Was the Civil War about slavery?

Terry Garlock's picture

This year marks the 150th anniversary of America’s Civil War, and the occasion is raising the perennial argument over whether that war was about slavery or state’s rights. While the history and politics of slavery in America would fill a long bookshelf, the debate is an occasion to look past the simplicity of pop history to a few highlights that illuminate some warts and wrinkles in our country’s beginnings.

Long before slavery spread to North America, the practice had taken deep root in the Caribbean and what we now call Central and South America, brought by European colonists along with their more advanced civilization, Christianity and a few virulent diseases.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting by comparison the natives were pure. All over the world, humans have been killing and enslaving each other since long before any written history, with the spoils going to the strongest. Our own native Americans practiced a rich variety of brutality and slavery, though a few tribes like the Cherokee Nation were extraordinarily civilized, making our lousy treatment of them particularly egregious.

As colonies in North America became established, the British soon recognized the profit potential in slavery for labor-intensive agriculture. It seems the smell of gold can nudge our susceptible minds to rationalize almost anything, and the crop-intensive southern colonies soon built a slave-based economy. A lot of that money found its way back to England, and some would use the moral excuse that the system of slavery was forced on them by the king.

In 1776 when the colonies were struggling against the chokehold of the British, they finally broached the subject of independence. While they debated in the Philadelphia Continental Congress meetings, the elephant in the room nobody wished to mention was slavery.

The colonies had never before acted in concert on anything, and leading spokesmen knew they had a chance to unite to fight for independence, or they could fight each other over slavery, but that either choice precluded the other. Southern colonies would tolerate no intrusion into the slavery base of their economy. Northern colonies held a rather convenient morally dim view on slavery since their pocketbook was not affected, but they soon learned they had to postpone dealing with the abomination of slavery in order to gain the cooperation of southern colonies.

The first meetings did not even consider the treasonous idea of independence. When John Adams of Massachusetts sensed the Congress shifting towards his notion of independence, he made a strategic offer to form a committee to draft a declaration while negotiations continued. Adams persuaded Thomas Jefferson to draft the statement since Jefferson was a persuasive writer.

Jefferson was from Virginia, one of the southern slave colonies and the most populous by far. Jefferson’s paradox was that he owned hundreds of slaves to work his plantation while he was philosophically opposed to the slavery system, and in his list of grievances against the king he inserted the following language into his draft, surely knowing the firestorm of division it would create:.

“... Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms against us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them, thus paying off former crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another ...”

The drafting committee, perhaps Adams or Franklin, struck this slavery language out of the Declaration of Independence, replacing it with the following vague reference to the King’s promise of freedom to slaves in the colonies who would join the British to fight their masters: “... He has excited domestic Insurrections among us; ...”

And thus began what I would call a conspiracy of silence on the subject of slavery in America. Those deeply involved in politics kept this festering division under wraps, America’s version of a crazy aunt locked in an attic, not to be discussed openly, the subject of whispers in dark corners to preserve a fragile union.

Thomas Jefferson may have been bold in drafting his indictment of the British on the subject of slavery, possibly thinking that would absolve him and other slave owners, but the truth is not quite so tidy. While Jefferson accomplished many notable things in his life, the subject of slavery was not one to give him any cause of pride.

For such a powerful and influential writer, he was remarkably silent on slavery even while others railed against the inhumanity and injustice of the system. In the decades following the Revolution, the population of freed slaves in Virginia grew rapidly as one after another slave owner freed their slaves as a matter of conscience, or included such freedom at their death by their will. But while some of his fellow Virginians were setting their slaves free, Jefferson never did.

When the war ended with America’s independence in 1781, the country operated under Articles of Confederation until the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 to shape the form of our government. At last, America’s great thinkers were gathering to decide how we would govern ourselves, and surely the slavery issue would be finally settled, wouldn’t it?

In the Pennsylvania State House, over three months the representatives of the former colonies, now states, worked and argued, forming factions to support this or oppose that. The southern states were most interested in preserving their status quo on slavery while large and small states were at each others’ throats over the issue of apportionment and how votes in Congress would be counted.

As a prime example of Congress’ noxious deal-making specialty, northern states struck a bargain with southern states to extend the slave trade for 20 years in exchange for making federal regulation of commerce a mere majority vote in Congress instead of requiring a two-thirds majority. It seems that northern morality, just as southern morality, had its price.

The infamous Constitutional clause (Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3) counting slaves as three-fifths of a person is often derided as a gross example of racism, but that over-simplified view is mistaken even though the truth is not much better.

The fraction was a negotiated deal on enumeration to determine how taxes were distributed and how many representatives a state would have. Northern states didn’t want slaves counted at all, while southern slave states wanted slaves counted as a full person. Three-fifths was the compromise, the best deal either side could strike.

And so America’s Constitution was formed with nary an honorable attempt to get rid of slavery. While the new federal government kicked the slavery can down the road, the issue was bubbling at the state level and some states passed their own abolition laws.

By the time the first shot of the Civil War was fired in 1861, there had been ongoing struggles over slavery and compromises on the spread of slavery to western territories. Maybe the war and its bloodbath were inevitable, made necessary by deep, unresolved differences that grew into resentment, suspicion and suppressed anger just below the surface and ready to blow at the slightest provocation.

Does President Abraham Lincoln deserve the accolades he still receives for freeing the slaves in the Emancipation Proclamation? He said, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. ...”

Lincoln held the proclamation in abeyance as he waited impatiently for a Union victory on the battlefield to make the announcement, apparently to maximize political effect.

Furthermore, it was announced in September 1862, as a provision that would go into effect only for those Confederate states who had not returned to the Union by the following January. No Confederate state complied, and when Emancipation was announced on Jan. 1, 1863, it was an order to free 3 million slaves in the Confederate states where the Union held no power to enforce it, and it did not free the nearly 1 million slaves in Union states.

Secretary of State William Seward said of this absurdity, “We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.”

Lincoln, a Republican, angered northern Democrats with this proclamation as they favored ending the war by accepting slavery. Both parties have committed far too many offenses since that time for either to claim any virtue on the matter.

Personally, I think Lincoln was a great man and a fine President, albeit with many flaws, illustrating our tendency to overlook facts to simplify history and beatify our favorite historical figures.

Was the Civil War about slavery? Well, sure it was, but it was also about the absolute unwillingness of some states to bend to the will of outsiders, and it was about the cowardice of Congress to deal with tough issues, to sweep problems under the rug, to postpone controversy so someone else might handle it in the future, to trade away the most profound principles for a little mutual back-scratching.

Sound familiar?

[Terry Garlock lives in Peachtree City and occasionally contributes a column to The Citizen. His email is terry@garlock1.com.]

BHH
BHH's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2011
This is such old news.

There is way too much discussion over this.

The facts are all history.

Too much is happening today to dwell on this crap.

