Poll: 4 in 10 Southerners Still Side With Confederacy

reply to post by Lemon.Fresh


Ok answer me this. If it wasn't about slavery, then why didn't the 20% of Southerners that actually owned slaves, just give all their slaves freedom? The South was no better than republicans/democrats today. So many Southerners who weren't slave owners were fighting to defend a very small majorities right to do so, just like today how a very small majority of lying politicians have you thinking that the what's in the best interest of the top 2% is what's best for you, as they are bending you over.

I am all for insurrection, obviously, or I wouldn't be here. But to say the Revolution and Civil War were the same is doing a disservice to both. As far as I remember every Southern state had representation in Congress, where as no American colonies had representation in the British Parliament.

Are you saying that the South blew up the Union because they didn't like taxes? If that were the case why hasn't every subsequent generation revolted as well?

Originally posted by Juston
Is it pride? Racism? Ignorance?

I was married in a Georgia town that was destroyed by Sherman on his march. I live in a city that Union troops burned to the ground. I don't know that sympathy for the Confederacy can always be sourced directly to things like racism or ignorance. The history of the brutality of Union soldiers during the last years of the war and oral anecdote about the things that happened here tend to drive sympathy for the Confederacy much more than base human emotions. Once you learn things like: your ancestor was raped by Union soldiers a year after her husband was killed in battle, her food cache raided and stolen, the house and crops burned to the ground and left destitute - your opinion about who was in the right or wrong may be influenced quite a bit.

its like we forgot about the cotton gin and the effects that had on slavery. despite what sources claim, the cotton gin led to less slaves per household.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Thank you your insightful contribution

It does always seem to be the south being painted in a bad light, rather than looking at the atrocities or underlining factors in general. Big picture stuff.

Originally posted by roguetechie
reply to post by DarkKnight76

 

You do realize the south has to have more federal assistance because of things such as SHERMANS MARCH TO THE SEA!

So you are still rebuilding that after 150 years? I knew the South lived a slower lifestyle, but that is preposterous.

And the next hundred YEARS of corporate greed keeping the south a backwards dirt poor place that was PURPOSEFULLY kept from industrializing so that they couldn't rearm and fight again!

So are you saying that, once we got to Baghdad, we should have taken our weapons and gone home so Hussein rebuild, or the same could be said of the Taliban? Should NAzi Germany been allowed to rebuild and rearm itself following World War 2?

Or that after the war northern business interests came south in droves and bought for pennies on a dollar land seized from it's rightful owners... then forcing it's former owners and the former slaves to work side by side share cropping on TINY parcels of the land that was still theirs by right and had been illegally taken!

Can't argue that, but that is reconstruction, NOT the actual war. And I agree that what the north did during reconstruction was every bit as despicable as what Halliburton did following Iraq and Afghanistan.

My family is from the south, and yes I am proud of that fact! No I am not a southerner though I was actually raised for the first 10 years of my life in northern california. I am not even the SLIGHTEST BIT racist,, sexist, or etc. the fact that you can't let your argument stand on it's merits and must instead bring veiled inuendo's of racism and bigotry to bear against me says it all....

Never said you were a racist or any of those other things so you are rambling at this point.

But thanks for playing.

I have some nice parting gifts for you.

reply to post by DarkKnight76


You missing the point,, they didn't go to war to keep people from losing slaves. Some slaves actually went to war with their masters and stood next to them with gun in hand.
Why didn't the Black Confederate Soldiers shoot their white commanders? Why didnt slaves still on the plpnatations just run away? The only ones at home were very old men, women and young children. They could have hit the woods and headed north with no problem but they didnt. Slaves werent beaten except in rare cases cause there is always some dumb jackass in any group. The majority of slaves were treated good and it was reported by more than one northener that they couldnt believe that whites would intermingle with blacks, it just wasn't heard of in those days, at least in the north.
There were even BLACK SLAVEOWNERS. oh lawd say it aint so LOL. You will VERY rarely hear about them but they were there.
The slave issue is what people have been brainwashed into believing for 145 years and it has stuck well.
Read "The Slave Narratives" it is the words from the slaves themselves, for good or bad.
Read about the Black Confederate Soldiers who fought against the northeners.
The truth is out there (cue x files theme LOL)

Being from the south I must admit that I don't think that many people are sympathizers of the confederacy. Out of all the people I know here in Texas,only one is racist( sadly) but I don't think she would support slavery or anything. At least I hope not.

