Racial Bigotry ended the Confederacy
Vložit
- čas přidán 18. 05. 2024
- Why did the American Civil War begin? Well, that's a loaded question, with a complicated answer. But, if we try to boil it all down to one word, the answer is obvious: slavery. Specifically the southern states relied economically on slavery, at least in part, but the North and most of the western world disagreed.
Now, this is quite obvious for anyone with a little knowledge in history, but on the back end of this chapter it was rasism again that actually doomed the south.
Social Media:
/ sebastian2go
/ official7facts
/ 7facts
Music:
Hanu Dixit - Dance of the Gypsies
Images:
By Map by Hal Jespersen, www.cwmaps.com, CC BY 3.0, commons.wikimedia.org/w/index...
By Julius Jääskeläinen - Company E of the 4th United States “Colored" Infantry Regiment, at Fort Lincoln, Washington, D.C. c. 1864., CC BY 2.0, commons.wikimedia.org/w/index...
Cleburne was also vilified by his fellow officers for his stand, and it was said plainly in the mess that he was not fit to lead a Company, let alone an entire Division. While it may have cost the South the war, equality for the slaves was never a consideration, as it is rather difficult to be a slave holding state without slavery, which is why many fought and died to begin with.
The Grand Army of the Republic ended the Confederacy.
lol, that makes Anakin Sherman
No Ringodingo, the Union Army didn't end the Confederacy. Might try just a bit of research. The Union Army tried as it could to end the Confederacy, but it took way more than the Union army to end the Confederacy. Go read quite a bit more.
@@TB-nh3xw That is true after the Civil War, you had the KKK and The Daughter of the Confederacy with their "The Last Cause" story arc BS, then the Jim Crow laws, by this point in time most of the cooks whom supported that agenda are now dead and or dying, so by an estimate in 10 more years the so-called legacy of the Confederacy will finally be dead,
It could be argued that the Union navy played the most crucial role in the victory. Rapid technological innovations made the CSA's entire western strategy obsolete and gave Grant a resource the South could not counter.
So, General Lee surrendered to the British did he? Damn, boy. You're making one hell of a strange argument... @@TB-nh3xw
If you look in the diaries of the average confederate soldier, they hated the idea and especially the idea of fighting side by side with slaves. So the Confederacy would be forced to create black regiments, regiments that perhaps switch the side during the first battle.
Second, beside the loss of average soldiers, the Confederacy's loss of officers was much higher, and creating new regiments if you are already very short of officers?
But also if it all had worked out. How could you justify the institution of slavery, after the "slaves" had proofed not to be inferior, and literally saved your Confederacy? But slave work was the base for the confederate economy, the wealth and even the southern society. Without slavery, no Confederacy! Without slavery, there was no need for independence and no civil war, forget the BS about "state rights", this war was about slavery.
And another misconception, in 1864 the UK had already started to produce their own cotton in their colonies. Also, other countries had started to produce cotton. And I guess it is cheaper to get cotton from your colonies instead of the USA or CSA. And the UK was in more need of northern grain than of southern cotton, you simply can't eat cotton.
If Britain had declared war on the US in 1864, the US would have occupied all Canadian ports, before the first reinforcements even have reached Canada.
@pogonator1 If you unpack this tack you are on, you'll uncover the true, raw vein of difficulty facing the confederates. Rebel general H. Cobb called it in a letter he wrote in '64, in which he exclaimed: "Do not give negroes guns. If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong." What is their theory of slavery? Why would black men making a show of being good soldiers, neutralize their theory? You have all but named it in your post. Their theory of slavery in this case also addresses the other argument-stalling question, 'why would a poor white boy unable to ever own a slave, risk his life to fight to keep slavery enabled and enacted?'
Thats Funny....all the Diaries and Accounts Ive read Show that the average Confederate Soldier Didn't mind at all Fighting with Black men or slaves... not only that They actually Bragged In many of their letters Of how well their 'slaves' That Fought Did and expounded on their Service. Somebodies Either Lying or they're trying to support a Left wing' Agenda of just Bad mouthing the Confederacy in the War... ! Methinks that is what this clown is trying to do!
