It's a revisionist take on the civil war, in which it turns out it's all Lincoln's fault. If you encounter one who says that the south was fighting to preserve freedom, ask patiently and repeatedly "Freedom to do what?"

Spoiler alert - the answer is the freedom to own slaves.

Bryant

But pro-slavery forces wanted to expand Wsst. As for black confederates, are you sure slaves were never sent to the lines?

Good summary here

http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2011/jan/07/ray-mcberry/sons-confederate-veterans-spokesman-said-blacks-fo/

The Confederacy fought for "States Rights". The rights they were fighting for were the rights to keep, sell, buy, human beings to do hard labor at low cost. It's kinda like people who fence stolen good claiming to just be participating in Free Enterprise.

Some slaves did accompany their masters to the front to shine their boots and empty their chamber pots. Late in the war, when it became obvious that the cause was going to be lost, there was a movement to enlist slaves with a promise of freedom (remember the part about the war NOT being about slavery?) but the government wouldn't have it because it would interfere with property rights.

It's a laughable attempt to justify the unjustifiable.

...many right-wingers do not believe slavery had much to do with the Civil War. It's impossible to debate with them. They also see no problems with The Bible or US Constitution. One of many blind spots.

Slavery was very complex issue, and only one part of the reason for Civil War. There were black Confederate soldiers, free blacks who were slave owners, and all the rest. Remember that slave trade was centered around Newport RI. NC was the primary counter example in Dred Scott.

I am not a neoConfederate, but your simplified history could use some help. I have posted some about this in the past on DU2 and DU3. A quick search should find them. Or search on "Inheriting the Trade".

I am currently busy moving house and home, so I don't have much time to respond for next ten days or so.

I agree with UNC70. It's very complex.

Are we saying today, it 1) should have been the sole or leading moral reason and 2) it might have been more unconsciously motivating to people than what they consciously believed themselves? Yes.

But historical analysis also entails the phenomenology, as much as we can get at it, of the narratives people told themselves at the time, as well as other deeper human trends, many of which we're still too historically close to see.

What people say to themselves as a culture is historically interesting, even if there are driving forces they don't consciously understand.

In addition, some future analyst might say that there were some broader forms of resistance to techno-industrialization underway even in the midst of defending this odious human evil. I serve this up as an example--it's inconceivable to me, but that's what historiography entails--making the inconceivable conceivable after reconceptualizing it.

If we had remained an agrarian society, with the few benefiting off the misery of others, that would have continued to suck as all slave societies do, but what if we annhilate 95% of the planet's species in two hundred years because the North's form of techno-industrialism, which entailed simply newer forms of human exploitation here and largely abroad, launched global climate change? Some historian in 40 years might say, these people were unconsciously resisting soul-less factories and had no language for opposing industrialization because they couldn't conceive of an agrarian society without slavery. So on some level they were defending being closer to the land, but they didn't know how to separate the issues. This doesn't minimize slavery or racism, but it broadens the issue.

Who knows? I just know it's really complex and the one surety is that I know very little.

So to say the sole cause of the Civil War was slavery is like saying the sole cause of WWI was the asssasination of the Archduke, or the sole cause of the French Revolution was monstrous aristocratic greed.

The primary driving moral cause as we look back at it? I can agree with that.

Edit to add: I'd never engage in this kind of nuance with overt or closet white supremacists and other frightening dominionists. I just figure here at DU we have the luxury of tolerating and discussing the nuances of human behavior while abhorring abuse and injustice. Nuance isn't safe around dominionists.

Not the least of which was simply preserving the Union:

Long after the U.S. slave trade officially ended, the more extensive movement of Africans to Brazil and Cuba continued. The U.S. Navy never was assiduous in hunting down slave traders. The much larger British Navy was more aggressive, and it attempted a blockade of the slave coast of Africa, but the U.S. was one of the few nations that did not permit British patrols to search its vessels, so slave traders continuing to bring human cargo to Brazil and Cuba generally did so under the U.S. flag. They also did so in ships built for the purpose by Northern shipyards, in ventures financed by Northern manufacturers.

