured servants (European slaves) and Africans came to this land. Our founding fathers knew slavery was inconsistent with beliefs of liberty yet the culture of the time as well as labor exploitation made this difficult to espouse and alter. The abolition of slavery was long overdue and it was a brilliant move to make by the north, though it was not the initial impetus of the war.
- Status