Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Battle flag uproar

But as Birdwatcher pointed out, the Southern leadership wrote their documents of succession, and they made slavery the centerpiece of those documents; slavery was the centerpiece of the South's causes for succession; and the Southern leadership wrote their Constitution, and they made slavery the centerpiece of that Constitution. That's what the Southern leadership wrote.
With a million or more casualties in that war, it's certain that innocent people on both sides were killed...and it's certain that atrocities happened on both sides.

Even so, freeing the blacks was not at the top of Lincoln's list, at the start of the war. miles

Interesting


http://allenwestrepublic.com/2015/06/20/five-important-facts-you-did-not-know-about-this-flag/

Several slave states did not secede and slavery was not abolished in them until after it was in the states that had seceded. Lincoln started the war by not evacuating Fort Sumter, which was in southern territory. President Davis practically begged Lincoln for a non-violent solution, but Lincoln instigated the war by attempting to re-supply and reinforce Fort Sumter. Thus it does not matter what the war was about. The South and Davis himself contended that secession was legal and proper. The North evidently disagreed because The Great Emancipator himself said the war was about preserving the Union. I don't have statistics, but the "slavery" issue couldn't have been important to over a third of the people in both countries, probably closer to ten percent. Slavery would have been done for in another twenty years anyway. I don't think any major country still held slaves in 1900, probably well before that year.

The real reasons for the war are there for anyone to learn but you go ahead and stick to your watered down version...in this country you have the right to be wrong...

The very words that the Southern leaders wrote themselves, in their seccession documents and in their Confederate Constitution, are also there for anyone to read.

The Southern leadership's main 'reason' for seccession was clearly slavery. Others who participated in the war might've had their own, or other, reasons and motivations for doing so. But slavery was clearly the centerpiece of the documents of secession and the Confederate Constitution that were written by the Southern leaders themselves.

I didn't make it the truth...it just 'is'.

It'd still be the truth if I never mentioned what Birdwatcher so clearly pointed out on this issue previously.

Both slavery and rebellion was something our federal government struggled with from the day our nation was born.

It could be argued that slavery was the catalyst for our Civil War. It could also be argued it was not.


Travis

I looked for Birdwatcher's post and could not see it either on this thread or in his list of posts.

As Kaywoodie pointed out, slavery was legal under the US flag longer than it was under the Confederate Battle Flag. As I pointed out, Lincoln didn't free any slaves until after the war was well underway. The United States said time and again that the war was to preserve the Union. The Confederacy and its President contended even after the war that Secession was legal under the US Constitution.

IOW you have no argument.

I'm not saying slavery was right, but the union started the war because of economics, not slavery.

If the war had been about slavery, why did Lincoln wait 2 years after the war started to abolish slavery? The war was 1/2 over!!!

The war was about states rights and economics. Prior to the war, the north tried to get congress to prevent the south from dealing directly with European countries. Make the south send the cotton to the northern mills for processing, instead of dealing directly with the buyers. Congress of the US told them to 'fly a kite'.
So the northern industrialist had to come up with something to stop the bleeding, thus all of a sudden they were against slavery. Slavery was fine with the north, as long as they got their cut. If you stop the slavery, you stop the southern rise to power, and the north will continue to be the middle man and rake in the profits.

That's fact!!!

Lincoln didn't free slaves.

And IIRC, Lincoln did not abolish slavery in states he considered loyal to the Union at that time. IOW slavery remained legal in the USA but not in the Confederacy, under US law. Lincoln himself was a racist, whereas President Davis welcomed a black child into his own family and raised him as his own child! This child was carried off by Union soldiers and never seen by Davis' family again.

Technically that is true, but Lincoln did sign the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, which stated “all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.”

It actually took the 2nd 13th amendment to the constitution to free the slaves.

Wanna read something interesting... google "Corwin Amendment".

Slavery was the main reason that the Southern leadership wanted to secede from the Union, and they were willing to go to war over their right to secede.

That seccession was the main reason that the Northern leadership was motivated, and they were willing to go to war to prevent the South's seccession.

Slavery was the stumbling block in the way of Northern industrialists plan for internal colonialism in the south. Had nothing to do with what was right or wrong. It was about money. Northern politicians couldn't give a rats azz less for the blacks. The vast majority of abolitionist were anti-slave because they were anti-black!!! They did not want them here!!!

There was lots of money to be made in the south. Unlike the Wild West, the hard work had already been done. The plantations established. Just a matter of eliminating the middle man.

its time to start flying some new confederate flags.

DAMN! It's about time someone got it right. England and Europe were willing to pay more for the South's cotton and the North wanted that cotton. So, let's take it. And they did.
Paul B.

Why was the north trying to prevent the south's succession?

And, if the north was so against slavery, why did the stars and stripes fly over slavery states for 85 years?

And, why did the northern states pass the Corwin Amendment?

No taunts, you're entitled to your opinion. However, let me say this. I have ancestors that owned slaves that owned slaves back then, some of whom were military leaders. I have a small Confederate battle flag that hangs in my shop in their honor. Why? Right or wrong they fought for what they believed in. I'll honor that.
I never owned a slave and frankly have no desire to. I have no reason the suffer from "white guilt". That'd be like having some gunman like John Wesley Hardin who shot a man because his snoring disturbed him as a distant relative. I should feel guilty for all those he killed. Bovine excrement. Same with he issue of long dead kin who owned slaves.
Paul B.

The Northern leaders most likely had some financial and political reasons for wanting to prevent Southern seccession. Lincoln was also reportedly a firm believer in 'the American experiment' and he wanted to preserve the Union at all costs. He reportedly felt like the fracturing of the Union would be detrimental...not only to the Union...but also to 'the American experiment' as a model for others.

The Northern leadership was against the South's seccession first and foremost (above slavery). Yep, slavery existed under the Stars and Stripes longer than it existed under a Confederate flag.