In a notorious case, the famous schooner-yacht Wanderer, pride of the New York Yacht Club, put in to Port Jefferson Harbor in April 1858 to be fitted out for the slave trade. Everyone looked the other way -- which suggests this kind of thing was not unusual -- except the surveyor of the port, who reported his suspicions to the federal officials. The ship was seized and towed to New York, but her captain talked (and possibly bought) his way out and was allowed to sail for Charleston, S.C.

Fitting out was completed there, the Wanderer was cleared by Customs, and she sailed to Africa where she took aboard some 600 blacks. On Nov. 28, 1858, she reached Jekyll Island, Georgia, where she illegally unloaded the 465 survivors of what is generally called the last shipment of slaves to arrive in the United States.

The threat to slavery is specifically cited in the secession documents of the Southern states that formed the Confederacy.

In other words, the South said it was about slavery.

No slavery, no war.

The War of Northern Aggression...

Yet they volunteered to fight for the confederacy. I have often wondered why they risked their lives to preserve slavery.

I doubt they even knew anyone who owned slaves given the area they were from.

used by today's tea-baggers (who don't have two quarters to rub together), who loudly echo all of the talking points put forth by the Koch brothers.

First I've heard of this, no biography I've read even hints at this. Plus, living most of his adult life in a free state would have made this hard to do. Do the revisionists give any serious reference for this, or are they just hoping that if they spout off enough they'll accidentally hit on a fact?

Well Black people are racist too mentality...

One of Abraham Lincoln's neighbors (and friend, barber, client and business associate) was William de Fleurville, a Haitian immigrant.

who fell for the jingoism and fought for the right to own a slave they would never be able to afford, I heartily congratulate you on your way with words!



"...heat induced hallucinations of itinerant sheepherders."

Wat

Instead of sheep, I say "goat" and use a different word from "herders". Use your imagination. Lonely, lonely goatherders.

Abolitionists were a very powerful pro-war force in the north.

Revisionist history: "It was really all about state's rights."

if the person you are speaking with is calling the war that occurred between 1861 and 1865 in the United States, "the War of Northern Aggression", the chances are pretty good that they will also assert that slavery was not the cause of said war. Unfortunately, most of them have never read the secession proclamations of most of the states that joined the Confederacy which say right at their beginning that the state is leaving the union because the US wanted to terminate slavery.

The right for those states to keep slavery! Then again, there are some around here (south Texas) that believe the war is still ongoing and that the South will 'rise up again', over WHAT I have no idea but we are NOT talking about rational people here.

The Civil War might have been about many things to many different people, but it is and always will be about slavery, sorry Confederate Charlie.

the Confederacy needed manpower so badly that it allowed blacks to fight in its army in exchange for their freedom.

Didn't get a whole lot of takers, though, for some reason.

When the Union finally took New Orleans those units switched sides for they were formed to protect New Orleans NOT slavery or the Confederacy.

These African America troops were not use well by the Rebel Defenders, who did a poor job of defending New Orleans on all accounts. Thus once the city was back in Union Hands, those African American Militia units put themselves under US Army Command.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Forts_Jackson_and_St._Philip

More on these New Orleans African America Militia Units:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Louisiana_Native_Guard_(CSA)

Now, the main problem with the South and African American Soldiers was the South REFUSED to give them freedom if they served UNLESS their Masters agree EVEN after it became a policy to enlist slaves (and that was in January 1865, and it was a product of the Confederate CONGRESS, Jeff Davis opposed it, but passed after Lee requested it). In 1865 it was clear the South was losing the War, and finally the Confederate Congress did what it should have done in 1862, first make Lee Commander in Chief of the Confederate Army (Up till March 1865, Lee was ONLY the commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, the rest of the Army of the South was under various generals, all of who reported to Jeff Davis as President). Jeff Davis had a habit of appointing Friends to various Commands and keeping them in those position long after it was clear they should have been replaced. On the other hand, if you were NOT on Davis list of Friends, you would be replaced quickly no matter how competent you were, this can be seen in the West when Davis kept Baxton Bragg long after he should have been replaced, and removed Joseph E. Johnson when Johnson was keeping Sherman out of Atlanta (Johnson's replacement, Hood, would later lose Atlanta by throwing his army away in attacks on Sherman's army).