Talk about 'misconception' or just Lying again??? England was Never dependent on the U.S for grain.... They grew their own Grain. It was Cotton that England was Interested in from the South... Not 'grain' from the North! That is How The South was Financing the War... from Money from their Cotton crops... And why the Yankees were so interested in Destroying Cotton the 'Stole' From Plantations they OverRan! The UK was Not Starving like this Clown asserts... they were interested in the Souths Cotton... Not Food!!
Heres another of his Idiotic Ideas--- " Without slavery, no Confederacy! " "Without slavery, there was no need for independence ".... WRONG!
The Corwin Amendment the Yankees Tried to Get the South to Sign... Which Guaranteed The Confederates 'IF' they would stay in the Union...That Slavery would Never be Abolished. But the SOUTH...Turned it down... Which meant 'slavery' had Nothing to Do with Secession!! Lincoln was Levying Heavier Taxes And Tariffs on the South... Raising their tax Bill to o ver 48%... That and Hints that Lincoln was Going to Hit them with even More High Tariffs and Excess Duties... Was the Reason the South Chose to Secede.... Not Slavery. Slavery was still Legal... even after the War began for 2 Years... with NO Slave being freed the Entire 2 years. It was Only Lincolns 'Scheme' Emancipation Proclamation'... a War Measure to Get Slaves into the Union Army... Did Lincoln ever even Mention Slaves concerning the War!!
TELL THE TRUTH. People!!
why would you free slaves to fight your war to keep slaves? that makes no sense, no wonder it wasn't implemented.
Howell Cobb towards the end of the war was a member of the confederate government and is quoted “If slaves will make good soldiers, our whole theory of slavery is wrong.” if we can find any redeeming factors it would be this singular statement.
Shift this back to 1862 and maybe but by 1864 it probably wouldn't have made a difference. The South had already lost its initial defensive advantage and Union armies were advancing on three fronts. The military situation was already untenable and not enough black soldiers could have been recruited and trained in time to make a difference. Also by 1864 Britain and France had already found new sources of cotton. A partial emancipation probably wouldn't have driven them to recognize the South. This is especially true if it meant a possible war with the North which other European powers might take advantage of.
The pre Civil War South was not just fighting to maintain slavery , because the Northern states were not trying to abolish slavery in the South ; what the South was fighting for was the right to expand slavery because it knew that the moment slavery stopped expanding into new territory it would begin dying as an institution. The real prize of that war was whether the new western states will become slave states. If that happened then slavery could be safely expanded into a new agriculture based empire in the Caribbean region and central America because the American empire would have slavery as a foundation. If western and northern states were both free it would mean the eventual death of slavery in the south because free states would dominate both the agriculture and industrial wealth of the nation.
One Confederate general (Forrest?) was said to have told his slaves that, regardless of the outcome of the war, they would be set free. The war itself had shown that the institution of slavery, as practiced, would not be sustainable in the long term. The Confederacy was seriously disadvantaged in almost every measure; it would have needed "all hands on deck" to survive, but that would have meant arming hundreds of thousands of men who were incentivized to abolish an institution cited in secessionist declarations.
I strongly agree with the host that the U.S.A. could not have become a superpower if the Confederacy had succeeded. The Union victory was the better outcome, but the country could have avoided much heartache if Lincoln's plan of "with malice toward none, and charity towards all" concept of Reconstruction had been put in place.
This truth is so obvious it doesn't need to be stated, but to this day some people argue otherwise. (Just look below.) Those who argue that the war was about economics ignore the fact that slavery was the most lucrative industry in the US at that time.
But I find it unbelievable to contend that Lee was in favor of freeing and enlisting Blacks considering hislifelong behavior: he was a brutal slavemaster, refused to edxchange Black for White POWs, looked the other way when his troops kidnapped free Blacks and sold them into slavery. And after the war he ignored the behavior of the students of the military academy he superviswed as they terrorized Blacks.
Where do you people get Bullshit like this? Lee's 'lifelong' behavior' was not racist.Nor did he treat his slaves Bad... In fact he freed them when the war started. He refused to exchange White prisoners For black prisoners because the Black soldiers were Escaped slaves... Bought and Paid for by White Owners... So HOW could he exchange a white 'Not bought' soldier for a 'Black',,Escaped slave' and Paid Money for' Soldier?? Thats just simple Economics. And Ive never heard that Tale of West Point' Cadets Terrorizing Black People nor do I believe that. And Ive been studying ALL events Associated with the war for over 60 years!!
well if they had freed the slaves. there would be no point in having the war to begin with
freeing the slaves is the same as surrender for them
Exactly! If they had freed the slaves there would have been no war. So it was obviously about slavery.