This war has been fought (and won or lost).

The slaves are all free.

Get on with life.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
BHH : Slavery in US

After nearly 150 years since freedom for most blacks, and maybe another 100 years when it started here. It is still the cause of much of our political problems and social interaction!

That is why it is not resolved. Even when a man considered black because one of his parents was black, is elected President of the United States of America, there must be at least 35% of the population who do not trust him simply due to his "race."

We have had much more liberal presidents before President Obama but they were despised due to philosophy--not race!

We were slow to help the minorities catch up, now the minorities are slow to try and catch up.

I would suppose that having relatives who were slaves might cause one to take longer to assimilate than did our other minorities at one time or the other such as Italians, Irish, Germans, Jews, Asians an others.
Ou American Indians refused to assimilate at all with rare exceptions due to their small numbers after our slaughters, and have found a gambling niche that supports those willing to stay sober. They are doomed!

BHH
BHH's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2011
Yes yes, roundabout

You are right.

It's a shame.

When traveling out west I was amazed to find that there were no hotels to stay in at "ship rock" because it was on a reservation. Arriving in the area after dark searching for the site we had to leave the area to find a place to sleep for the night because the locals did not cater to tourist.

I object to the assumptions that a person is black just because they have some history of black ancestry when Indian ancestry does not make you Indian.

I know mulattoes who are as comfortable being considered white as anyone. At the same time they are accepted as black in the black community although envied and sometimes rejected and discriminated against for their smooth features.

Even those in the melting pot are not immune to this crap.

People need to just get over it and get on with life.

Everyone gets abused at some time in their life.

It's just human nature.

Juvenile at best, but human nature.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Slaves/incentive

Germans, Jew, Asians and others were paid for their labor. They had an incentive to achieve. Those 'slaves' who were taught to read and treated like humans, did achieve. There are blacks and whites in this state who are not living much differently from the underachievers in the late 1800's. Skin color alone does not determine
a humans achievement. Until the current situation of substandard education and the lack of employment, I looked down on any 'white' person who did not achieve their full potential in this country. I have a different view today. Regardless of color, it takes hard work and perseverance to achieve

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Tennessee Secedes!

Give credit to the Tennessee assembly, their secession document basically says, 'We're Outta Here!'

However, in the governor's speech calling for a referendum on secession, he mentions the world slave or slavery 55 TIMES! He mentions the word tax, ONCE! And that is in reference to taxes on the products of slave labor!

Sugarfoot--I'm waiting for them young'uns! If you are past the fertile years, I'll take some of them grandkids! I'll love them just like a pet!

Dead Men Don't Lie!

http://americancivilwar.com/documents/isham_harris.html

Go Hawks! BTW, How are the Celtics doing? They still in this thing?

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Texas Secedes Too!

Seems those Texans were riled up about the North taking away their slaves, too! Sugarfoot, I want them young'uns! They will be much better off with me than you! In addition to loving them as much as a pet, I will teach them how to be golf caddies to boot! No whipping on Sundays! No selling them unless I just feel like it!

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

Go Rangers!

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
The Civil War

There would have been no American Civil War had there been no slavery!

You know that, I know that, and historians know that.

Therefore, the war was caused by slavery in the south, primarily.

I suppose some Americans will never admit that slavery was very wrong and could have been avoided if rich plantation owners had not bought slaves. Yes, crops would have been higher in price due to paid labor but the price paid to get rid of it was enormous!

Using illegals for labor by companies is almost the same thing--they hire them. Yet the companies claim they want a big fence--they do not.

We are born selfish, obviously and without many laws would stay that way!

BHH
BHH's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2011
Slave owners were the entrepreneurs of the day.

They were NOT all rich plantation owners.

This was a time before tractors and a slave was as much a liability as an asset. The owner came to love them as much as any livestock or pet and even friend or marriage partner.

It was a dynamic that we can only imagine.

Slave owners were sometimes people of compassion who were willing to pursue slave ownership to see that there were better living conditions for those they could afford.

All slave owners were not ogres.

The FACT is that we all earn our living "by the sweat of our brow" and many blacks (and whites for that matter) cannot accept this FACT.

Even rich people have to work to maintain their riches.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
BHH, Are You Married

to Suggarfoot? If so, perhaps you two could have a few kids and send them over my way to be slaves, as I'm sure my house is nicer than yours and closer to the golf course too! I would love them just as much as my pets and not whip them too much! I might even teach them to read and write a little, if there is time left after all their slave work! I can't promise that I won't sell them though, as they might bright a fair price in the market for kids in the Middle East! Let me know if you and Sugar are interested!

Go Braves and Hawks!

BHH
BHH's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2011
Ninja Guy

I have no knowledge of sugarfoot.

My attention span is not long enough to read his or her comments.

Who are the "Braves" and the "Hawks"?

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
BHH: That is Good to Know!

The Atlanta Hawks basketball team and the Atlanta Braves baseball team. You not a sports fan?

Go Hawks!

BHH
BHH's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/11/2011
Ninja Guy, neither should be a profession.

Only a fan on rare occasions.

Baseball shouldn't be a profession.

Basketball I rate only as high as dodge ball and shouldn't be news or a profession.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
How Much of the Taxes Did the South Pay?

The South paid far more that its far share of taxes before the war. Just four Southern States–Virginia,
North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia–paid 75% of all federal taxes. Just think, three out of every four
dollars sent to Washington, D.C. were from just four Southern States and all the other Southern States
contributed as well. Why should they have to pay the bill for public spending in the North?

How Could Taxes Be Levied So Unfairly?

It is what they call a tariff. Tariffs are not necessarily a bad thing, but when one segment of society is more likely to need imported goods, that segment of society will be paying more in tariffs. (See our
publication, What Your Teacher Probably Won’t Tell You About Tariffs.)
High tariffs were intentionally enacted to unfairly target the South. It was a well-known fact that the Southern economy needed to import more foreign goods than the North.

How Did the Slavery Theory Come Into Being?

In the early years of the War, slavery was not much of an issue. At Lincoln’s first inaugural address, he proposed an Amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing that slavery would remain in effect wherever it
was legal. He invited the Southern States to rejoin the union hoping that his proposed Amendment would woo them back.

So, if preserving slavery had been the issue, the South had their man in Lincoln.

They could have supported his Amendment and there would have been no war. But slavery was not the issue.

As this unpopular war continued to drag on, abolitionists encouraged Lincoln to consider the war to end slavery. But Lincoln refused. He was only interested in keeping the South and the tax money it paid to his
federal government. That is why Lincoln wanted to preserve the union.
His infamous “Emancipation Proclamation” was an unsuccessful attempt to start a servile insurrection in the South, and to impede increasing popular support in Europe for the Confederacy. He was already making
plans to deport the freed slaves after the war.

But the war was very brutal and ugly.