The problem with African American serving in the Southern Army during the Civil War, was they fall into three categories. The African American Militia of New Orleans (and some other areas, but very few), attempts to recruit them in 1864-1865, which mostly failed, OR personal slaves of soldiers who went with their master to war, and often did the duty their master was to do (This appears only to have lasted till 1863, through after 1861 most such African Americans either defected to the North, or were sent home to prevent them from defecting to the North). Thus such troops existed, but they were rare and then only for short time periods and never officially acknowledged during the war:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_African_Americans_in_the_American_Civil_War#Union_Navy

The biggest mistake in our history is the fact the North was so accommodating to the Southern Rebels/Traitors/Terrorists.

We should have hung every general, every leader in the Confederacy as treasonists. That is what they were. By not doing so we have enabled the KKK and the "Sovereign Citizens" movements.

When Grant met Lee in the Parlor room of the Mclean house he saw a tired old man. His terms were fair and generous, officers could keep their side arms and anyone with a horse could keep it because planting time was upon them. On the night the war ended the White House band asked Lincoln what songs he would like to hear and he said play Dixie because it was always a lovely song. Lincoln never told Grant what to offer he just wanted the war to be over. what we should have done was ban the Confederate Flag in whatever form it was flown in as that flag has caused more problems to this nation then the Rising Sun or Swastika ever did. Remember Lee didn't start the KKK Bedford Forrest Starr did. I once told a states right fool that slavery was a states right issue and he looked at me like I had grown a third eye. They cannot make the connection between an agricultural society and cheap/free labor. They also don't understand that not only were the slaves property but that the property was not cheap. A young black male could cost $2000.00 dollars because of his strength and his ability to produce more strong black males. it was a business decision as much as a states right issue. Please don't get me started on the whole heritage issue. 4 years does qualify as heritage and I don't think treason is something to be proud of.

That's why our biggest focus should be on dismantling & annihilating the Republican Party which houses & promotes these Confederates.
End the Republican Party, end the Confederates' political megaphone, end the Confederates' ability to shape policy in the country.

Every issue we have from the stupid wars to the open carry nonsense to the rape/abortion madness to the Stand Your Ground insanity to the Cliven Bundy fiasco to the Obamacare fight to the tax code imbalance to the voter interference to the theocracy lunacy comes from a singular source.

Finish off the Confederacy.
Finish off the Solid South.

End the Republican Party so they have nothing to organize under anymore.
The key is turning Texas over.
Once that's done, they are mathematically guaranteed NEVER to win a national election again.
Many Southern states are shifting with Chocolate Cities spreading out & diverse educated people moving in.
It's only a matter of time before they're on the outside looking in.

End the Republican Party on the national stage & it will eventually unravel on the regional stages since there will be no central platform.
Faced with shrinking demographics & shrinking raw numbers of people, if the Republican Party tries changes their outlook they lose the Confederates & their vast voting numbers...
...but if they stay the same they will be stuck with an ever eroding base as they sink into the tar pits of history.
Whether they change or stay the same, they die.

Eventually the conversation on issues will become much more reasonable.
Eventually as the only game in town the Democratic Party will split due to the fractious nature of human beings.
But that will be healthy too. The Democratic Party needs reforming as well.

Most importantly though the elimination & eradication of the Republican Party should be the focus of everyone who posts here.
That's the only way you'll have a chance at progress.
John Lucas

What is amazing to me about the Civil War is how easily the southern 1%er's conned the 99% into fighting to preserve the 1%'s right to own people. To own people!