@@Charlleyw This is an interesting hypothesis, considering some states like New Jersey held slaves up to the passage of the 13th Amendment.
Roughly half of military aged males southerners fought for the US, that certainly would have made a significant difference
Yes especially considering that 90% fought for the confederacy
@@kwaii_gamer an estimated 50 % of southerners who served during the American civil war fought for the US (the Union)
@@pteechka1 LOL That is one hell of a claim. I suppose you have proof. Can I see it? FYI "An estimated 100,000 white soldiers from states within the Confederacy served in Union Army units. I have no idea how many of these were Confederate prisoners of war who had taken the oath of allegiance to the United States and enlisted for Federal service....Estimated size of the Confederate army between 750,000 and 1,000,000 troops....I think 15% at best is a more reliable estimate, but you can do the math yourself. Now if you count the freed slaves then we are in agreement. Are you counting the 180K freed slaves that fought for the union in your estimate?
@@kwaii_gamer not all southerners of military age were white.
@@pteechka1 - I certainly would not call freed slaves "southerners" within the context of the Civil War.That term is generally reserved for Southern whites. For example "Southerners generally wanted to maintain and even expand the institution." I interpreted your language as not supporting the video's point that freed slaves made all the difference, but that Southern Unionist made the difference. Then after I figured out were you got your numbers from, and asked for clarification, you then act like I just didn't figure it out. SMH
The United States had 180,000 blacks into the army and 30,000 into the navy.
Giving the stark choice between slavery, and victory, the confederacy choose slavery. In their defense that was all they were fighting about.
NOPE.... Slavery had Nothing to do with The South Losing the War.
@@cliffordpearsonjr.9748so basically the south sucked at war
@@cliffordpearsonjr.9748 Wow such insight, it's like you really studied the "Twenty Negro Law,"....I would say with this insight you must have also really studied General Patrick Cleburne's Proposal to Arm Southern Slaves that highlighted the fact “that slavery, from being one of our chief sources of strength at the commencement of the war, has now become, in a military point of view, one of our chief sources of weakness.” Then add with such brilliant insight you must have seen that the Union had 180K freed slaves in Uniform by the end of the war, and that was bigger than the entire confederate army at the time. Then add finally in the final months of the war in desperation, Lee finally agreed to prisoner exchanges (which Grant then rejected) which had been halted because the south would not recognize African American solders as well solders. The add Lee also decided to follow Cleburne's Proposal and arm the slaves (don't worry although they formed a single regiment they never gave them gun)
@@cliffordpearsonjr.9748 had the Confederate government freed the slaves and incorporated them into the society, the economy, and the military, they may well have defeated the US. But they chose not to. I can't imagine anything clearer to indicate that the primary, if not sole, motivation was to retain slavery as a means of productivity.
@@cliffordpearsonjr.9748 also, an estimated 300,000 white southerners refused to serve when drafted, and approximately 175,000 served in the US military. Some undoubtedly simply didn't wish to fight no matter what the cause, but those southerners who did fight against the Confederate states were (predominantly) motivational by their opposition to chattel slavery.
Nonsense! Blacks in the confederate army was a non-starter when it was legalized in early 1865. No more than a regiment was ever recruited. Think for a moment the issues and travesties the union encountered while recruiting and deploying black soldiers of which there ended up being between 180,000 and 200,00. Multiply those problems many fold in the south!
A bond between white officers and black soldiers was created by Rebel who refused to treat these soldiers as warriors. The white officers were all experienced with previous service. The blacks were motivated and anxious to prove themselves. This made for a potent military force. Blacks liberated Charleston and Richmond. They created strong protected supply lines to help advancing white troops. The black units were the first to take Petersburg. If given support by other units there would never had been a long siege of Petersburg.
Hear, hear!
You're completely Brain Washed.
DANG it!
Definitely makes sense to me!
Unfortunately! The institution of slavery, wasn't and should have been ENDED!
When America won it's independence!