The Northern Army had been committing serious war crimes against the people of the South, both black and white.

They needed to give a good reason to gain public
support for the war.

So when the North was on the verge of winning the war, the Lincoln administration began to recast it into a war against slavery. It is like the kid who has his fingers caught in the cookie jar, who says anything
he can think of to justify his behavior and hopes that it will be believed.

After the War, Why Didn’t the South Try to Set the Record Straight?

They did, but hardly anyone could get the message.

The reason was Reconstruction.

After the “Civil War,” the U.S. Army occupied the South for several years. The victorious North stripped many Southerners
of their basic rights and even denied their children proper education. (See our publication, What Your
Teacher Probably Won’t Tell You About Reconstruction.)

However, many of those who survived the war wrote down their experiences during the war. We don’t know of even one of them who claimed that preserving slavery was the reason for the war or the reason that
their State seceded.

How Could We Have Ended Slavery?

Without the “Civil War”?
Slavery had been going out of style for years. Every other Western country rid itself of slavery without
any significant violence, with one exception. Within 25 years of the end of the “Civil War,” the last two
Western countries, Cuba and Brazil outlawed it peacefully.

What Would Have Happened Had the South Won the War?

It is hard to say what would have happened if something had been different.

But it is safe to say that slavery would have probably remained legal for a while in Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and what would become West Virginia, as well as any other slave State that remained in the union.

Slavery would have eventually died out in the South, as well as the North.

Most likely, it would have happened before 1888, when it was outlawed in Brazil.

The South had been talking about how to bring slavery to an end for years before the War.

The tax-and-spend Republicans in the North would have had to raise taxes up North or they would have needed to find some other country to invade and ravish.
Most likely, the Southern economy would have been strong and primarily agrarian. Small farms, with self-sufficient farming families would have likely remained common for many years, perhaps to this day.

In all likelihood, North America would have developed into two or more associations of States. Those separate countries would have had close alliances with each other and would have been as strong as, or
stronger than the nations of Europe, and would be world leaders.

However, we can be fairly sure about some things. The sovereignty of the States would be firmly established. States would be free to leave the union and join another confederacy or vise versa, or they could
be completely independent. The individual citizen’s freedom from the oppression of a central government with unlimited power would have been preserved.
-By T.V. Weber, author of The Crumbling Wall Against Tyranny
League of the South
STUDENT GUIDE SERIES ©
www.sclos.

STUDENT GUIDE SERIES ©
www.sclos.
www.sclos.org/Papers/What%20Your%20Teacher-%20Civil%20War.pdf

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Sugarfoots reference

Another reason for students to be exposed to different versions and analysis of historical events. Winners and losers are bound to have different perspectives

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Suggarfoot / Indians in the Civil War

http://www.civilwarhome.com/unionconfedindians.htm

http://thomaslegioncherokee.tripod.com/cherokeeindiansandtheamericancivi...

There are many other references. If these 'facts' had been included in our textbooks, we would not feel that the Indian was not part of the Civil War. Take time to browse all references. Make your own decision as to 'truth'.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Well Dm

These battles don't appear to have anything to do with the battles suggarfoot questioned, but hey, nice try.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Hutch

We're talking about all Civil War battles and historical sites. Sugar seemed to feel that Indians were not part of the Civil War theater. I'm not here to argue Hutch, just to share some history that seems to be overlooked.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Dm

I'm not here to argue either, just making an observation. IMHO, you missed her point.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Hutch

The Sugar quote below is what I was responding to,

Quote:

ALL THE DAKTOA 'CIVIL WAR' BATTLES...ALL FIGHTING THE INDIANS. (man were these guys confused) If they couldn't tell an Indian from a Rebel..well I don't know what to say.. And if you took your kids to these sites as Civil War battle fgrounds, I'm equally appalled

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Calling All Civil War Historians!

Why don't ya'll take a look at the South Carolina secession document if you want to know what caused the Palmetto State to up and leave the Union!

Seems to me it was ALL about slavery! Can anyone read this document and NOT conclude that South Carolina seceded because of slavery?

http://history.furman.edu/~benson/docs/decl-sc.htm

Go Hawks! Magic gone, Bulls next!

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
South Carolina: Birthplace of Treason

Great find, Ninja Guy!

That document is the most pathetic attempt to rationalize slavery I've ever read. "Gosh, we really don't WANT to secede but our hand is forced because America elected a poopyhead we don't approve of, and there's a good chance he'll violate the sacred Constitution by giving THOSE people some of the rights we good and proper White folks enjoy, a concept never intended by our beloved Founding Fathers, so we HAVE to secede!"

This "States Rights" revisionist derp promulgated by Brave Terry Garlock, Hero of Vietnam™ is simply a smokescreen.

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
OK, Chrispy

As a seventh generation South Carolinian I simply have to call BULL to your assertion of my home state being the birthplace of treason. While Ninja's little cut and paste attempt to make a point does substantiate the fact that slavery was a substantial reason for secession, but anyone of Roundabout's mental acumen would know it was simply not the sole reason. I would offer that the great majority of those who gave their lives while fighting for the Confederacy never owned slaves. The fact is the Civil War began just like many others whereby fat assed politicians placed their greed above the welfare of the populace and were unwilling to compromise.

I fully realize that your astute liberal mind makes it quite difficult for you to rationalize that there simply are reasons men elect to fight. Sure the reasons may well not be worth the heartache in the long run, but fight they will. I would offer that those who like Terry Garlock chose to fight because he felt an obligation just as his parents did a generation earlier, and when committed his survival instinct took over.

To me it's funny that those who most promote and villify war never seem to be the ones who fight it.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
Mike and Hutch. I can't believe the Civil War is still being

argued, but I will ask you both one question:

Would life for me, my parents, their parents, and my kids have been better if The South had won? Easy for you to say it was not mainly about slavery, Mike. I would beg to differ.

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
Kevin

I guess we have strayed from the original thread as is the norm here, but if I might, Kevin, answer by rewording your question. Would you, your parents, their parents, and your kids be better off if there never was slavery in the USA?

I cannot honestly answer either question, but it does provoke a bit of thought that perhaps we can discuss over an adult beverage.

BTW, we still are delinquent in getting ours daughters together.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
Mike, once finals are over...

We'll git after it. Speaking of Git? Where is that guy? Probably Disney World again.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Hack

I have a question for you, show me anywhere on here where I argued for either side, I just called Dm on some more of her twisting what someone said. I hope you can live with that.

kevink
kevink's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/07/2011
Hutch my brother from another mother...

Not talking about you and DM. Talking about this extremely long thread on a war that dun bin fought. Other than touring the beautiful battle grounds in Vicksburg, and appreciating the sacrifices and loss of life on both sides, I just don't understand why this remains an issue which we create dividng lines and argue over. It was what it was and I'm glad to have been given the opportunities of any other American. Period.