There is something very strange about the South. To this day they are still led around by the nose by the 1% and the majority will do their bidding on just about every issue. Many of them fanatically so.

Their whole economy (for the elites) was based on slavery. Of course it was about money. Slavery was just one way to keep the elite on top.

That is how the south saw the republic up until 1861. Any way you look at it, the conflict was inevitable.
The north won the war and our modern federal republic was created in April 1865 at that Appomattox courthouse.
Slavery was definitely one of the many issues where the southern states believed that DC had no jurisdiction. That changed.

And refused to participate in the war.
Google it.

Is he right?

Last edited Thu Jun 26, 2014, 10:16 PM - Edit history (1)

but most is revisionist.

Lincoln never owned slaves; but, and this is a big but, Lincoln WAS a white supremacist that held the view that Blacks were inferior to whites.

And while I don't doubt that Lincoln had a moral objection to slavery, I believe the Emancipation Proclamation was more a military strategy, than a noble act ... as evidenced by it only freed the slaves in the seceding states. The move significantly hampered the economies of the rebel states.

And finally ... yes, there were former slaves that fought for the confederacy; but they were doing so for pay, not for the preservation of state's rights or the preservation of the southern way of life.

Typing these comments, that is. I feel compelled to just rip these moronic screeds apart.....in fact, I think I will(pretend that I am replying to the people who made wrote this crapola).

"You guys really think that thousands of NON-slaveowners would go fight for the maybe 3% of the population that owned slaves??? Slavery had virtually nothing to do with the Civil War. But as always, the victors write the history books...right"

"The civil war was over money. Nothing else. Lincoln added slavery to it so he could get more votes. Some of yall need to b hung. If you don't like us country folks flying our flag then get the fuck out the south. Go north"

"Yes there are racist ppl who take the flag as a white power symbol little do ppl know just as many blacks fought and died for this flag as there were whites and the south let them fight for their freedom. So before you say shit about my flag make sure u understand both races fought for the same reason and make sure you realize your blood and their blood is the same damn color"

"It's amazing how many people are uneducated on here slavery wasn't the point of the Civil war it was over money and power and control..,, Abraham Lincoln had slaves! Now go read people"

Now that's a load of bullshit right there.....in fact, I'll go farther; this is outright historical revisionism, no less full of personal bias and wishful thinking than Gerald Horne's "The Counter Revolution of 1776"*, or anything written by David Barton(the infamous far-right Christian "Reconstructionist&quot , and no less full of outright lies and distortions than from any of the myriad of Holocaust revisionists, or David Duke, etc.

"I thought the civil war was about the Yankees wanting our women so we fought like hell, then we found out they just wanted to stop slavery so we said fuck it. And I've read that there was black volunteer soldiers that fought for the south."

"the civil war was not about slavery until lincoln made it that way...it was over cotton prices so the south decided to sell our cotton to britain...and the union navy shot our ships of the coast of new york that the first shots fired not in s. carilna"

That is Nathan Bedford Forest. Forest obtain his command of a Cavalry regiment, the old fashion way, he bought it. Forest offered to arm and equip a Regiment if he would command it. Forest thus became that regiment's Colonel and from there move up in command do to his own ability.

Before the Civil War Forest had been a merchant who transported goods from one market to another, This included selling slaves, thus Forest was a rich man in 1861 when he decided to form a Regiment for the Southern Army. In 1861 when Forest formed up his regiment Forest went to his African American Teamsters and and offered them their freedom no matter who won the war if they agree to serve with him as his transport team. They agreed for Forest was known to keep his word. (Forest had been a a merchant who transported goods from one market to another prior to the Civil War, including selling Slaves, thus was a rich man in 1861). Forest provided his men with Rifle Muskets from England, and had them use shotguns while mounted. Everyone else provided them Carbines, sabers and pistols.

