Civil war history without slave bullshit.?
I"m wanting to get a southern pride tattoo. a confederate flag with scrolls saying "Southern Pride" on them. My girlfriend doesn't want me to because she thinks it raceist. I told her that race has nothing to do with it and the civil war wasn't about even about slavary and yata yata like they teach that bullshit in public school. I've told her the north had just as many slaves as the south did and even had the main slave port in Maryiland. I told her the reason the civil war started was because the north was industrial and the south was agricultural and the federal governement would allow the south to send their exports (cotton) to England where it would had been cheaper for them otherthan the north. What is a good website that backs up the real reason of the civil war and doesn't talk all about slavary **** like they teach in public schools because it is very misleading. Both sides were guilty of slaves and hell most plantations I've read about even paid their slaves.
I gave you a thumbs up jamie. I knew it was something like that. I can't believe people think that hundreds of thoasands of people wouild sacrifice their lives and die over F&#@ing slaves. War is about money, it always has been!!!!
- 10 years agoBest Answer
~Even if one considers Washington DC, Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri (and the illegally and unconstitutionally admitted West Virginia) to be northern states, the southern states had exponentially more slaves than did the north in 1860. All northern states had abolished the practice for financial and economic reasons by 1837, although slaves were still extant in at least New York and New Jersey in 1865 if one carefully analyzes the abolition/emancipation legislation.
That being said, only an ignorant full believes the myth that the war was about slavery. it was NOT a civil war, and anyone with any understanding of the history of the USA knows that the colonies each became an independent nation when Great Britain granted independence by the Treaty of Paris in 1783. Those nations formed a confederation of nations under the Articles of Confederation then revised the alliance under the Constitution of the USA. At no time did they subsume their national independence and sovereignty into a greater single nation. They created a FEDERAL, not a NATIONAL, government to preside over limited areas of common interest but in all other things they retained their independent autonomy. The Founders and Framers all understood the member states (think, as they did, in terms of nation-states) to leave the confederation - to secede. The New England states knew they had the right to secede when they threatened to do it in 1803, 1812, 1814 and again in 1815. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson knew it when they authored the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions. States on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line knew it when they threatened to secede over the illegal and unconstitutional Missouri Compromises of 1820 and 1821. South Carolina knew it when she threatened to leave in 1837 during the Tariff Act/Nullification Act crisis. States in the north and south alike knew it when they threatened to secede over the constitutionally and legally correct decision of the Taney Court in the Dred Scott case, with the most voluble movements being those in New England. Abe Lincoln knew it when he argued in favor of the right on the floor of Congress on January 12, 1848. The right to leave a government that no longer serves, defends or protects the rights and interests of the governed is, after all, the very core principle of hte Declaration of Independence, the principle upon which, theoretically at least, the rebels and traitors based their insurrection and civil war in 1776. When the CSA states reclaimed the sovereignty, autonomy and independence they had never surrendered, the remaining states in the USA confederation invaded in a war of aggression with the goal of conquering and annexing those independent nations. As a result, the free and independent, democratically elected governments of the people, by the people, for the people of the CSA perished from the earth.
Did the CSA states secede in order to protect the right to own slaves? Look no farther than the US Constitution for the answer. Slave ownership was a constitutionally protected right, sanctioned and guaranteed by Article I, Sections 2 and 9, Article IV, Section 2 and Amendments IV, V, IX and X. Slavery could be abolished only by state law or constitutional amendment. No abolition amendment was ever proposed before 1864 for the simple reason that there was insufficient support in the north for ratification. The southern states would not have even had to vote to defeat it. In 1864, with the southern states absent, Congress considered an abolition amendment for the very first time. It failed to pass. Had it passed and been submitted to the ratification process, it would have failed. In 1861, the Republican dominated northern majority in Congress passed the Corwin Amendment. If ratified, Corwin would have become amendment XIII and would have prohibited and future attempt to offer an abolition/emancipation amendment. Rather than to stick around and ratify Corwin, the CSA states seceded. Why secede to protect a right already guaranteed, especially when the right was going to be guaranteed into perpetuity?
Secession was about finance, economics and political power and the northern invasion was about those issues as well as territorial expansion. The USA confederation needed the cash cow that was the south. By 1860, fully 75% of federal revenues were raised in the south, while 75% of federal spending occurred in the north. As the elections of 1860 proved, the South was totally disenfranchised and had no meaningful voice in the federal government. Lincoln was elected without carrying a single southern state and without even appearing on the ballot in several of them. The House of Representatives was controlled by an overwhelming northern majority and the Senate by a smaller northern majority. Since the President appoints Supreme Court Justices with the advice and consent of the Senate, it was but a matter of time before the Court would become a Northern club as well. Policies of the government and the northern bankers and industrialists were preventing the south from industrializing and diversifying its economy and driving the south in bankruptcy. Tariff laws passed by the northern controlled Congress made it all but impossible for the southern planters to trade competitively on the international market and northern money interests then set rock bottom prices on the captive southern goods. The British had already begun replacing southern cotton and tobacco with crops they began growing, or commissioning, in Egypt, Turkey, India and elsewhere and were not about to go to war over southern crops. The northern states were a far more formidable foe and a more valuable trade partner.