Well,my personal stats are different. I know lots of people in the south( from many different states) None of whom are confederate sympathizers....

Look, the south is not as backwards as many seem to think.Our big cities are just like yours right down to the types of people.Our small towns are just like yours. Right down to the types of people....

You will find bigots anywhere you go. North, South,East or West....Not just south....Just saying.

The South is not just a bunch racist, politically backwards,rednecks...

Our food is better and we do have the southern hospitality thing going for us though. How often does a kind stranger say "Hi,how are you?" as you pass up in New York?

Soo..... That said....:



(couldn't resist)

Originally posted by NeoConfederate
reply to post by DarkKnight76

 

You missing the point,, they didn't go to war to keep people from losing slaves. Some slaves actually went to war with their masters and stood next to them with gun in hand.
Why didn't the Black Confederate Soldiers shoot their white commanders? Why didnt slaves still on the plpnatations just run away? The only ones at home were very old men, women and young children. They could have hit the woods and headed north with no problem but they didnt. Slaves werent beaten except in rare cases cause there is always some dumb jackass in any group. The majority of slaves were treated good and it was reported by more than one northener that they couldnt believe that whites would intermingle with blacks, it just wasn't heard of in those days, at least in the north.
There were even BLACK SLAVEOWNERS. oh lawd say it aint so LOL. You will VERY rarely hear about them but they were there.
The slave issue is what people have been brainwashed into believing for 145 years and it has stuck well.
Read "The Slave Narratives" it is the words from the slaves themselves, for good or bad.
Read about the Black Confederate Soldiers who fought against the northeners.
The truth is out there (cue x files theme LOL)

This thread is only clarifying the idea that history is told from different viewpoints....like the blind men and the elephant. In the case of the Civil War, of course it was about slavery which was the economic engine that supported the old South. They were terrified that slavery would be abolished under Lincoln, leaving them with no free labor to farm their cash crops. The North had no use for slaves as they became more industrialized. Different economies.

And no one can deny the racism that was behind all of this. You cannot enslave a people unless you kid yourself that they are subhuman. That racism never completely went away.

And without a doubt, the rebellion was an act of treason. It was an American tragedy and should not be glorified, glamorized or defended.

To me, I believe it was about states rights and independence, and not being subjected to a Federal government.
I agree it was not about slavery, because the north had slavery as well, and it was far into the Civil War that slavery became an issue, and while Lincoln wanted to "free" the slaves, he also wanted to "send them back to Africa".

reply to post by tom502


Not nearly to the extent of the South, and most, with the exception of New jersey, had given up the practice alost 20 years before the war started. I am not denying it wasn't in the North, but to equate Southern slavery and Northern slavery is a bit disingenuous.

www.slavenorth.com...

reply to post by DarkKnight76

Wrong again,
lincoln had no interest in freeing slaves until he thought it was the only way to get re-elected.
Youre arguements are weak and youre parting gifts comments are childish.
You offer no valid points except what you have been trained to say and believe.
You have not accounted for the slaves not running away or the Black Confederate Soldiers (you do know there was a riot of folks in New York because they didnt want to be a part of lincolns war right).
How about the north making blacks fight for them at the risk of being shot by northern leaders, thats humane huh.
You are nothing to this conversation and unless I see something truely worthy this is my last post to you (which I suspect you will claim as a victory so you will not have to face your ignorance or you will make up some truely pathetic lie to draw me back in).
Good Day

reply to post by Juston

And the other 6 are from up North!

reply to post by NeoConfederate


I guess being self righteous is a Southern trait. Do you have any links to proof of all this black insurrection against the North? Do you think that the slave owners were telling their slaves the truth about the war at the time? Would you tell your slave, "Hey, fight with me so you can continue to be a slave, or fight for them and you'll be free." I know I wouldn't if I was a slave owner.