Thus Forest is credited with being the First Commander to offer Freedom to African Americans if they enlisted. It was an enlistment in his own transportation unit and it was his own slaves, but Forest knew what Slaves wanted more then anything else, freedom and was willing to give it to them to have reliable supply wagons.

After a Speech during the Civil War, when a Southern Politician said it was not Slavery that the South was fighting for, Forest said Paraphrased "If we are NOT fighting FOR Slavery, then why are we fighting?" No one questioned his statement.

Thus Forest knew WHY he was fighting the Civil War and after the Civil War he help found the KKK in 1866 and disbanded it in 1869. Forest lost most of his wealth during and after the Civil War (lost what was left when a railroad he was running went bankrupt in the 1873 Depression that bankrupted most railroads in the US. Railroad had been a subject of Massive specification in the 1860s and early 1870s and collapsed in 1873). Forest thus died in a log cabin he saved from his plantation (that he had lost) but he did retain some wealth till the end, mostly do to his reputation made during the Civil War.

Ft Pillow is the biggest blot on Forest's career. Forrest did win the battle, and that part is NOT is dispute. The problem is how that battle ended. Ft Pillow had originally been built by Confederate Forces to protect New Orleans from the North. It overlooked the Mississippi River and was intended to fire upon ships sailing south. Ft. Pillow fell into Northern Hands by 1862, but the North used it to PROTECT ships in the Mississippi from landward attack not to block ships going south on the Mississippi River.

In most cases such a switch is no big deal, but in the case of Ft Pillow it was a disaster waiting to happen. Ft Pillow had been built to over look the Mississippi River and thus what was to its rear was unimportant as long as such land was in friendly hands. The problem was to the rear of Ft Pillow was higher in elevation then was Ft Pillow. If that high ground was held by forces HOSTILE to the Fort, it could lead to a disaster.

In such situations the rule is that it takes more men to hold such a fort then to take it. This was one of the problems with the Alamo (and why Sam Houston told Travis to blow it up and abandon it NOT to defend it) and Yorktown (and in both cases once an army as strong or stronger then the troops defending that position appeared both the Alamo and Yorktown fell).

What is your motivation?

The Butcher of Fort Pillow? A man renowned for his violence?

You wish to paint this racist murderer as a friend of African-Americans?

Why do you paint your very slanted picture?

Nathan Bedford Forest was Nathan Bedford Forest. He is the TOP Guerrilla/Partisan fighter the US has ever seen. Was he a racists? yes. Did he comments acts of violence? Yes, his tactics were violent, Very Violent. Did Forest commit murder and other war crimes? That is the debate.

As to Fort Pillow, no one disputes it was a Massacre, even Forest would have called it a Massacre. The issue is Forest's role in that Massacre. From known records, we know Forest did not order anyone killed at Ft Pillow. Forest did order the attack and had three horse shot from underneath him in the battle resulting from the final attack on the fort. That attack and the massacre that followed only lasted 20 minutes. Forest thus lost a horse every 7 minutes in that attack (There had been two other attacks, both repulsed by the Union forces within the fort).

Forest knew once he took the Fort, the battle would become a nasty brawl and lead to a high number of deaths. Thus prior to the final onslaught Forest told the Union Commander the he, Forest, would NOT be responsible, if the Fort fell by storm, for any of the Soldier's lives inside the fort. That Statement is often cited as Forest's command to massacre the garrison but that was made to the UNION Commander not to Forest's own men.

Forest is also known NOT to have done anything out of the ordinary to stop his men from massacring Union soldiers (Both African American and White). Forest also knew his men could kill any African American holding a firearm or dressed in a Union Uniform. Forest's men and other Southern units' men had done such massacres during the Civil War.

All I was reporting was Forest's actions in that battle, and his statements as to that battle at that time period and afterward. Other first hand accounts do not indicate Forest did anything other then moved his men closer to the Fort under the Flag of Truce, and once the truce was over immediately order an attack on the fort. Such actions are NOT unusual in warfare. The Truce was limited to actual shooting and if the Northern Commander did not like Forest's men moving closer to the Fort he could have order then fired upon by his own men. It appears the truce was a hope by the Union Commander that Forest just wanted to have a show of force and then leave (A Union Relief force was on its way). The problem was Forest had decided Fort Pillow could be taken and he decided to take it. Thus Forest saw the Truce as a way to get his men closer to the Fort while NOT under Fire.