AMEN! but the Rest of the World was Not Ready. so Opportunity Knocks and things Did change. The Btits made deals, the Rebels,made deals, French, Spanish, and On!
The "Institution" is ALIVE and WELL! "why do You?" think? the Boarder is Open! we Need Fresh Soldiers, in three Wars, but we have No DRAFT?
@@davefellhoelter1343 dems love their Slaves!?
Yes but the forefathers hoped it would die a natural death....then the cotton gin was invented. But I liked a British general who said "Why do the greatest cries of freedom come from the owners of slaves."
One of the unmentionable "intolerable acts" of the British was a court case that said that slavery had no force in Common Law. In large part, your rebellion in 1776 was also over slavery.
@@karldubhe8619 Maybe but slavery at the time was very localized....the cotton gin had not been invented
Yea , no. It was what every war is about. money and power. The vast majority of the federal govt's income was from tariffs coming in from goods shipped into southern ports, and taxes on agricultural goods grown in southern fields. Virtually ALL of that income was being used to build up the infrastructures of Boston, NYC, and Philadelphia. None of that money was coming back to the southern states. Add the fact that Lincoln won in 1860 without a SINGLE southern electoral vote, gave a clear signal to the South. "You have no say in matters, just shut up and give us the money."
Slavery wasn't even an issue until the second year of the war, and even then incidentally. Britain was about to come into the war on the side of the Confederacy. The issue of slavery was , successfully, used as a means to keep the British out. The UK had just waged, a long, expensive campaign to end the international slave trade, and had freed their slaves. Britain would have been seen, rightly so, as hypocrites , if they supported the confederacy.
Lincoln didn't give a damn about slavery. Read his letter to Horace Greeley if you doubt me. He was interested in money, power and status. He simply didn't want to go down in history as the "president who lost the Union."
Amen 🙏🏻
"It was what every war is about. money and power"
Where do you think the South's money and power came from? You don't have to take my word from it, here's an excerpt by a speech by Alexander H. Stephens, CSA vice president:
"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution-African slavery as it exists among us-the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. [...] Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it-when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."
Slavery is mentioned in most of the Confederate state constitutions as well as a foundation of their project.
Nonsense, on average before the Civil War 66% of all tariffs originated from the port of New York, followed by Boston, and then New Orleans. And there were no taxes on agricultural goods.
By the way, Lincoln wasn't on the ballot in most southern states, this is the reason that he got not a single southern vote.
It was not about slavery? Strange because most southern states named slavery as the main reason for leaving the USA in their "declaration of independence".
Alexander H. Stephens, acting Vice President of the CSA:"Our new government['s]...foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the ne... is not equal to the white man; that slavery-subordination to the superior race-is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
Or to say it short, the CSA was based on slavery.
The confederate constitution was a near xerox copy of the US constitution with a couple glaring differences. The main difference being:
Article I Section 9(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
They had another entry regarding any new territory acquired by the confederacy to explicitly allow slavery in that territory. These were the issues of the day: slavery and its expansion into new territories. Not yet ratified in the constitution was the Republican party's primary goal regarding the future of the nation: expansion. The number of states which had already abolished slavery plus Lincoln's intent to prevent new territories from entering the Union as slave states, ensured the nation's future as a nation of freedom and not a nation of exploiting human beings for profit.
Check the confederate constitution 'as they themselves who seceded and fought' ratified it. If 'tariffs and taxes' were the hotbed issues you say they were, it would be sensible to make sure protection against such scenarios in the future was inked into the law of the land, don't you agree? Find those protections within the confederate constitution to add validity to your claim.
Also, consider the Kansas territory. it had a sanguine nickname in "Bleeding Kansas" did it not? The hotbed issue in Kansas was its entry into the Union as a free state or a slave state, was it not? Six years before secession and before Ft. Sumter, American citizens from northern and southern states went out of their way to be in Kansas and it was not to settle any debate on tariffs or taxes. The violence in Kansas was a microcosm, a precursor to the macro-slaughter civil war would bring. American citizens weren't fighting and killing each other in Kansas because of tariffs. the question was slavery.
