Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Blue or Gray

One think I learned from the Civil War and WWI is that those who consider themselves victims of oppression can justify great evil. The Southerners had their society destroyed and they were mistreated after the war and that allowed them to justify the racist treatment of blacks up until the 1960s. The same goes for the Germans who defeated in WWI had a terrible peace agreement forced on them followed by the Depression and this allowed them to murder millions of Jews and start a war of conquest that killed millions of people (WWII). A lot of blacks have victimhood down pat and they use it to justify their poverty, crime and racism. In my experience they generally are as racist as the southerners during the Jim Crow era.

Dang Boggy, seems to me them slave owners taught bad habits; as this is still going on today amongst blacks, and even some whites. Learned behavior perhaps.


BTW, it was a long way to ship slaves, I wonder why mesicans,indians, or say Catholics weren't enslaved? Might have been cheaper.

GRAY FOR SURE.

I would have definitely been gray also, had it not been for slavery. Of course my grand parents didn't get here until 1913.

I understand slave owners could avoid going to war by giving the government 300 dollars. If you had no slaves, would you have fought for states rights alone, or was it that you might own slaves one day?

My glance at my avatar should clear up any questions 'bout where I stand on this issue.

Sam, just curious, but have you ever fancied yourself a slave owner?

That war had nothing to do with slavery. Slavery was for sure an issue, but it had been an issue for some time. It was never a reason to go to war. It was used AFTER the war started to gain support from both Americans and Foreigners.

That war was started over the same damn issue that the Revolutionary war was started. If you compare the two, think of the South representing the colonies, and the North representing England.

The South had agriculture and manpower, but the North had control of the rails and the industrial complex (of the time). The North, in it's simplest terms, was trying to dictate the price they'd pay for the agricultural products. When the South decided they didn't want to argue anymore, it tried to leave the Union. The North simply couldn't afford to let them.

This is what causes the most disention. And it's an arguement we all have today. Can the Federal government prevent a state from leaving the Union by force? Most Constitutional scholars I've listened to agree that the war against the Confederacy was probably illegal. But nobody likes to talk about that. To the victor go the spoils. In this case, history.

Now thats something worth fighting about. Not who could sell who's children.

I'm not advocating slavery. I think that issue would have been resolved either way. For the better.

But the war was about states rights. Not just slavery issues. It goes much deeper than that. And much more important. It's about whether a state could regulate itself. About whether the Fed had the right to tell a state what it was going to do. The Constitution is clear on this. The Fed Gov is only supposed to decide if the states laws are constitutional or not. Aside from protecting the citizens from foreign and domestic enemies of course.

You have to realize how individualized states were back then. States rights were paramount. As our founding Fathers obviously intended. I hate to say it, because I love America so much, but the South was right. The "bad guys" won in this case. I say bad guys tongue in cheek of course. But the facts are clear at this point in history. Constitutionaly speaking, the South was right. The North waged an illegal war. They won, so they got to write history how they wanted. That's how it works. Over time, the truth always comes out.

My family was from both Maryland and Virginia and fought on both sides. I don't know what side I have picked; it would have been a difficult decision.

Interesting question...

With the majority of men going to war to fight for the State in which they lived, I'm guessing I'd have worn blue. I really doubt most who fought knew all the issues that led to the war.

"Constitutionally speaking, the South was right" Yes, I believe it was. Even though slavery was not the main reason for the war, I'm sure I could not support those who thought it was right for one man to own another.

Those are some great posts.

I would vote for #3,always liked the under dog

Well I guess I will answer since I started the thread. I would have fought with my GGG Grandfather and all my GGGG Uncles and GGGGG Uncles in Company B 57th Georgia Infantry Regiment. All were captured and paroled atleast once at Vicksburg and promised not to fight the Union anymore as a condition of parole. Everyone of them were liars and went back to their regiments. One was KIA at the Battle of Kennesaw Mountain fighting Sherman during his march to the sea and several others wounded here and there. I guess I'm the only one here who's family did own slaves, but that said it was a mute point in my opinion. Slavery was the law and even the SCOTUS ruled it constitutional in Dred Scott. Now a President committing treason by suspending Habeas Corpus and invading his own country to enforce his ideas at gunpoint thats a problem.

Had a buxom young black lass at work. I used to tell her all the time; "Baby, if we were living a few decades back, I'd have you up in the big house with me!"

She had a good sense of humor.

I would probably pick #3.

Born & raised in yankee country I married a southern girl and have heard lots of stories from her family. But, what realy got to me was the first time I visited some plantations in the old south. My first reaction was that southerners should have brought some of those yankees down for a visit. It would have changed some minds. I mean, those plantations were awesome. They new how to live!

Seriously, my people didn't get to America until around 1929 so I have no dog in this fight.

I am curious as to what prompts that inane remark.


However, at one time, my family did own some livestock. Not a lot,but enough to know what it was about.
For us, it did not work out so well, just too expensive. That old cost/value thing again. The ones we owned were given manumission long before the war of northern aggression.

Clearly, slavery aside, the South had the much stronger position in principle. They were pretty much representing the side of the Founding Fathers, while the North was representing the side of what America has since evolved into, essentially the modern American Empire/consolidated central national state. The north was Caesar, and the South was the old Republic, still imbued with the principles of the Founding Fathers, for the most part. All of the North's principles were off kilter in that war, i.e., total BS.

For example, the idea of an indivisible union is total BS. The US was meant to be government strictly by the consent of the governed. What the North was saying, essentially, was that this principle was now defunct, and that half the nation would participate in a government they no longer consented to.

PS My father's people were in Sicily during this conflict, so had no dog in the fight, but my mother's people were all Confederates, one being a fairly well known Confederate officer who (as a cavalry colonel) led raids as far north as Ohio against the Union military's supply depots and transportation network, later to be advanced to the rank of Brigadier General as a reward for this service.

I wonder if watchforbear would fight when a hostile army marched against his home?

No one on this board ever owned a slave, so you can stick that one back in your pocket.

JM