How much did Forest knew that the battle would turn into a debacle as quickly as it did? From Forest's reports he did not know it would get that bad that quickly (Through Forest did think it would be a quick fight). Forest also gives no indications that he made any effort to stop the killings. It appears Forest just left the men do as they wish and then reformed them afterwards along with any surviving Union soldiers that had not been killed. Was that a war crime? Should Forest (and could Forest) have done anything to prevent the killings after the fort had fallen? Remember the Fort NEVER surrendered. After the Battle, Forest did tell the Union Commanders of some Union Gunships in the Mississippi that they could come and bury their dead and recover their severally wounded Soldiers (This was confirmed by the Union Ship Master who agreed to those terms after the battle).

I am sorry, but given that nature of his troops and how the battle occurred, I just do not think Forest could have done anything to stop his men from doing the killings they did. We know Forest always said the Killings only occurred as the soldiers being killed were still fighting and once they were no longer fighter, Forest took them prisoners. Please note running away was still "Fighting" under that definition. Killing soldiers who had fallen, but not officially taken prisoner was also "Fighting" under that definition. Since they was no formal surrender and Union Forces had weapons till the end of the battle, an argument could be made that all of the deaths were legitimate battle deaths (That does not change the Fort Pillow was a massacre, the issue is what was Forest's role in that massacre and was that ROLE a War Crime).

That is the problem with Fort Pillow, prisoners were taken, both White and African Americans, but a whole lot of Union Soldiers, both White and African Americas were killed AFTER the fort had fallen. Many were killed running away. Many were killed after they had fallen while running away. There are reports of some Union soldiers to tired to fight anymore, just giving up and Forest's men running up to them and just killing them as they run past these Union Soldiers after other union soldiers (Such killings are war crimes, but most armies cover them up, including the US Army in the Civil War, Spanish American War, First and Second World war, Korea, Vietnam and the recent conflicts). There are reports of African Americans trying to surrender and being killed on the spot by Forest's men.

A heat of battle war crime is often ignored by Armies for it is a product of the heat of Battle. That is the position Forest took about Fort Pillow and his men action in that battle. This was rejected by the Union, but after they were told that Forest had three horse shot dead under him, they seem to have understood Forest's position as to the massacre for after the war he was NOT charged with it as a war crime (unlike the Commander of Andersonville, who was charged and hanged for war crimes after the Civil War).


More on Fort Pillow:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Pillow

Here are some of the Actual Reports on the battle:
http://www.civilwarhome.com/ftpillow.htm

they were afraid they'd have to pick Mr. Beureaguard's cotton if slaves were freed (latter according to Randi Rhodes).

If any one doubts reason for civil war, read the various state's articles/declaration of Secession. Mississippi's is blunt and to the point - slaves.

Unfortunately for these poor paranoid saps, even if the South had won, it likely wouldn't have stopped the rise of sharecropping from continuing throughout the latter third of the century. Not to mention that even in the immediate post-bellum era, white men's wages were still quite a bit lower in the South, than that of men in the North. Unemployment was higher, too, and undoubtedly would have become much worse(contrary to what some might believe, including, and possible especially, many of the Lost Causers) as slavers sought to expand their control over the Southern economy, had the Rebels won. And that's just two things right there!

No matter what the Lost Causers may want to believe, the South was no libertine, small-government paradise for anybody on the bottom, or even in the middle, even conservative devoutly Christian white men(let alone women, and especially people of color!). It was anything but that for most folks. No, the sad truth is, it was one of the closest things to a dystopia as could have been experienced (at least by white folks, though African-Americans had it much worse, no doubt) in America during the antebellum era.