To the 1860 election Lincoln couldn't have had any southern electoral votes because he wasn't even on the ballot in those states. THAT was the clear signal, and it was given by the southern states themselves, "we don't recognize you and we are no longer part of this Union". Your next point confuses me, a glaring contradiction where you first state, "Britain was about to come into the war on the side of the Confederacy." Normally I'd ask for a citation of an assertion like that, but you shortly afterward confirmed the contradiction of your statement. I'm guessing that contradiction was a product of your passion on this subject. Only you truly know where it came from.
Lincoln was concerned enough with the expansion of slavery, that it fueled his determination to preserve the Union. I've read his letter to Horace Greeley, and I do doubt you. It never ceases to amaze me, how people consider a politician's words 'in public' and immediately fail to remember "he is a politician!" In a two-party system, would the best politician be wholly vested in Party A, or would the best politician speak solely to the views of Party B? The BEST politician would be seen to have 'both' parties' best interests on hand. What Lincoln says IN PUBLIC will always be said to address the things most important to BOTH parties. In the case of 1862, saving the Union is paramount to northerners, where a 'hands off' slavery policy spoke clearest to southerners. In this way, he prevented the 11 rebelling southern states from becoming 14 rebelling southern states, while rallying the northern states to stay the course. That you found 'anything' in Lincoln's reply to Horace Greeley suggesting a want of money, power and status shows that you read what you want to read from a text, the reason for which again, only you know.
As it's been said via the Lost Cause, there was little chance of Lincoln losing the Union. I would submit, that it has been the Lost Cause posturing that aims to keep someone from going down in history as the side that fought a war to protect slavery.
The US civil war may not have been about slavery, but one thing is beyond question, those that created the Confederate government and constitution thought it was.
The south could have had no slavery and there still would have been a war if they tried to secede. The war was over secession. Not slavery. The south seceded because of slavery. The war started due to secesion. The usa says it split with the uk over taxation. The usa entered ww2 over pearl harbour. Slavery was an underlying cause not the actual cause. The underlying cause of usas entering ww2 was japanese, german and italian imperialism. Britain and the usa went to war over us secession but the usa says it was taxation. Maryland, delaware and missouri were all union states with slavery. You wouldnt say ww2 started because of germany or japanese imperialism. You would say it was because poland was invaded and pearl harbour was bombed. Those were the reasons for the start of the war.
The war was over slavery, because the Confederates left to maintain slavery. Their proclamations of secession explicitly stated that slavery was the main cause for them leaving the United States.
@@michaelwalker7400 The war was over secession not slavery. Delaware missouri and marlyland all had slavery. Slavery was the reason the south left. Secession was the reason the war started.
@@freneticness6927 secession was because of slavery, thus the war was because of slavery.
@@freneticness6927 the fact that some slave states didn't secede, does not mean the war wasn't over slavery. Secession documents stated slavery was why they left. It's why the Confederates fired on Ft. Sumter. Any attempt to claim it was state rights omits that the eventual Confederate states refused to honor the state rights of Northern states being violated.
@@michaelwalker7400 They fired on fort sumter because they had seceded already. The war was more about secession than about slavery. They could have kept slavery and there would have been no war or they could have abolished slavery and seceded and there still would have been a war. The right to secede was a 100 times bigger issue than slavery and everyone in the war acknowledged that. The war was about secession and then slavery. The states have never seemed to have the right to secede but they have had the right to own slaves.No northern rights were being violated.
It was about slavery. Articles of succession of all Confederate states mentions slavery and/or white supremacy one of the reasons they left the Union. This can not be denied or ignored
The articles of secession made irrefutable legal arguments that would have been upheld in any court in the country in 1860. That is why they were written as they were. No legal case could have been made against tariffs.
I believe the author said that...
Slavery and white supremacy were legal.
By slavery, you mean the absolute fundamental RIGHT to own slaves? The LEGAL institution of slavery. Sooooo, one could interpret “all about slavery “ as a true fight over the constitution? Let me know
It was over slavery and tariffs
in taxes pre civil war
You aren't correct. Read Lincoln's Slavery Forever Speech called his First Inaugural Address. He said 3 important things in his Address. First. Lincoln said that he wasn't going to bother slavery in the State's where slavery already existed. New Jersey, West Virginia, Maryland and i Believe Road Island had slaves and they fought for the Union. Lincoln was trying to keep the other Southern State's and he didn't know about the Border State's at this time. Secondly, Lincoln said he supported the Legislation that would secure slavery in the Constitution in the State's where slavery already existed. It was called the Corwin Amendment. The Amendment was voted on by Northern Representatives only. It passed the Congress on February 28th, 1861 and the Senate on March 2,1861 two days before Lincoln was Sworn in as President. He offered it to the First Seven State's to Secede to intice them to come back and to keep the other Southern State's and Border State's at that time. Lincoln tried to secure slavery in the Constitution for Revenue. Lastly, Lincoln said there doesn't have to be a Invasion or Bloodshed if the State's paid their Taxes and Duties. That is why Lincoln invaded the South, Revenue. You also obviously don't know the truth about the Emancipation Proclamation.