What a wonderful day today is. God I'd love to buy those SEALS and DELTA force members, pilots and crew chiefs a beer or two to get 'em talking about yesterday's operation. What fine young people we have in this country. The Navy, Army, AF, and Marines make them great warriors, but you gotta start with something special. And we gots that here.

Cheers

ps: Probably Navy maintenance got that first helicopter :-D

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
Kevink

Let me apologize to you and say you would have to be around awhile to understand why this thread is so long.

DM has been at this for YEARS! and I do mean years.

If you said frogs were falling from the sky, she would say there weren't enough black ones and she was being abused.

If you said it was a pretty day, she would respond, not 150 years ago for my ancestors.

She has done this for YEARS.. people get sick of it and call her hand, and she goes back to this 'can't we just all get along'.

As I said, my black friend do not act that way. And I respect them as people and friends.

She is a relic of the past that won't let go. What you have seen is her delightfully 'thumping' all the 'whities' time after time till they rise to the occasion.
She does noting to promote unity and everything to cause agitation.

The article about was the war about slavery was her wet dream of an excuse. please accept my apology for my participation.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Kevink, It Remains An Issue Because

the Scots Irish refuse to let go of the past and admit that they got whupped good! The Japanese hold no grudges despite those two nukes!

Braves Vs. Brewers Tonight!

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Mike King

Mike, you have to remember here, that ninja compares our military to your ordinary street gang that makes a living robbing and killing for fun. The fact that except for our military he might actually be dealing with some kind of ninja doesn't seem to enter his mind.

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
Hello Hutch

Hopefully, you'll join Gym and I for adult conversation and beverage the next time I can con him out of his comfort zone. We'd certainly love to have you and that somewhat addled cousin of mine Kevin.

Ninja, I believe to be OK. A bit young and less experienced perhaps, but he does seem to listen which is certainly a plus.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Thank You Mike!

You are close to being very correct! Did you do a stint in MI? Young? perhaps younger than you and of course no military service--4F in too many ways!

I think you are entirely correct in that there is a certain segment of the ruling class that glorify war to entice the young and impressionable to do their bidding. But also, I think there are some ex-warriors that do the same! Rather than tauting honor, service, and sacrifice, I think those that have faced the fires of military conflict could better serve our youth by telling that that, if you go, you might not come back, if you do come back, you might be missing some parts, including some in your head, and at the very least, probably won't have a peaceful night of sleep for the rest of your life!

You might also be correct on Julio. The more I think about it, the more I like it. Also, they got Akeem Dent, who could play a fair bit this year!

Have a good day!

Go Braves!

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
Ninja

Darn! I guess Fredi is going to have to relook his late inning pitching.

Knowing the long version of MI, I believe the term to be an oxymoron, and no I have done no such stint.

I agree with all you have stated above with the exception of warriors enticing the young and impressionable into an armed confrontation (if that is what you mean). I have been priviledged to know a number of warriors, none of which went looking for a fight, but Heaven help you if you forced their hand.

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Mike King , MI & Oxymoron

Mike, did the announcement last night about OBL perhaps attenuate your belief just a tad perhaps?

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
Now Gym

Certainly, but thirteen years after the first WTC bombing? Great job by a great band of young men!

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Yep, Closers Ain't Closing

No, what I mean is that some warriors that made it back from the battlefield make war sound somewhat glorious to the young and impressionable (I'm thinking TG), who might sign up and get sent off to Afghanistan with dreams of Semper Fi rather than the reality of I Might Die (or mistakingly kill some innocents in the fog of war, take deadly friendly fire, have a brain injury, lose my eyesight, step on a mine, lose a leg, etc.)!

Hawks on Sunday--Beat The Bulls!

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
Ninja

My friend, you could not be more mistaken about Mr Garlock, for he seeks but to only relay what is factual. I've read his articles for some years now, I have read his book (I would ask that you do the same), and I am proud to call him a friend. Terry has yet to make any assertion to my knowledge that war is anything that resembles glorious.

Your line of warriors returning and blowing their horns about their exploits are likely persons who have yet to hear a round fired in anger. An example I would site would be the hesitancy or unwillingness of a WWII veteran speaking of his experiences except in the company of those with whom he served, and then very late in life. For to do so these souls would have to relive the utter agony, despair, and loss they have purposely hidden away to ease their pain.

But to your credit there are some who will for reasons that defy logic, in my opinion.

Hawks, Braves just win baby!

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Mike: Mr. Garlock

I re-read his article again about Thomas Jefferson and the proposal he supposedly submitted about slavery. I could not understand it, especially it coming from a man who had scores of slaves and at least one of whom he was having an illegal and illicit affair, to her disadvantage!

Some things are written to be obliterated, nd I believe this to be the case with Jefferson since he did not get rid of his slaves and hire them back.

Mr. Garlock's service, heroic as it was, has nothing to do with newspaper articles about conservatism.
He does have a way of "greasing up" a slick paragraph to show cover-up for certain sins of some, such as the founding "fathers!"

Just as Nixon will one day be honored as a strong and faithful President.

Such things are required for many people- to be able to worship "leaders."
Mao, creature that he was, will always be a hero to China since in their opinion all his crimes and personal lack of character are outweighed by his formation of a Communist government for them!

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
Well Roundie....

Consider that the easiest way for an elected leader or statesman to be villified is to piss off the journalists. Of course, the opposite is also true.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Mike: Journalists

Historians determine the worth of a leader after many years of study and results. They usually say they were leaders with fallacies. We are pretty much still "sheep."

Journalists (such as they are now) excite people currently with their first two considerations always incorrect!

Publishing after at least two checks has left us.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Baseball and warriors

If you want to win baseball games, you must score more runs than the other team---starting pitchers ain't got much to do with it. They just about all pitch with a 3.0 per nine innings!

If you can't score 4-5 runs, you won't win! You got too few good hitters and too many sorry hitters!

Atlanta's pitchers can hold the runs to 1 or 2 and the other team gets a homer or something and wins 2-1 and Atlanta fans blame that pitcher!

Now-- Warriors. What the heck is a warrior, I thought we were talking baseball? I haven't seen a guy on a horse with a big long stick in face to face with another warrior my life!

Right now we send drones with bombs and kill Kadhaffi family members, further irritating those riding camels and shooting from pick-up trucks.

We haven't touched an oil well with a bomb yet! Kadhaffi will set them on fire soon just as did Saddam.

Where is Red Adair and John Wayne?

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Roundabout Baseball

Well, the other team(s) win 2-1 against us! Why can't we do the same!

Yogi Berra said it best when he said,

"All pitchers are liars or crybabies."

Go Hawks!

G35 Dude
G35 Dude's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/15/2006
Hey Mike K.