reply to post by DarkKnight76


ok one more,
Read The Slave Narratives
Morrill Act
Economics of 1850s
I assume you have google because your already pulling up links for me try using them for yourself to learn the truth, i'm not asking for your links, I know how to work a search engine.
Alot of slaves could read and write so they could read the papers for themselves and also they know how to speak english and could hear others talking.
Even so if I was in a war with someone I hated and who made me go and that person handed me a gun or I got a gun/knife/sharp stick guess who would be the first one to get killed.
Its not rocket science or brain surgery but it does take a mind open for truth
Good Day

Originally posted by NeoConfederate
reply to post by DarkKnight76

 

ok one more,
Read The Slave Narratives
Morrill Act
Economics of 1850s
I assume you have google because your already pulling up links for me try using them for yourself to learn the truth, i'm not asking for your links, I know how to work a search engine.
Alot of slaves could read and write so they could read the papers for themselves and also they know how to speak english and could hear others talking.
Even so if I was in a war with someone I hated and who made me go and that person handed me a gun or I got a gun/knife/sharp stick guess who would be the first one to get killed.
Its not rocket science or brain surgery but it does take a mind open for truth
Good Day

The first thing I found about The Slave Narratives said this:
Narratives of slavery recounted the personal experiences of ante-bellum African Americans who had escaped from slavery and found their way to safety in the North. An essential part of the anti-slavery movement, these narratives drew on Biblical allusion and imagery, the rhetoric of abolitionism, the traditions of the captivity narrative, and the spiritual autobiography in appealing to their (often white) audiences. Some of these narratives bore a "frame" or preface attesting to their authenticity and to the sufferings described within.

Source - www.wsu.edu...


So your problem with the Morill Act is you don't like agricultural colleges in populated places or do you object to those colleges being forced to prove race wasn't a factor in college admissions? I guess you have a problem with the House of Representatives being determined based on population, too.
Source - en.wikipedia.org...

And as best as I can figure on that last one, you actually helped me, as one source stated that Lincoln was calling for the end of the expansion of slavery in 1856, so slavery was hardly an afterthought to him. To me it sounds like the South would have reaped industrial riches had it just given up on it's stream of free labor.

They STILL celebrate Confederate Veterans Day here in NC

Originally posted by DarkKnight76
This thread is only clarifying the idea that history is told from different viewpoints....like the blind men and the elephant. In the case of the Civil War, [B]of course it was about slavery which was the economic engine that supported the old South.[/B]

Wrong, if you think the slave issue was anything other than a technicality the Confederacy was using as grounds for secession, you are only fooling yourself. As already mentioned, it was already becoming uneconomical to own slaves by that time. Do you really think people went to war and lost their lives over slave ownership? What about all the Southerners that didn't own slaves, and what about the many slaves that fought lincoln?
lincoln was little more than a traiter. Him and his union folk didn't want to follow the Constitution they agreed to, and when the Confederate states attempted to secede on grounds that the union was not following the contract they agreed to, they were denied.
This coming from a Michigander. I can tell you right now, I would have fought lincoln and his tyranny right along side you southerners for sure.
p.s. There is still hope Texas could become sovereign again.

reply to post by PplVSNWO


As for Texas, we can all dream, can't we?

do tell
"you can't raise the cane back up once its trampled underfoot"
- The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down, The Band.

This has been a slow march to the tyranny you see to day.
those who ignore history are bound to repeat it.

PS
the same bankers that made the war
bumped off Lincoln when he printed
"Lincoln greenbacks"

The state of Louisiana using the first state lottery was the first state out of debt after the war.

reply to post by NeoConfederate


It is amazing how you speak from the perspective of slave owners, and have little consideration of the perspective of SLAVES!

You may think you are right, but that’s your version of history, others differ from yours.

Like the fact that the south would enslave free black people when they went in Pennsylvania, and sent them back to the wonderful south as slaves.

Black men wanted to fight on the side of the union because they knew where their interest was, and had no affection for the south as you so perversely say.

Also your wonderful south murdered black troops when they were captured, so please don’t give us that crap about the great wonderful south that even black peple loved.