The Original Emancipation Proclamation was read on September 22,1862 Lincoln stated that if the Southern State's would return to the Union by January 1,1863 they could keep their slaves. Slaves would only be Emancipated in the State's that continued to rebel. When not one Southern State came back to the Union by January 1,1863 Lincoln omitted the Offer and signed and issued the Proclamation on January 1,1863. Does that sound like Lincoln and the North invaded the South to free the slaves. That is because it was over Tax Collection. In all of Lincoln's Letters and Addresses to Congress Lincoln repeatedly said his war was over a Tax Rebellion and a Tax Revolt. Not one word about slavery. There is much more. But when you say Lincoln and the North invaded and fought to free the slaves is complete BS. Lincoln and the North wanted a white North. If you would like i can teach you more. The slavery narrative has been used to justify the destruction of the South and Crimes against humanity. Not one state joined the Union Voluntarily knowing if things went bad for their state and wanted to leave they would be invaded by a Federal Army. A Federal Army that raped, murdered, tortured, pillaged and burned. The Volunteer Union became a Forced Union by Gunpoint much like the Soviet Union. Before Lincoln's Tyrannical Presidency a State meant Country. During the War of 1812 New England refused to fight for their own State's. They left the lower North and the South to fight to fight the British. It was my Southern Ancestors that destroyed Parkingham in the Battle of New Orleans.
Bigotry, as we think of it (but I do date back to the end of WWII) really began after the American Civil war as whites and blacks were in competition for jobs.
I well remember segregation during the 1950s and 1960s (I had parents on each end of that issue). Thanks to the Civil Rights movement and gradual positive as we ended the 20th century way very positive in comparison 100 years earlier.
We entered the 21st century better though not perfect. Then in the mid 2000s it was as if everything gained was dropped. I have my theories. BTW, don't be fooled. Northern whites were as prejudice as those whites that were in the south.
Today children in public schools are taught segregation. I honestly don't get it.
Bigotry and racism is the cornerstone of this country right from it's inception.
And now we have Black who are just as, or more, racist than Whites ever were. Equity, Diversity, Inclusion (EDI) and Critical Race Theory (CRT) are now the two most racist programs our Marxist government is trying to shove down our necks. Let us be color blind! Dn't include race in anything, especially schools, employment, or anything else that serves the public. Do you want a Black heart surgeon who graduated with Cs operating on you, or do you want a White surgeon who graduated Summa Cum Laude in medical school. Same with every job. We can't have mediocracy. If Blacks can do the job intelligently, give them the job! MLK said injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
I agree with most of what you say, but I think you're wrong about the origin of bigotry. Look at the "Cornerstone Speech" by the VP of the Confederacy in which he asserts the idea that Blacks are simply inferior to Whites and need to be kept as slaves. He said that before the end of the war. The simple fact is that the assertion of Black inferiority is what allowed slavery to continue. They contended that we wern't human and so we could be treated like animals.
It took one paragraph to realize you know very little about history
The reason for the Civil War wasn't complicated at all. It was slavery, plain and simple. If you don't believe that, then you don't believe what the various Confederate states themselves said in their secession declarations. All of them said that they were leaving the US in order to preserve slavery.
... and it may yet end the US
Lincoln would have sacrificed every black person to preserve the union!
First
I was going to comment, but didn't, it breaks my heart that I missed the opportunity now. 😢
The Victors write the History books. We are taught a bunch of lies about History.The "good" guys rarely win.