The democratically elected governments of the southern states passed the Ordinances of Secession and the southern people ratified those ordinances in convention or at the polls. The USA responded by invading. The USA not only needed the southern money, but did not want a potentially unfriendly nation on its southern border that might ally with Great Britain, France, Spain or Prussia and certainly did not want the competition for the theft of Native American lands in the West. If the Southern dominoes were allowed to fall, the rest of the USA confederacy might have collapsed along with them. Regional difference were rife and California could easily have reclaimed its independence, New England may have carried through on its many threats to secede and the mid-west may easily have decided that independent sovereignty was in its best interests. The illegal and unconstitutional Confiscation Acts and the later, equally illegal and unconstitutional and redundant Emancipation Proclamation were not moral humanitarian actions concerned with human rights and civil liberties. They were weapons of war, designed to cripple the southern economy, bankrupt the southern aristocracy, tear asunder the social fabric of the southern states and to bring about civil unrest, rioting, slave revolts and mass desertions from the CSA armies and officer corps. All of the north, as well as Kentucky, Maryland, Tennessee, Delaware, Missouri and large tracts of Virginia and Louisiana were exempt from its provisions and all a southern slave owner had to do to retain ownership of his human chattel was to renounce the CSA and swear allegiance and fealty to the USA. The north was not interested in the lot of the slaves. Lincoln himself wanted to settle freed slaves in colonies to be established for the purpose in the Caribbean, in unsettled regions of Missouri and Texan and/or in Indian Territory. He did NOT want them in his neighborhood and neither did anyone else.
All that being said, the "Stars and Bars", "The Stainless Banner", "The Blood Stained Banner" or any of the other CSA flags have come to be symbols of racism and white supremacy. Chances are, the flag you are considering for your tattoo is not the CSA national flag but the more commonly familiar Confederate battle flag. If you decide to do it, expect that your girlfriends reaction to it will by the majority opinion. Everything else being equal, I would hire another qualified applicant for a job, rejecting you on the basis of the tattoo and what it says to me about you.
- cp_scipiomLv 710 years ago
You are mostly right. the civil war/ war between the states was not about slavery. What is more, many black volunteers (both free men and slaves) served in the Confederate army- as armed soldiers- in integrated units (while the US army demanded segregation from the very start). proof is in the Battle of Gettysburg- where black soldiers made up about 5% of the men who made the "Pickett's Charge" (which is reflected in the numbers of those taken prisoner)
few plantations paid their slaves. However some slaves had a trade (shoe maker, iron smith, etc) and were hired to other plantations. The owner charged a fee and would allow the slave to keep a part of it- and either buy his own things or accumulate the money so as to buy himself out. Some plantation owners used the same system with normal slaves- thus increasing their working potential (the slave had something to look forward to and his work would be rewarded)
However the fact that you are right is beyond the point
because the stereotype of "confederacy = slavery = racism" is rampant (and you are correct- that is because of the brainwashing done in school). And THAT will make your public image. It will not matter that the slaves sent to the Americas (north and south) made up less than 5% of the black people captured in Africa (the rest were sent to Arabia and Algiers and very quickly died there). It does not matter that muslims are racially segregated or that they enslaved two continents. It will always be "white man's racism" and "confederate/southern racism"
So your confederate tatoo will brand you for life. Not exactly a good thing if your next employer will be a brainwashed liberal.
Having tatoos is also a bad thing if you're thinking of the armed forces or civil service
in short- you are right. but keep it under your hat
(I am from Poland and lived in the socialist times. keeping silent is sometimes the only option)
- KathyLv 44 years ago
The slaves that fought for the Union were promised freedom, and land, if they fought for the Union, so they gladly volunteered. Yes, they were in segregated units, and yes, they were the tip of the spear in many cases. But the reason why they were glad to fight was because they were fighting their oppressors. This was their Revolutionary War. Your last paragraph is rather insulting to the lives of Black slaves. They may have been on the plantation, but unless you were a house slave, you lived in complete squallor.
- 10 years ago
well no. contrary to what many americans believe slavery was not the first major issue.
the major issue that started it was the southern states wanting to declare independence from the northern states. however, in the constitution, states can not leave the federation!
so the war was about independence slavery became involved this way:
britain required much cotton in its factories (which the south made a lot of) so would have entered the war on the souths side against the north to protect its trade interests.
lincoln was a smart man. by saying that he would free slaves after the war it stopped britain from entering the side against the north.
britain had outlawed slavery many years before so it would have been a great embarrasment to britain on the world stage if it was fighting against another country that believed in freeing slaves.
so the original reason was not about slavery. slavery was just used to keep britain out of the war.
im gonna get many thumbs down from americans but its the truth....research it
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- AlfonzoLv 710 years ago
Whoever told you that the civil war wasn't about slavery is lying to you.
The southern states declared independence from the rest of the union because they wanted to spread slavery beyond the southeastern realm of influence. The Missouri Compromise wouldn't allow it, so they left the union. I don't know what they teach you in school, but this is fact.
If you want to get a tattoo of a confederate flag that's your right, but that flag will always be linked to the civil war and slavery. You also might want to consider getting one that says " I hate *****rs" also to have the matching pair.
There are plenty of better ways to express pride in your community than to brandish the confederate flag and try to spread the myth that the civil war wasn't about slavery.
- 10 years ago
you should get the tatoo because Confederate soldiers were Americans. At the end of the day when the rhetoric on both sides cease (which likely never will) there were 646,000+ casualties and this does not account for collateral damage incurred by Black or White Americans or North and South damage (though the South had much more).
Roughly 10% - 15% of the Stonewall Brigade were comprised of African Americans. We know this not from Southern documentation (they did not keep records on this fact or similar ones) but we know this from Northern documentation. Specifically, Northern spy documents on troop movements.
- Anonymous10 years ago
Well, you're certainly blithe about an abomination to humanity.
Plantations DID NOT pay their slaves.
Slavery was the central issue of the Civil War, and anybody who says otherwise is an unethical revisionist.
Ever hear of Alexander Stephens? He was the Vice President of the Confederacy and the man most responsible for writing the CSA Constitution. HE admitted that it was all about slavery, and I'll endorse what he says.