Maggie's Farm

"At the expense of blacks, who were punished by the South for generations."

It would be more accurate if you had said: "At the expense of blacks, who were punished by the Democrats for generations."

in 1861 there were maybe 10,000 or so people in the U.S. who owned slaves and about 600,000 total African slaves. There were literally millions of European indentured servants in the U.S. at that time. Both of these practices were slavery. Today one is ignored and the other is exalted by the professional victim class.

For most Southerners in 1861 the war was not about slavery it was about states rights. Being a born and raised Yankee I never accepted that but after spending years in the old South (1964, Old South compared with today) and knowing many Southerners I do accept that they fought for their rights and not for slaves. (Presumably some of those 10,000 slave owners fought for their slaves.) THAT is why West Point graduates fought for the South. They fought for the constitution they believed in and believed the North betrayed to acquire an economic advantage that the South held at the time. To the Southerners the war was a war to defend their constitutional rights and they believed this so strongly that they abandoned what they felt was a corrupt union. Almost without exception they were proud solid Americans who believed strongly in the constitution, so strongly that they felt they had to secede when the North abandoned the constitution in their effort to impoverish the South. Were they right and the North was wrong? I don't know because history and various factions have assured that the civil war will forever be attributed to be a war over slavery.

The real crime took place after the war. In their zeal to punish the South the North punished Southern whites and blacks ruthlessly such that the century of racism and discrimination that followed was inevitable. After all how would you feel as a poor Southerner who never owned a slave and likely never knew a slave but was punished and impoverished by the North 'because' of slavery that you had nothing to do with? The North split the union, then destroyed the South and followed it with years of misery which guaranteed the blacks and whites would hate each other.

Every individual involved in the civil war would probably point in a different direction if asked why they fought. The problem was that the war was the culmination of years of pushing and push back on both side. So like a bar fight between two people who don't like each other the reason gets lost or is something different depending on who you ask and when you ask.

But 98% of the Southern fighters did not have slaves. Most were dirt poor and slavery actually worked against their economic interests. Most of the Southern politicians and elite did have slaves, and they did resent the North telling them to free them. BUT! THIS was an economic argument not a "slavery" argument. The "slave" became a point of contention but the rich landowner was angry that the North would dictate to them and that as a result they would go broke and the Northern traders would become richer. For the elite in the North this was absolutely about economics and how they could grab some of the trade the South was enjoying.

For many in the North and the South slavery was an abomination but it was there and not easily ended. Again 99% of Southerners did not own slaves. And 100% of Americans did not bring the slaves here it was all done by the Dutch and English. 100% of the slaves were sold to these ships captains by Moslem slave traders and 99% of those slaves were sold to the Moslems by black tribal chieftains (very different from the movie Roots). All of the slaves were brought into an American port without regard to law or right in much the same way drugs are now smuggled in from Mexico and Columbia. To impune all Southerners over slavery when they had no say so about it happening, no country even during most of time slaves were brought in by foreign ships and no legal authority to prevent it (in spite of all the moralizing by the North) is just wrong and inaccurate.

So why did the South fight? IMHO it is almost identical to why the left/liberals riot and destroy stuff today because Trump was elected. The Southerners identified with being "Southerners" and were fully aware that the "Northerners" were against them. The North would push and the South would push back. Most of this happened in national politics, in congress and in the press and not typically by individuals. But every Southerner was aware that the North was pushing them and their pride made them willing to go give those Northern boys a whupping. They didn't have slaves they hoped to keep if the secession had been successful they only had their pride. What was said in the press and by individuals was more in anger than factual. Some good old boy share cropping 20 acres in Alabama with a wife and three kids didn't give two hoots about some rich plantation owners slaves but he was first and foremost a "Southerner" and no damned Yankee was gonna push him around. So he fought, he gladly joined the confederacy to teach those damned Yankees a lesson. Not for slavery...

I see you are so very proud of your virtue signaling. So be it. It suffices for intelligence and knowledge.

As someone once said to Ross Perot; whatya mean "you people"? I am not a Southerner, not a fan of Jim Crow or discrimination, but also not willing to curb my opinions to fit political correctness.

Don't let my nom de plume fool you I liked the movie and that was pretty much the entire reason I chose that nickname.

There were some pretty bad things that happened in the old South. On both sides. Today, there is a new South. Racism by whites is rare. However racism by blacks is rampant. Who could have seen that coming??? In 1964 I could walk anywhere in New Orleans day or night . Today, I wouldn't walk anywhere at night in NO and would skip a lot of NO during the day. Ditto for about a couple dozen other large cities in America. Who commits all this crime, who makes it unsafe to walk the streets of big cities today. Not the Muslims (yet). Not the Mafia. Usually not the illegal aliens. Nope, just one group of people are the cause of most of those murders and violent crimes. This is the new South or more correctly the new America where there is literally a race war on unreported by the press and the left. Why? Because it is the "wrong" race causing all this mayhem. The Democrats can't get elected by telling the
truth about that and the elite want to make believe it isn't happening and AGW is the biggest threat.

So slur everyone who lived South of the Mason Dixon line if it makes you feel good but even in the entire bad "old South" the actual murder rate in 1964 or 1954 was less than just Chicago. And incredibly, no one cares how many blacks are killed in Chicago. Why? Because the politicians can't mine it for votes, the race baiters can't mine it for dollars, and the elite don't want to be disinvited from the cocktail parties. So... what to do... I know, lets resurrect all the hype about the Jim Crow laws, that should be good for some virtue signaling...

As I stated my nom de plume choice had nothing to do with the civil war or what I know about the civil war. I have to assume that you choose that argument because you don't have anything else.

Here is where I think you went wrong: Although I am debating why most Southerners fought the civil war YOU are debating what the war was about as decided by historians. You may be right; the historians may be right. But that is not why most Southerners fought. They fought out of pride and because they were being pushed into it and in their minds they had little other choice. Most Southern soldiers didn't own slaves and didn't want slaves.

Awww Ten, You are still unhappy because I don't believe in magic food.