Quite interesting indeed, if in the end irrelevant, since the preservation of American chattel slavery--the most brutal and inhumane form on the planet at that time--was not just the main cause of the Civil War but also the foundation of the Southern economy and culture. This never actually proposed "solution" would have been akin to the Allied nations becoming fascist in order to defeat the Nazis in WWII. And after all, we are still very much dealing with the legacy of that dreadful, savage institution 160 years after it was ostensibly ended. An alternate history where the Confederacy survived would not be a pleasant reality.
Try again Sébastien you failed in your research.
Imagine living in a world where steam power was the most modern engine. And everyone drove a horse an buggy like the Amish. Stop judging people that lived in a completely different planet than America in 2024. The winner writes the history, never the truth.
Is it not possible though, for people that lived on a comparatively different planet to be wrong about an assertion? Can nothing be said about Mayan Indians, who on their long-ago planet thought human sacrifice was necessary to have good crop yields, avoid drought? If human sacrifice back then isn't seen as 'not ok' today, how long before someone disembowels another human believing it will bring them prosperity? We have already a small set of believers convinced that beheading an infidel (with a sword or a jetliner flown into a building) is a fast track to paradise. We must be wary. Mark Twain has an amusing yet poignant take on the church and witches.
I have to address your last statement, the well-known 'winner writes the history' line. The truth is, the winner *only* writes the history if the loser has been properly dealt with-which means executed. Winners don't write the history *because they won*, they write it because there are *no losers around to write anything else*.
An example: six years earlier John Brown raided one local Federal arms arsenal with a force of 21 men, aiming to trigger a slave revolt. He was quickly surrounded by Federal troops on 16 Oct, 1859. The next day a company of US Marines led by Lt. Col Robert E. Lee stormed the building, killing 15 raiders, capturing Brown and 5 of his men. One marine was killed along with 8 self-deputized civilians Barely 30 days later Brown was tried for treason and executed. Less than a year later in 1860, three of the five raiders captured were executed for treason, one was killed trying to escape and one did escape (who would volunteer for the Union army and help win the war). John Brown's party were the losers in this engagement. Number of Brown's party tried/executed for treason = 5. Number of Brown's party available to write an alternate version of the raid = 1
Now we come to our history; we have four years of rebellion, three-quarters of a million dead, property damage/regional destruction in the billion-plus range, a morality query about our past and several war crimes assertions. Tens of thousands of confederates survive the war, representing the side that did NOT win. Number of southern vets tried/executed for treason = 0. Number of southern vets available to write an alternate history = a LOT.
This is just a simplification to show that, whatever was so wrong with secession and rebellion that it had to be met with force, was seemingly not at all disseminated among those rebels that survived, allowing whatever thing(s) thought worth seceding and rebelling over to persist into future mindsets. And if you've got this far, you begin to see the purpose of separating slavery from confederate reasons for fighting.
If the Confederates had any sense and wanted to last longer they should of put black troops on the front lines,fact. History would of been quite diffrent right now,fact. 🤔
If they'd had any sense, they would have backed away from the 'right to negro property' well before making any movements toward secession. Once away from the 'negro property' issue though, the need to secede disintegrates.
Remember, the flow of black Americans escaping slavery in the south towards freedom in the north was real and considerable. The same cannot be said of black Americans escaping the freedom of the north striving to reach bondage in the south. I heard someone once claim that no fewer than 4,000 (undocumented) 'black confederates' were in armed service of the confederacy. If 4,000 (undocumented) black Americans embracing the confederacy somehow justifies it, what does 180,000 (documented) black Americans under arms for the Union justify?
This guy doesn't know jackshit about the U.S. CIVIL WAR
Kinda unfair to say that. We don't know his education level and it may not be accurate to claim that. He also probably knows more about the civil war then most people in the U.S anyway
unlike YOU !!! The Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision established a future of horrors. Slavers could take their PROPERTY anywhere in the USA. Slavers were aggressive and expansionist .. in the face of the obvious opposition of the majority of white American citizens. Sometimes being noble .. like Don Quixote.. is just blindness.
why do say that?
i agree that the south could not win this way . but otherwise it seems factual
Lincoln would have sacrificed every black person to preserve the union!and now we are all economic slaves!how's your gas rent and groceries!?
When was the last time you were actually financially capable of living instead of financing your survival!
He apparently knows more than you do. Although his concussions\speculations are dubious, nothing he said was not factual.