Confederate wives for bbc

Can a former history professor weigh in here:

Slavery was the primary catalyst of the American Civil War:

  1. The Southern economy was heavily reliant on slave labor for its cotton production, making the institution vital to their way of life.
  2. The debate over slavery dominated American politics for decades, with growing tensions between free states and slave states over the issue of expansion into US Territories. Ex: Missouri Compromise and Kansas-Nebraska Act
  3. When Lincoln was elected, several Southern states seceded from the Union, explicitly citing their desire to protect slavery as the primary reason.
  4. During the war, President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which declared that enslaved people in Confederate territories would be freed, further solidifying the war as a fight against slavery.
Although slavery was not the only issue that led to a rise in sectional tensions, it was at the center of most issues that directly and indirectly led to war.
Do you really think that poor southern agrarians, scratching out a meager living, cared if the richer planters lost their slaves? A very small minority were slave holders.
True. But the main grievance regarding rights to self governance had to do with slavery. The southern states didn't want the federal government to take away a state's rights to own slaves by passing a national law. The fear was widespread disruption of the southern economy by the removal of free labor.
Your last sentence I can agree with.
 
Do you really think that poor southern agrarians, scratching out a meager living, cared if the richer planters lost their slaves? A very small minority were slave holders.

Your last sentence I can agree with.

It is a provable fact that the majority of white southerners did NOT own slaves. However, attacks on the institution of slavery represented to them an attack on Southern Culture and they were willing to fight to protect their way of life. Furthermore, they did (as did many in the north) see Africans as racially inferior and feared what would happen if they were all freed due to the large numbers in the south.
 
It is a provable fact that the majority of white southerners did NOT own slaves. However, attacks on the institution of slavery represented to them an attack on Southern Culture and they were willing to fight to protect their way of life. Furthermore, they did (as did many in the north) see Africans as racially inferior and feared what would happen if they were all freed due to the large numbers in the south.
The "attack on (just one aspect of) southern culture" is pure opinion.
 
There are a mountain of historical documents that support this opinion. Including, but not limited to the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Include and Justify the Secession of Mississippi", the writings of southern clergymen (James Henley Thornwell among the most prominent), and several Lost Cause narratives (primarily among these the writings of Nathan Bedford Forrest and Robert E Lee)
 
There are a mountain of historical documents that support this opinion. Including, but not limited to the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Include and Justify the Secession of Mississippi", the writings of southern clergymen (James Henley Thornwell among the most prominent), and several Lost Cause narratives (primarily among these the writings of Nathan Bedford Forrest and Robert E Lee)
The same Robert E. Lee who freed his (inherited) slaves very early on and the same Nathan Forrest who became know as the black man's best friend at the conclusion of the war? I can't help but note that U.S. Grant did not free his until after the war citing that, "Good help was hard to find."
 
Lee freed his slaves because he was legally obligated to do so in the inheritance. I wouldn't call Forrest a friend of black men as he was also the founder of the KKK. The fact about Grant has never been corroborated by historians and is largely considered false.
 
Lee freed his slaves because he was legally obligated to do so in the inheritance. I wouldn't call Forrest a friend of black men as he was also the founder of the KKK. The fact about Grant has never been corroborated by historians and is largely considered false.
You might want to study a little deeper regarding Forrest and the foundings of the KKK (from which Forrest resigned).
 
Forrest did, later in life, disavow the Klan and denounce anti-black violence, but the atrocities he committed against blacks both during and after the war cannot be denied. His change in opinion was commendable, but I would never consider him a "friend to blacks" as you asserted earler.
 
Forrest did, later in life, disavow the Klan and denounce anti-black violence, but the atrocities he committed against blacks both during and after the war cannot be denied. His change in opinion was commendable, but I would never consider him a "friend to blacks" as you asserted earler.
Forrest was a brut al soldier, but it ended as the war ended. With all respect, I suggest that you explore Forest's life after 1865. in greater depth.
 
Funny thing is that a while ago, these people l.y.nched and bru talized black males (even t eenagers and c.h ildren) because blacks were consider hypersexed, unci vilized and a n imalistic in the sexual behaviour and these v.o.lent methods (including cas.tration and sexual mul.ti.lation) were considered fair game as a way of neutralizing their b r utish behaviour to protect white women. Now these same white men want well-endowed, strong sexually aggre sive blacks to deliver an ani mal istic pounding to their white wives??? Go figure.
That was hundreds of years ago.
 
Back
Top