Were Confederates mainly fighting to maintain slavery?

[Bomb#20]

Sometimes I honestly think the United States was a mistake from the very beginning.

Of course it was a mistake. It was a mistake they went right on making in spite of having it thoroughly explained to them. Here's an MP's 1775 speech to Parliament:

The proposition is peace. Not peace through the medium of war; not peace to be hunted through the labyrinth of intricate and endless negotiations; not peace to arise out of universal discord, fomented from principle, in all parts of the empire; not peace to depend on the juridical determination of perplexing questions, or the precise marking the shadowy boundaries of a complex government. It is simple peace, sought in its natural course and in its ordinary haunts. It is peace sought in the spirit of peace, and laid in principles purely pacific. I propose, by removing the ground of the difference, and by restoring the former unsuspecting confidence of the colonies in the mother country, to give permanent satisfaction to your people,—and (far from a scheme of ruling by discord) to reconcile them to each other in the same act and by the bond of the very same interest which reconciles them to British government. ...

America, gentlemen say, is a noble object,—it is an object well worth fighting for. Certainly it is, if fighting a people be the best way of gaining them. ...my opinion is much more in favor of prudent management than of force,—considering force not as an odious, but a feeble instrument, for preserving a people so numerous, so active, so growing, so spirited as this, in a profitable and subordinate connection with us. ...

In this situation, let us seriously and coolly ponder. What is it we have got by all our menaces, which have been many and ferocious? What advantage have we derived from the penal laws we have passed, and which, for the time, have been severe and numerous? What advances have we made towards our object, by the sending of a force, which, by land and sea, is no contemptible strength? Has the disorder abated? Nothing less.—When I see things in this situation, after such confident hopes, bold promises, and active exertions, I cannot, for my life, avoid a suspicion that the plan itself is not correctly right.

If, then, the removal of the causes of this spirit of American liberty be, for the greater part, or rather entirely, impracticable,—if the ideas of criminal process be inapplicable, or, if applicable, are in the highest degree inexpedient, what way yet remains? No way is open, but the third and last,—to comply with the American spirit as necessary, or, if you please, to submit, to it as a necessary evil.

If we adopt this mode, if we mean to conciliate and concede, let us see of what nature the concession ought to be. To ascertain the nature of our concession, we must look at their complaint. The colonies complain that they have not the characteristic mark and seal of British freedom. They complain that they are taxed in a Parliament in which they are not represented. If you mean to satisfy them at all, you must satisfy them with regard to this complaint. ...

Sir, I think you must perceive that I am resolved this day to have nothing at all to do with the question of the right of taxation. Some gentlemen startle,—but it is true: I put it totally out of the question. It is less than nothing in my consideration. ... The question with me is, not whether you have a right to render your people miserable, but whether it is not your interest to make them happy.​

(Source)

 

[Mumbles]

Who said it was sudden? There have been proposals to remove these things for years, particularly since one would have to be dense not to realize the meaning of a Confederate soldier, or a General, sitting directly outside of a courthouse or town hall (which is where many of these were located). Even in Bmore, whee they're mostly located nowhere near either, it had been hotly debated for years, passed a while back - and then sat on. These pseudo-nazis in Virginia managed to speed things up, and eventually...well, as I said, the city was given a choice to lose the Jackson-Lee statue one way, or the other, and so they chose the one way.

This is up to USA local governments of course. Both sides sustained high casualties. Whether this should be of historic interest or something else would be up to the legislatures of local US States unless federal laws override them.

Should these be destroyed or moved to a historic setting. What is your view?

Depends on the statue Most of them are nothing more than monuments to white supremacy - threats to black people who wanted to be treated as equals - and should be melted down.

I'm perfectly happy keeping the one from Durham, as is, in a museum, along with 1-2 others.

 

[RavenSky]

This is up to USA local governments of course. Both sides sustained high casualties. Whether this should be of historic interest or something else would be up to the legislatures of local US States unless federal laws override them.