Mike, The estimates that I've heard most is that 10 - 20% of southerners owned slaves. However what no one wants to discuss is how many northerners owned slaves. The boarder states, slave states that stayed in the union, the estimates are equal or even higher. At one point in the war it is reported that the Confederates offered to free all slaves for independence. Lincoln refused this offer as he said that he did not recognize the Confederacy as a legal government with which he could bargain. This was an interesting response since he had earlier offered to allow the Confederate states to keep their slaves if they would return to the union.

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
G35 Dude

Your estimates may be a bit high because most slaveowners in South Carolina just prior to 1861 were descendants of the British Sympathizers during that little conflict beginning in 1776. Generally speaking, small farmers were of Irish and Scottish heritage who had no real devotion to the plantation owners, but valued their independence and property to the point of fighting for it.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
The Poor Whites Did Not

have to directly own slaves to have an interest in continuing the system! First, the freeing of the slaves would unleash a fierce storm of competition in farming and other trades for the non-slaveholder whites. Second, the freeing of the slaves would erode what little status the poor whites had! Third, most the the non-slave-owning poor whites were hard-headed Scots Irish, making genetically disposed toward violence and mayhem! So, to say that one had to actually own slaves to be willing to fight for the system is incorrect!

Hawks vs. Bulls Tonight!

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
Ninja...did you think that one up all by yourself?

this is the last time I'm going to add you cause you are a serious nut case.

You really are looking through a kaleidoscope or playing with a ouija board.

Irish were coming off the boat daily..starving Irish. They would work themselves to death for a crust of bread. They would work for pennies a day. The big time slave owners were already employing them. They said in many old journals they were happy with them. They paid them little, didn't have to feed them, cloth them, or house them. If you think the blacks were going out in the fields and preforming some kind of special magic, guess again.

Slavery was on it's way out.

I'm not going on with the conversation with you or David's Mom and her talks of war painted rebels in Minnesota and North Dakota being massacred by US troops.

The bottom line is I am not apologizing for what happened 150 years ago, nor is anyone else.

I'm afraid you would have to get in line for the pity pot behind many whites, namely the first white Irish slaves brought here, then the free, but starving ones of the 1840-1850s. They have long since kicked the pity pot aside and gone on with their lives. The have too much pride.

I suggest to try to grow some. (Take that as pride, or appendages).

My Name Here
My Name Here's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/01/2010
Suggarfoot

You are right; poor, starving Irish people came to the US to work for pennies. Families of young Scots/Irish ladies were especially exploited, being told that their daughters could have a better life working as domestic indentured servants in the US. All too often, those young ladies arrived in the US only to find that they were being put to work in brothels with no means to contact their families or go back home. Scots/Irish men worked on the docks in various harbors (which resulted in the Longshoremen's Union that the Irish in the Port of Savannah control to this day). Scots/Irish men could work their way up to be overseers on plantations where the dynamic of the pauper king resulted in vicious and depraved behavior toward the slaves. But I will not argue that it did not take hard work to get just that little bit of power.

Having said that, the thing that you are missing -- the one salient difference between antebellum slaves and Scots/Irish -- is that those Scots/Irish had a Choice to come to the US in the first place. Yes, they were hungry. Yes, they were desperate. But in every situation there was a choice. They could have sought their fortunes elsewhere on the European continent. They could have started a revolution in the UK. Even the earliest Scots/Irish could have paid their debts or remain in debtors' prison instead of coming to the US. Instead, they chose to get on the boat and gamble on a better life. Sometimes you win; sometimes you lose. But make no mistake about the fact that the life they found in the US was the product of a choice that no African slave was ever offered.

As for an apology, don't worry your pretty little head. Keep it. It would be meaningless at this point from someone who did not commit the original sin of slavery. But, when you're done crying in your Guinness, get off your pity pot, pull up your big girl panties and understand that the descendants of those who chose to come here have always enjoyed a fuller measure of the protections of citizenship under the US Constitution. The descendants of slaves up to the 1970s, were made to pay the price of being burned, hosed, beaten, lynched, shot and economically starved -- often with the participation of Scots/Irish law enforcement, racist judges and officials they could not legally elect -- to earn those same rights.

Go ndéana an diabhal dréimire de chnámh do dhroma is é ag piocadh úll i ngairdín Ifrinn!

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
the devil won't use my spine to pick apples ..thank you

..I pray to God and he takes care of me. thank you for pasting an Irish saying..

That being said.

I keep saying this is my last response..

You are still crawling in self pity..

Scott Irish women came with parents. I don't know what you are reading...and I don't care..and am not going there with you. But I will say the common thread I'm hearing in your collective reasoning is depravity...you might want to think on that. A curious and disturbing thing.

I'm not going to dance with you...the deal is..everyone has earned their respect the hard way in this country...

Why don't you try it?

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Those Small Farmers

also valued not being arrested or shot or both by the conscription squads, at least the ones that couldn't hire someone to take their place!

I do blame that Scots Irish mentality partly for the willingness of the South to fight!

Oh yeah, seems those Mississippians had slavery at the top of their grievance list too!

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declaration.asp

I think CSA president Jefferson Davis said it best when he said,

"My own convictions as to negro slavery are strong. It has its evils and abuses...We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude...You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be."

me.and_the_sea
me.and_the_sea's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/23/2010
Ninja is right Davis was on to something

"My own convictions as to negro slavery are strong. It has its evils and abuses...We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude...You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be."

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
I do blame that Scots Irish mentality partly for the willingness

of the South to fight!"

Ignorance is bliss. You can ...blame...anyone you want and wallow in self pity, or you can move forward.

I, nor no other Southerner will give you an apology for the war. We don't owe you one.

As for your slam of the Scot Irish (Normans), their bravery and honesty, along with that of the Irish, early Germans, etc, helped make this county great.

It has been said that religion was the opium of the masses in early years.

After the founding of this county, unity, was the opium. In many many ways, it was a good thing. The founders of this country voted for one language etc, everything to unify it. But, as I clearly reprinted for you read, when this country was founded, the agreement was self government of each state and that they would come together for the good of all. When anyone wanted out, the agreement was they could get out. The north broke that contract.

Why? Lets go over it again. They freed the slaves in the south..only, not the North over which they had total control. That should be your 1st clue it wasn't all about slavery. A famous quote by Lincoln concerning letting the south out of the Union, "Then who would pay the taxes?" Surely common sense would tell you it wasn't all about slavery.

Now the new opium, is blame, rather than honor, diversity, rather than unity, and entitlement,(you owe me for what they did back then).

You might want to look deeper into what is opium. It causes an unwarranted sense of euphoria, a sense of well-being and a calm, and of course, it is addictive.

You also might look for a deeper lesson, and draw parallels with today.

This was suppose to be a penal colony, a money maker for special interest groups in England. They sold all Irish, Scot Irish dissidents, and any English that they could charge with a crime, such as stealing food for their children, to being life slaves in the colonies. That didn't work so good, even after branding the runaway slaves on both sides of their face. They still ran away and blended in another settlement. The English special interest groups decided blacks couldn't blend in. They were next choice.

