Interview with civil war soldier in 1947

[GeauxLSU]

Of course I’ve read the whole thing, more than once, and long before today. That’s how I knew that Georgia had major concerns about keeping slavery and expanding slavery into the western territories.

And thanks for the spelling correction. That kind of wit has always impressed some people, not me though, lol.

Then you understand it was about state's rights, which manifested itself in several ways as outlined in that document. Slavery being one example.
My spelling sucks.

 

[Fatal_Bert]

Then you understand it was about state's rights, which manifested itself in several ways as outlined in that document. Slavery being one example.
My spelling sucks.

I used to believe it was about states rights, because that's what I was told over and over again, that it wasn't about slavery it was about states rights. And people I looked up to spoke just like you about all the things the North was doing to the south, and there's a lot of truth in it.

But it wasn't until someone here on the ODT, probably 7 years ago now posted GA's declaration of succession, and I read it without bias, it become pretty obvious they wanted to keep their african slaves. That was the main grievance they would not concede too. They say themselves right there in the declaration that the hostilities between the states are in reference to african slavery.

I don't see how in the hell you could read it and come away thinking that holding the "states rights" to keep african slaves wasn't the biggest motivater of succession. You'd have to be blind.

So to you who always like to say no one's mind is ever changed in these debates, mine was.

 

[Wheeler]

I used to believe it was about states rights, because that's what I was told over and over again, that it wasn't about slavery it was about states rights. And people I looked up to spoke just like you about all the things the North was doing to the south, and there's a lot of truth in it.

But it wasn't until someone here on the ODT, probably 7 years ago now posted GA's declaration of succession, and I read it without bias, it become pretty obvious they wanted to keep their african slaves. That was the main grievance they would not concede too. They say themselves right there in the declaration that the hostilities between the states are in reference to african slavery.

I don't see how in the hell you could read it and come away thinking that holding the "states rights" to keep african slaves wasn't the biggest motivater of succession. You'd have to be blind.

So to you who always like to say no one's mind is ever changed in these debates, mine was.

So that was it? The only reason they seceded was because they wanted to own African Slaves? No other reason at all?

 

[Fatal_Bert]

So that was it? The only reason they seceded was because they wanted to own African Slaves? No other reason at all?

No, it was just by far the biggest. I mean, when you say that "we the slave holding states" are sick and tired of getting picked on by the non slave holding states in reference to african slavery.... It makes me think it was a pretty big deal to them.

 

[Wheeler]

No, it was just by far the biggest. I mean, when you say that "we the slave holding states" are sick and tired of getting picked on by the non slave holding states in reference to african slavery.... It makes me think it was a pretty big deal to them.

So what were the other reasons? What was the context of the times?

ETA: I’m not trying to defend the south or the practice of slavery nor am I deliberately ignoring the evidence. I’m looking at this from the context of the times as opposed to looking at it from our point of view 160 years later.

The biggest reason the Southern States seceded was because Lincoln was elected by the Northern States and it was clear to the Southern States that the agenda of anti slavery was going to be forced down their throats by the Federal Government. It is also prudent to note that the opportunity to address slavery was completely ignored when the Constitution was framed and written, the Supreme Court has ruled that slavery was not a valid point in which to refuse the admission of a new state to the union, and that the northern states did not release nor free their own slaves.

I’m of the firm belief that the onerous practice would have died out in a few decades had things been left alone instead of telling people that their property was forfeit because a group had decided that other folks didn’t need that property.

 

[jeff1012]

Awesome find subd

 

[palmettomoon]

P.S. One day people will look back on World War II veterans the same way that we in our generation think of Civil War veterans or World War I veterans.....

You mean we'll get woke and tear down their monuments and statues?

 

[NewLeaf]

I always wondered why the North didn't free their slaves before starting a war with the South over their slaves.

Or after , they were the first and last to hold'em..../////// sparkyboy

 

[NewLeaf]

That doesn't really answer my question but whatever...

That's because some are totally ignorant about the subject. It's been passed down here. I bet some think Africa was innocent of wrong doing . I'd Never sell my Folks

 

[Fatal_Bert]

So what were the other reasons? What was the context of the times?

ETA: I’m not trying to defend the south or the practice of slavery nor am I deliberately ignoring the evidence. I’m looking at this from the context of the times as opposed to looking at it from our point of view 160 years later.

The biggest reason the Southern States seceded was because Lincoln was elected by the Northern States and it was clear to the Southern States that the agenda of anti slavery was going to be forced down their throats by the Federal Government. It is also prudent to note that the opportunity to address slavery was completely ignored when the Constitution was framed and written, the Supreme Court has ruled that slavery was not a valid point in which to refuse the admission of a new state to the union, and that the northern states did not release nor free their own slaves.

I’m of the firm belief that the onerous practice would have died out in a few decades had things been left alone instead of telling people that their property was forfeit because a group had decided that other folks didn’t need that property.

The best answer to your question is to read each states decoration of succession. To me doing so revealed that slavery was by and large the biggest issue.

Constitutional or not, no man has any "right" to own another. I don't care what any written document has to say about it. Given the option between letting it die out in a few decades, or a bloody civil war, I think a bloody civil war is the better option.