Should these be destroyed or moved to a historic setting. What is your view?

Depends on the statue Most of them are nothing more than monuments to white supremacy - threats to black people who wanted to be treated as equals - and should be melted down.

I'm perfectly happy keeping the one from Durham, as is, in a museum, along with 1-2 others.

^^^ That

It needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. If, and only if, the statue is also of exceptional quality and/or created by a notable artist, then sure - save it in a museum.

Otherwise, melt them down and recycle the metals

 

[whichphilosophy]

Depends on the statue Most of them are nothing more than monuments to white supremacy - threats to black people who wanted to be treated as equals - and should be melted down.

I'm perfectly happy keeping the one from Durham, as is, in a museum, along with 1-2 others.

^^^ That

It needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. If, and only if, the statue is also of exceptional quality and/or created by a notable artist, then sure - save it in a museum.

Otherwise, melt them down and recycle the metals

Sounds okay.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

I don't even wanna spend that much time on them.

THe city votes not to endorse slavery/supremacy any more, resolve to get rid of them. If anyone wants to keep it, they can pay to move it, house it, maintain it on private property.

"I'LL TAKE IT!"
IF no one steps forward, or if no one has the scratch to haul it someplace, it's the city's t

 

[repoman]

It needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

I don't even wanna spend that much time on them.

THe city votes not to endorse slavery/supremacy any more, resolve to get rid of them. If anyone wants to keep it, they can pay to move it, house it, maintain it on private property.

View attachment 12229"I'LL TAKE IT!"
IF no one steps forward, or if no one has the scratch to haul it someplace, it's the city's t

Would you allow a statue to be sold to David Duke?

 

[ZiprHead]

Would you allow a statue to be sold to David Duke?

Why not? It's not like no one knows where his sentiments lie.

 

[Bronzeage]

I don't even wanna spend that much time on them.

THe city votes not to endorse slavery/supremacy any more, resolve to get rid of them. If anyone wants to keep it, they can pay to move it, house it, maintain it on private property.

View attachment 12229"I'LL TAKE IT!"
IF no one steps forward, or if no one has the scratch to haul it someplace, it's the city's t

Would you allow a statue to be sold to David Duke?

What difference would it make who buys it, or where they put it?

What are the alternatives? Some sort of public smashing?

We need to remember, these men were not being honored for their contributions to the Civil War. Their images were used to try and preserve the old system, in the face of political moves to strengthen racial equality through law. Pulling down a statue and smashing it to scrap does nothing to counter its original purpose, or to support the political process it was intended to oppose.

 

[ronburgundy]

There is some evidence that the Revolutionary War was partially fought to prevent the 1772 British ruling that outlawed slavery to be put in place in the Colonies.

If so, then Washington and Jefferson have great similarity to Robert E Lee.

Nonsense. Regardless of some ancillary incentive that may or may not have had partial influence on some people's support for the US Revolution, it was, by any reasonable standard a just and moral war resulting in a Constitution that ultimately would advance the civil rights and personal liberty of all. The evidence is that that overwhelming support for the war among colonists was rooted in principles of self-governance, independence, and democracy. Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" was the most widely read publication in the US other than the Bible and was widely discussed in bars and newspapers, and is credited by historians as being central to influencing not only the general public but the key political leaders, including Washington and Jefferson who were both long time friends of Paine. Not coincidentally, Paine also published the first article for abolishing slavery in the colonies back in 1775.
IOW, modern blacks and all supporters of moral and political progress have every reason to be thankful and proud of the US Revolution and the leaders that were critical in bringing it about. In contrast, no moral person has reason to be proud of the slavery protecting traitors against the US that was the Confederacy and Lee.