If you want to crawl off in a corner with your crack pipe, please do so. Meanwhile the same self serving special interest groups are alive and cooking in Washington. They use you for money, now, just as then.

You have paid lobbyist, to circumvent the power of your one vote. In other words, a rich man, or company has the funds to send someone to Washington to sway a congressman into voting for what they want, over the will, or vote, of the people.

You have a military that is self funded by the US to fight others wars. There are none braver their our men but very often those wars where again, special interest groups come out the winners. The war machine funded by your tax dollars and your children's blood. Not always used for the good of home and harth.

Almost everything that has been 'deregulated' by big business lobbist, has backfired on the good of the common man and cost him more. There are so many government jobs that have been 'invented' as paybacks for friends.

Our government is almost usless. There are so many overpaid, underworked Federal employees, it is a joke.(did I leave out ignorant and undeserving?) I went in person and applied for SS after working over 40 years. I couldn't understand what happened to it. I called month after month. After 8 months, I MADE a supervisor check on it or I was going to tear the place apart. They had the nerve to tell me the paper work had lain on the employees desk all that time! The closest I got of an appology was he had been kind of sick and knew I would understand. Those type things in the private sector would have been held accountable.

In the budget they just approved, because the banks have run ruff shod over the consumer, a group was put in place called "Making home affordable". They were to make sure some of the old loans were redone into something fair. You will be happy to know that group is no more. The money was given instead to the oil companies for new exporation!those poor poor little oil companies. And..they get a tax rightoff. How does that benift the average homeowner?

So go get your crack pipe, take a hard toke, and think everything is going to be ok because you are still trying to get restitution for something that happened to blacks (and southerners) over 150 years ago. Meanwhile, as you partake of the opium of this age, your pocket is being picked and you are still being used by special interest.

Your enemy is not the southerner soldier, dead over a 150 years.

Your enemy is, as was then, special controling interest.

Fight the good fight, fight the right people. (divide and conquer has served special interest for many hundreds of years to subjugate the masses.)

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Actually, Southern Baptists Are To Blame!

Attention fellow bloggers! I've now become an instant expert on Scots Irish culture! Beware the Ninja!

It seems that the Scots Irish-led Southern Baptists seceded from the rest of the Baptists in 1845 over, you guessed it, SLAVERY!

You think this might have set the stage for political separation later? I do!

These Scots Irish are a fun crowd!---“The Anglo-Saxon-Scots-Irish people are the most warlike people in history, and their enemies forget it at their peril.”

I can see such sentiment in the writings of a few of my fellow bloggers, such as don't-get-me-riled-up MK!

Instead of church next Sunday, as I assume you have already been today, read this article on Southern Baptists by what seems to be an actual Southern Baptist himself!

http://web.me.com/johnalex1/Johns_Start_Page/Response_to_SBC.html

Welcome to the ATL Julio! That's 'Who-Lee-Oh' for all those out near the Spalding County line!

Go Falcons!

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
Ninja, if someone took a page from your VERY illogical reasoning

to stoop to your 'blame game', they might also use the same warped reasoning that Blacks Baptist in 1866 signaled they wanted the Jim Crow laws! It was at that time they pulled out of and away from, the White Baptists of the South and West and combined to form the Consolidated American Baptist Convention. They did the same thing in the North, "Free blacks in the North founded churches independent of white-dominated organizations".

I think I've had all the wisdom from you two I can take for a while.

It has been most enlightening to find that we rebels painted up in war paint and were massacred in Minnesota and North Dakota in the Civil war, and now to find the Southern Baptist started the war! Wow!

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Ninja
Quote:

It has been most enlightening to find that we rebels painted up in war paint and were massacred in Minnesota and North Dakota in the Civil war, and now to find the Southern Baptist started the war! Wow!

Please don't confuse Suggarfoot with facts. This person has been so indoctrinated, that facts are considered illogical. Thanks for sharing. In all fairness, MOST SBC's in Fayetteville are inclusive . People attend religious services where they feel comfortable and welcomed. Segregated churches did not only exist in the south, all denominations practiced this in all American communities at one time or another. Sad, but true, To continue to deny the participation of Native Americans in the Civil War is the beacon of ignorance. To continue to deny that the confederacy wanted all new states admitted to the union to be slave states and tried hard to recruit in the north is illusionary. This celebration of the 150th anniversary will bring out some little known historical facts regarding this sad time in our history - and that's a good thing. No one should forget any soldier who died for our country. The south today has examples of Americans living together cooperatively that need to be advertised as role models for the rest of the country - and the world.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Dm
Davids mom wrote:

Sad, but true, To continue to deny the participation of Native Americans in the Civil War is the beacon of ignorance.

Like I said earlier mom, nice try. Suggarfoot never denied that the Indians took part in the Civil War, she just said the Indian battles in the Dakotas and Minnesota had nothing to do with the Civil War. Dishonesty, or just plain lying on your part? You make the call.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Hutch

Thanks for sharing.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Well Dm

You seemed to be real worried about Suggarfoot, facts, and confusion. Just trying to help out. I see you weren't willing to make that call huh?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Hutch

Hutch-take your concern up with the US Parks dept. These wars were fought during the civil war against Indians who were either siding with the union or the confederacy. Why don't you look it up? Are you denying that the confederacy had a plan to 'conquer' new states and force them to join their side? These were Civil War battles.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Dm

I notice that you don't address the REAL topic here, the one of you assigning a false position to suggarfoot, but then, that's you all over.

PS, if you really believe the Sioux Indians were siding with the Confederates, your problems are deeper then I thought. Twist away mom, twist away.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Hutch

I gave you the references. Twist your way around some facts. . . .use them . We can all learn from research. The real topic is the facts regarding the Civil War. . . And was the war about slavery. The confederate action in northern states was to extend their base of an economy based on slavery . Are you saying that this is not so? Please reference your sources. Thanks. . . And I'll continue to reference mine.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
OK Mom

Here's your chance to prove me wrong, maybe I missed something, show me where suggarfoot said "NO" Indians participated in the Civil War.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Hutch - from sugar

Quote:
ALL THE DAKTOA 'CIVIL WAR' BATTLES...ALL FIGHTING THE INDIANS. (man were these guys confused) If they couldn't tell an Indian from a Rebel..well I don't know what to say.. And if you took your kids to these sites as Civil War battle grounds, I'm equally appalled

Now I interpreted this as saying the Civil War battles were reported incorrectly by saying they were fighting Indians . . That these misguided individuals couldn't tell an Indian from a Rebel. ( some of the many references even had pictures of Indians in Union and/or Confederate uniform. Sugar was equally appalled that I believed that the US Park service advertised these sites as part of the Civil War.) My interpretation of Sugar's statement - Indians were not part of the Civil War according to Sugar. I just offered references of anther point of view by historians . Did you or Sugar read any of the references? Don't answer - no one cares - the discussion has moved on .

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Dm

Why yes I did read your links, that's why I think your reply is so much BS, here's the battles in Dakota Territory...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dead_Buffalo_Lake. Nowhere in there does it mention anything about the Confederates, in fact that might be why suggarfoot said what she did. So all in all, I have to call BS on you yet again.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Hutch

I haven't lied . Expressed my opinion and gave references on why I formed the opinion, Having fun? Bored to death over your immaturity. You're absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong. Feel better? Nighty nite!

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Like I said mom

All you have to do is show where suggarfoot said no Indians were involved in the Civil War. You do that and I'll apologize. You lie and I'm immature, got it.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Deleted by poster

.

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Well Mom

I guess that period says it all. Couldn't meet the challenge.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Hutch

What challenge? Read the references and what has been quoted in the discourse. Fact: Indians fought in the Civil War for both the Union and Confederacy. Fact: there is a poster who found this difficult to believe and did not feel encounters with Indians had anything to do with the Civil War. Fact: The US Park Services have identified these sites and provides information about the relevance to the period 1861-1865. Any more questions?

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Dm
Davids mom wrote:

What challenge?

Post number 60 mom, I know you read it, you just can't admit you were wrong again, dishonest again, dare I say it, hell yeah, you lied again. Hey, are you having as much fun as I am. ( Now lets see Davids mom get all racial again)

hutch866
hutch866's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/28/2005
Dm

I guess you just can't be honest about anything can you? I'll make it easy for you...

hutch866 wrote:

Here's your chance to prove me wrong, maybe I missed something, show me where suggarfoot said "NO" Indians participated in the Civil War.

I can't be any plainer then that now can I? Just a couple of posts above, you know where you removed you post.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
Hutch my thoughts exactly!

"PS, if you really believe the Sioux Indians were siding with the Confederates, your problems are deeper then I thought. Twist away mom, twist away."

Hysterically funny, but sadly true.

But, part of it is that she wants to pull you away from the remark about Jim Crow. A good argument can be paid that they segregated themselves 1st. George washing Carver, one of the black leaders of the day was one of the backers of the Jim Crow laws.

Just as if you want to pay reparations, which she so badly desires, the truth is you would have to find all those poor white slaves 1st, Irish, Scot Irish, and indigent English orphan that were life slaves. She doesn't want to hear anything about them.

If she had to get in line behind the 1st real slaves for the pity pot, there might not be room left for her and Ninja.

She has whined on this board for years and asked for pity, Ninja the nerd, is her little agent orange brain damaged follower.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Hutch/sugar

Nothing you have that I need except honesty. . . and you seem to have trouble with 'truth'. But keep posting, your refusal to deal with some reality in history is sadly revealing.

MajorMike
MajorMike's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/20/2005
DM - reality in history

DM - you would not know the truth if it smacked you in the face. There have been, in the past, bloggers that have compiled lists of your bald faced lies. All one has to do is check the Citizen archives.

Even the libs (for the most part) have given up coming to your defense. Your racist rhetoric is comparable to a horse that, while it is now a pile of dry bones, you keep whipping to gain just a little bit more distance.

You do indeed need to "get over it".

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Mike

Thanks for your enlightened input.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
David's Mom!

A hearty Ninja welcome to your response to my post! Your writing is chock full of Wa!

I was only pointing out that the schism between the Northern Baptists and the Southern Baptists over the issue of, you guessed it, SLAVERY!, was a precursor of the wider split 16 years later!

That Scots Irish mentality of never giving up was good for taming the wilderness of the southern states, but I fear that that same mindset was instrumental in the South firing the first shots at Fort Sumter, and getting the whole war rolling!

I have not yet become an instant expert on the involvement of native American involvement in the Civil War--I am saving that for tomorrow!

Adieu For Now My Fair Lady!

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
Mike King ...you got it right

Anyone that thinks a small farm owner fought for the rights of the large plantation owners to own slaves, plantation owners whom they were in direct competition with...are insane!!!

These small farmers fought because they were invaded! ...

AND....

you hit the nail on the head about who were the largest slave owners! If only these people would READ!

THE BRITISH...sympathizers...you are so correct. They were the British themselves. They settled in Virginia and accumulated slaves, when the land played out, or in most of thems case, during the Rev war, England gave a lot of them land along the Mississippi River because they weren't safe being known Tories after the war. Some of the most fertile land on earth. I've read in diaries, of people seeing them make the trip across land with a hundred slaves in tow. If you look at the Mississippi census, and check the counties along the river, you will see them sitting there with 2-3 hundred slaves. They also have white imported en dentures from Germany to raise their kids.

These are the same people that while the Irish and the Scot-Irish were fighting the Brits, wouldn't fight.

The Irish and the Scots had no love lost between them and the British sympathizers. Again, when they had the civil war, a lot of the English got an exemption to fight in the war. A lot of them sited that they had too many slaves and it would be a danger if they left their plantation to go off to war.

In Mississippi alone, two counties tried to succeed from the state. Smith and Jones county. If you didn't sign up, you were conscripted. Toward the end of the war, when it was hopeless, there were many deserters. I've read an account that Nathan Beford Forrest shot 2 deserters to set an example. One was an old man, the other a young boy. My ggg was with Nathan Bedford till the surrender. I don't know if he thought about tip towing out a few times.

They fought because they were invaded..and they fought because of who they were. They were scrappy.

People know very little of their history. The Irish will always fight. And many of the Scot Irish are the old Normans. They are some of the fiercest people around. They are not Scots, and they are not Irish, nor French. They are the old Normans.

Their names are distinctively Norman, Montgomery, Houston, Crockett, King, Sinclair, Forrest, Johnston(Johnston is a derivative of Houston)

MajorMike
MajorMike's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/20/2005
suggarfoot

Are you a teacher or professor? If not you certainly should be. Thanks for your very informative and historically accurate entries in this thread.

A question for you: My mother’s family (ggf - Powell) was always referred to as Scotch / Irish, could it be that it was actually Scots Irish and I misunderstood? Mom was a blue eyed red head and had the temperament to match. The other half of that family was Sherman - yep, same one. He was my maternal grandfather’s great great uncle. I would not presume to guess how that relates to me.

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
Powell

Thank you for the complement. I'm neither. I'm just someone who has been interested in genealogy. By doing it, I've seen a lot of old records.

I believe dead men just don't lie. The old letters, the wills, they tell how these guys lived and how they saw things.