Lee was an avowed enemy of the United States of America who took up arms and killed US soldiers in a war primarily to protect slavery. Lee was on the wrong moral side of a societal battle even during his own time. Although Washington and Jefferson were both flawed men, from the perspective of both modern moral decency and the interest of the United States, Lee is far more similar to Stalin than Washington or Jefferson.

Sadly, the current President is making idiotic false equivalences such as yours, and even more sad is that some leftist activists are as well, such as in Chicago were they are trying to have Washington and Jefferson statues removed and parks renamed.

This guy makes a very convincing argument that the confederate soldiers modeled by their statues had nothing at all to do with slavery:
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017...quished-truth/

If you find that "convincing", then there is a bridge you might be interested in buying. Incidentally, the bridge leads to the KKK headquarters.
That guy is a whackjob psuedo-historian who asserts against all fact that the Civil War "had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery. ...
[The South] was fighting, because the North had invaded."

Total bullshit. The Confederacy was formed in direct reaction to Lincoln's election, whose campaign was heavily based on explicit anti-slavery rhetoric, noting the the Union could not survive some state's where it was abolished and other's where it was legal.
The 7 states succeeded a month after Lincoln's election, entirely out of anticipation that he would seek to end slavery in all States, siding with the clear tide of history at the time. The then formed the Confederacy a month before Lincoln's inauguration, electing a West Point grad and Army officer as President, for the sole purpose of going to war against the US.

The fighting was started by the Confederacy when it attacked Fort Sumter, a Fort built and maintained since the war of 1812 by the US government and US military, not by the state of South Carolina. South Carolina threatened the US and demanded it leave the fort and the US rightly told them to fuck off. Then the Confederacy attacked.

Regardless of the personal knowledge and psychology of some Confederate soldiers that made their motive something other than slavery directly, they all fought against the US government and for government not recognized by the US constitution and created primarily to war against expected attempts by the elected President of the US to end slavery.
IOW, no matter their motive, they represent traitors against the US who fought for essentially a foreign government trying to protect slavery. They are not any kind of hero to be honored except to those who continue to think that cause a just one and who continue to wish that the US had lost and slavery continued, IOW traitorous bigots.

 

[J842P]

This guy makes a very convincing argument that the confederate soldiers modeled by their statues had nothing at all to do with slavery:
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/15/america-propaganda-vanquished-truth/

This is an absurd argument. A Confederate soldier has everything to do with the Confederacty, which had everything to do with slavery. The Confederacy itself reiterates this many times in many historical documents. It is a ridiculous revisionism that tries to claim the war was about anything other than slavery.

The Germans wouldn't dream of raising a statue of a Nazi-era Wehrmacht soldier. The Germans are decent people in that regard. The people who defend the Confederacy are either fools motivated by this weird pseudo-historical, rosey-eyed, ahistorical point of view of antebellum southern culture, or outright racists.

The guy outright says that chattel slavery is not oppression. Quite frankly, if you find this convincing, you are a fool.

 

[RavenSky]

It needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis.

I don't even wanna spend that much time on them.

THe city votes not to endorse slavery/supremacy any more, resolve to get rid of them. If anyone wants to keep it, they can pay to move it, house it, maintain it on private property.

View attachment 12229"I'LL TAKE IT!"
IF no one steps forward, or if no one has the scratch to haul it someplace, it's the city's t

good point.

Leave it to Republicans, however, to get it backwards. In Tampa, the Hillsborough County Commission (5 Republicans, 2 Democrats) reluctantly voted to take down their confederate statue, but only if the citizens who wanted it removed came up with the money to do so. The statue is going back to the United Daughters of the Confederacy - the organization who paid to have most of these stupid statues installed in the first place - but the commission isn't charging this group to take it away again. No, they are charging those who stand against the white supremacist groups.

Hillsborough citizens raised the required money in one day.

The stupid statue is coming down.

Good job Tampa!

 

[Keith&Co.]

Would you allow a statue to be sold to David Duke?

Why not? It's not like no one knows where his sentiments lie.

So, if Duke has, let's say, X resources, then if we threaten to tear down Y statues, and Duke buys them, Duke has X-Y resources left to advance his cause.

Yeah, deal!

 

[ronburgundy]

Depends on the statue Most of them are nothing more than monuments to white supremacy - threats to black people who wanted to be treated as equals - and should be melted down.

I'm perfectly happy keeping the one from Durham, as is, in a museum, along with 1-2 others.

^^^ That

It needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. If, and only if, the statue is also of exceptional quality and/or created by a notable artist, then sure - save it in a museum.

Otherwise, melt them down and recycle the metals

A museum can make sense because there is no inherent sentiment of honoring the subject when its in a museum as opposed to the lawn of the capital building where it was put by bigots as a passive aggressive statement against equality. In a museum, it becomes about preserving a historical record mostly about the people who chose to build and erect the statue and the people who chose to remove it from a place of honor (all which there could be a plague explaining).

IOW, for the same reason that having Stalin or Hitler statues in a museum or turning Dachau into a museum, these statues can be moved and re-purposed from something designed to honor to something either merely to remember or even to warn and express remorse about.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't even wanna spend that much time on them.

THe city votes not to endorse slavery/supremacy any more, resolve to get rid of them. If anyone wants to keep it, they can pay to move it, house it, maintain it on private property.

View attachment 12229"I'LL TAKE IT!"
IF no one steps forward, or if no one has the scratch to haul it someplace, it's the city's t

good point.

Leave it to Republicans, however, to get it backwards. In Tampa, the Hillsborough County Commission (5 Republicans, 2 Democrats) reluctantly voted to take down their confederate statue, but only if the citizens who wanted it removed came up with the money to do so. The statue is going back to the United Daughters of the Confederacy - the organization who paid to have most of these stupid statues installed in the first place - but the commission isn't charging this group to take it away again. No, they are charging those who stand against the white supremacist groups.

They are not getting it backwards. They are simply raising the cost of doing the right thing onto the citizens who want the right thing done. In essence, they are implicitly subsidizing the UDoC.

 

[bilby]

Sometimes I honestly think the United States was a mistake from the very beginning.

I tend to agree. It could have been all Canada, from the Rio Grande to the North Pole.

 

[BH]

Sometimes I honestly think the United States was a mistake from the very beginning.

I tend to agree. It could have been all Canada, from the Rio Grande to the North Pole.

I've been reading a lot of history books from the 1800's and early 1900's that spares no information about our founding fathers, their character, and why they fought the revolutionary war against Britian. They were no more noble than the Confederate leaders were later and fought for very wrong and ignoble purposes. The difference between the USA and the CSA is that even thought both were founded through treason the US won while the Confederacy lost. I don't want to derail this thread if someone wants to talk about it we can start another thread or talk through pm. George Washington was actually a scoundrel and a thief if these histories are correct and most of the founding fathers really more like mob godfathers. They made all kinds of promises to the US public to support them and even then could only get about a third to go along with them and after the war immediately reneged on most of their promises. What happened to the people over here who stayed loyal to the king was just horrible.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I tend to agree. It could have been all Canada, from the Rio Grande to the North Pole.

I've been reading a lot of history books from the 1800's and early 1900's that spares no information about our founding fathers, their character, and why they fought the revolutionary war against Britian. They were no more noble than the Confederate leaders were later and fought for very wrong and ignoble purposes. The difference between the USA and the CSA is that even thought both were founded through treason the US won while the Confederacy lost. I don't want to derail this thread if someone wants to talk about it we can start another thread or talk through pm. George Washington was actually a scoundrel and a thief if these histories are correct and most of the founding fathers really more like mob godfathers. They made all kinds of promises to the US public to support them and even then could only get about a third to go along with them and after the war immediately reneged on most of their promises. What happened to the people over here who stayed loyal to the king was just horrible.

Well, I like being able to vote.