I haven't checked out that name because it isn't one that I'm related to. Just looking a little though, it says it is Welsh. I will have to dig deeper. That is where the Normans hit 1st, so in digging deeper, that may well be were it came from. What I did do is look at the Powell DNA study. They are I1 and R1b1 which are Scandinavian. I1 is clearly Viking. Vikings had red hair...and tempers. ha ha

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Suggarfoot

There is a theory that the large plantation owners, upon seeing some of the small and poor white farmers sympathizing with some slaves, decided to allow them privileges and 'rights' not allocated to the 'blacks'. The reasoning, if these two groups joined together, they could erode the power of the large plantation owner. Interesting theory. Not too different from the opposition to the war on poverty and having the poor in this
country unite, regardless of color or religion. Hmmmmmm.

Ninja Guy
Ninja Guy's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/26/2010
Mike, You Think That's A GOOD Thing?

For there to be certain segment of the population bred and taught from birth and generation to generation that they have an obligation to go fight in every war conceived by government officials under the banner of truth, honor, justice, democracy, the American way, baseball, hot dogs, and Chevrolet (well, maybe Kia now, since that bankruptcy thing and there being a big plant just down the expressway)? Perhaps you are saying that 'that's just the way it is,' and I would agree with that, but if you are suggesting that there is something noble, moral, or even honorable about it, I would not. Dressing up killing, especially on a massive scale, as anything other than killing is, well, just plain ignoble, immoral, and dishonorable.

Now, you seem to be a sports kind of guy. What do you think of the Falcon's draft move last night? Too expensive, even if Julio turns out to be the next Randy Moss or Larry Fitzgerald? I think not! September will tell!

Go Braves--Huddy on the mound!

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
Ninja

The move to take Julio is likely to be the finest front office move in Falcon history, given time.

You can not dress up the slaughter of human beings for it is certainly ignoble and immoral, and it is especially so for those who bring it about. It is they and their forebears who will likely never fight the battles, but the young and impressionable in America who do their bidding. It is these young men and women who each of us owe an immeasurable debt of gratitude because their sacrifice and service is both honorable and noble.

I'll end by quoting an unknown author of a saying that I have kept close for nearly forty years now: "For those who have fought and almost died, life has a flavor the protected will never know."

The Braves play better on Saturday.

roundabout
roundabout's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/01/2011
Mike K.

Who did own all of those thousands of slaves, and by own do you mean that only the master counts as an owner--none of the rest of the family who went along and even did a lot of the ordering around and whipping.

Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Washington, and etc.,owned a bunch. Tom rode his horse around through them in the fields whenever he had any time, saw Sally otherwise.

Strom Thurmond found little bad about a few of them but they weren't good enough to vote or have all of the rights he had, just kids.

I am insulted by you saying something about my mental acumen, knowing there was more than one reason for the Civil War!

There was: SC seceded instead of freeing their slaves and finding something to do other than dirt farming with negroes.

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
Roundabout

First South Carolina slaves were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862 during the Civil War, which did NOT free any slaves held outside those states that seceeded. Yes, there were slaves outside southern states, ergo your mental acunen.

Strom Thurmond never owned slaves but did father a daughter by a black woman who has yet to utter anything derogatory against her father of which I'm aware. You might know better, but if you do prove it.

You are correct in that large plantation owners such as Washington and Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves, but the average landowner of the south simply could not afford them.

If you are indeed insulted, get over it. Life will go on.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Mike King

The 'black ' woman who was the acknowledged daughter of Strom Thurmond was a college graduate and a teacher in the Los Angeles area. Storm Thurmond supported her and her mother with the understanding that she would not speak of the relationship until after his death . Many of her classmates and sorority sisters had a similar background. This situation was all to common in the south. Mr. Thurmond was reportedly always responsive to her financial needs while she was in college. She and her mother abided by the arrangement. Because she said 'nothing' does not hide the fact that she did not condone the situation.

Proof:

http://www.google.com/search?q=strom+thurmond+daughter&hl=en&client=safa...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-26-thurmond-cover_x.htm

Mike King
Mike King's picture
Offline
Joined: 11/29/2006
Davids Mom

What you fail to comprehend or acknowledge, is that when Mr Thurmond's indescretion took place what were the social norms of the time. I would believe that he would have done exactly the same thing if the lady was white. Can you say the same about the fathers of unwed African American mothers? Further, I would ask that you look at other aspects of his life, not one instance of youthful indulgence to get a better picture of the man.

BTW, during all of your digging did you happen to find any quotes from the mother?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Mike King

She kept her end if the bargain, with dignity. Accepted social norm? Please. Check the courts. Oh my, there are 'white men' in court for non- child support - and the number of single mothers among 'white women ' is growing. This is a problem that is becoming equalized. Sad. All Americans should be concerned about this problem, including the Palins - right? Because 'that's the way it was'. Doesn't make it right. Read the article. You'll get your answer.

grizz
grizz's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/02/2011
Davids mom

At least the white women know who the daddy is.

While 28 percent of white women gave birth out of wedlock in 2007, nearly 72 percent of black women and more than 51 percent of Latinas did.

Chris P. Bacon
Chris P. Bacon's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/28/2010
"out of wedlock" equates to "unknown father"??
grizz wrote:

At least the white women know who the daddy is.

While 28 percent of white women gave birth out of wedlock in 2007, nearly 72 percent of black women and more than 51 percent of Latinas did.

Sooooo....."out of wedlock" equates to "unknown father" in your mind?

suggarfoot
suggarfoot's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/10/2007
So Thurmond supported

So Thurmond supported her...so what? Bad Thurmond. You would have been happier David's Mom if he didn't? I've got a great idea, why don't you get after the black dads that don't take care of their kids? Do you see anything wrong with that?

Year after year you get on here in whine about not being understood cause you are black. Let me tell you that in my opinion, you and orange head little groupie, are embarrassments to most blacks that want to be, and are accepted, on their own actions. You are totally obnoxious!

I know a lot of blacks that work everyday and don't remind you that 150 years ago, their ancestors, may, or may not, have been slaves. Whites respect them because they have a good work ethic and want to be accepted for themselves and what they do. They don't dye their hair yeller, nor do they grow 2 inch long fingernails. And....they don't show a ugly attitude to 'whitie' and try to show you how lazy they can be and then dare you to fire them. Making sure 'whitie' understands that if you dare comment on the obnoxious way they treat customers they will have the NAACP in to sue.

The 1st group are the blacks ...I.. respect. Why? Because they earn it every day.

I've got some real opinions on the length of your nails.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Suggarfoot

I'm honored that your 'type' find 'me' obnoxious. I have no idea who you know, but I do know that of all of the 'white' people I know - we have a mutual respect for each other because of our work ethic, etc. I don't remember whining about anything, but obviously, that is what you heard. I hear the sad attempt of one trying to defend his/ her own ignorance. I've been fortunate not to personally encounter anyone like you, except on 'blogs'. Keep posting, you are an embarrassment - but an eye opener for many to realize that there are still pockets of ignorance to be exposed to the light of true brotherhood and patriotism.