 

[ronburgundy]

I tend to agree. It could have been all Canada, from the Rio Grande to the North Pole.

I've been reading a lot of history books from the 1800's and early 1900's that spares no information about our founding fathers, their character, and why they fought the revolutionary war against Britian. They were no more noble than the Confederate leaders were later and fought for very wrong and ignoble purposes. The difference between the USA and the CSA is that even thought both were founded through treason the US won while the Confederacy lost. I don't want to derail this thread if someone wants to talk about it we can start another thread or talk through pm. George Washington was actually a scoundrel and a thief if these histories are correct and most of the founding fathers really more like mob godfathers. They made all kinds of promises to the US public to support them and even then could only get about a third to go along with them and after the war immediately reneged on most of their promises. What happened to the people over here who stayed loyal to the king was just horrible.

You're getting your history from bogus sources. In particular, it is a popular but unsupported myth that only 1/3 of colonists supported American Independence. That notion is based on an oversimplified interpretation of a single passing remark in a letter by John Adams (who'd had no way of getting an accurate estimate in the first place).

Historian consensus is that open and active supporters of a Revolution outnumbered open Loyalist about 2.5 to 1 (40% to 15%).
The rest, about 45%, of colonists kept a low profile and did not clearly reveal their views, but this is sometimes wrongly cited as meaning they were actually neutral rather than the reality that they merely chose to appear neutral. On such a massive issue, it is just sociologically and psychologically implausible that 45% were truly neutral. The problem is that a huge % of colonists would have been afraid for their lives and liberty if they openly supported a war against Britain. After all, the whole point of such a war was to end British rule, meaning that the British still ruled the colonies. Thus, fear of retribution was far greater for coming out for Independence than for sucking up to the rulers by being a Loyalist.

Plus, even many active Whigs doubted the plausibility of winning a war. Britain was still seen as a massive world dominator far stronger than the colonies. So any large % of those "neutrals" would be moral supporters of Independence but against an actual war due to belief it was not winnable.

Put all this context together, and a more likely estimate is about a 4-5 to 1 split in those who at least privately favored Independence over favored continued British rule, and closer to 2/3 of the colonists in support, with close to half the rest not being opposed, just not in favor.

Note that while this requires speculation and inference, so does any estimate, including your "1/3". There is zero evidence that 40% were actually "neutral", which would require explicit statements by them that they are "neutral". That categorization is simply a default put on anyone that didn't take a clear public stand in favor or against continued British rule. Saying they were actually neutral is a baseless and implausible inference. My estimate is more reasonable because it takes account of various logically relevant sociological and psychological realities that we can be fairly certain were present because they basic to human beings.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I tend to agree. It could have been all Canada, from the Rio Grande to the North Pole.

I've been reading a lot of history books from the 1800's and early 1900's that spares no information about our founding fathers, their character, and why they fought the revolutionary war against Britian. They were no more noble than the Confederate leaders were later and fought for very wrong and ignoble purposes. The difference between the USA and the CSA is that even thought both were founded through treason the US won while the Confederacy lost. I don't want to derail this thread if someone wants to talk about it we can start another thread or talk through pm. George Washington was actually a scoundrel and a thief if these histories are correct and most of the founding fathers really more like mob godfathers. They made all kinds of promises to the US public to support them and even then could only get about a third to go along with them and after the war immediately reneged on most of their promises. What happened to the people over here who stayed loyal to the king was just horrible.

That's nice. The problem is, the secession documents of a few states put slavery dead center as the reason for seceding.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That's nice. The problem is, the secession documents of a few states put slavery dead center as the reason for seceding.

Yes, it is very hard for historical revisionists to assert that there were two reasons for the Civil War when the CSA was very clear and straightforward about how any second reason was an extremely distant second. It's also hard for them to ascribe moral equivalency to what other people were fighting for in different wars to how the CSA was clearly and explicitly fighting for the cause of slavery.