Southern Aristorcracy

[Will Posey]

If you speak of someone in a derogatory manner , you are trashing that person.

[unionblue]

Will Posey,

You stated above:

If you speak of someone is a derogatory manner, you are trashing that person.

I agree. But your comment proves nothing.

Again, please point out a specific post where I have trashed someone's ancestors.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by unionblue

Larry,

Re you post #137:



Jeesh, Larry, propaganda? And I thought I was doing research and reading from those who actually were historians and such.

I will agree with the second sentence of your quote above, you and others just don't believe. No sense trying to debate a belief system based on fact and research as no amount of that is going to convince a true believer.

But the more I research and the more I study, it's going back to where you can't believe and I can't bring myself not to believe.

Sorry its turned out that way, I thought we might still be willing to learn from one another. But I realize as I get older, I am getting a lot less tolerant of those who can suspend historical evidence, research, and period documentation for their 'beliefs' about the ancestors they continue to view with such a strange devotion they are willing to overlook their part in history, good or bad.

History just is, not what some want or wish it to be.

That's on me and I'll have to live with it.

Unionblue

Perhaps I slightly mis-worded some of that post. The respect I hold for your yankee notions has not diminished at all and I rather doubt that it ever will. You still apparently fail to grasp my point that, in my opinion, you have grossly over generalized your assessment of the reasons the southern soldier went to war. The reasons you state, good reasons all for the most part, based on your obvious years of research and in many cases facts, simply don't cover the spectrum nor do much honor to the brave men of the south and north who fought for their own reasons, not some silly slaveowner with political clout. That part is what I resist and have only minimal belief in. If you wish to continue a career of bashing slavery and attempting to blame it on the southern soldier, you have my support, just not my enthusiastic concurrence. Believe it or not, I've actually done a bit of research and a bunch of thinking about this concept. The aspects of slavery and national thought about those concerns in this tragic war are unmistakeable. As Paul Harvey would suggest, there's also the rest of the story.

I don't believe, Sir, that my intent has ever been nor will it be, to suspend history, just to offer what you apparently conclude is a minority viewpoint. I have no problem being in a minority, one man in the right sometimes reaches majority status. For an unsuspecting reader to assume that all participants in the war were walking around worrying about slavery, simply does a gross injustice to a bunch of good men and women. Maybe your tolerance level will at least repair itself as you mellow with age. That's already happened to me a few times. Your wealth of to the point data even when making a sometimes unbalanced presentation is formidable ammo and is admired. Slavery is a great topic, alas, just not the only one.

I don't believe, nor can I find evidence of any statement on my part that I don't believe you. Quite the contrary. More the problem that you don't believe or acknowledge there were other viewpoints in the war. Many times I've agreed that slavery was the cause of the war; I simply contend it wasn't always the reason for many of our southern soldiers taking an old musket off the wall and walking out the door leaving wife, children, dogs and mules behind to face an uncertain future. Many of these men, as you are well aware, gave their lives for that effort, a personal decision having more to do, from their individual perspective, with honor, home, hearth and survival.

[larry_cockerham]

Originally Posted by cash

Sorry Larry, but you're dead wrong. It was indeed the majority on both sides who were concerned about slavery. The average confederate soldier knew exactly why his state had seceded, and he supported that decision. There were hundreds of regimental newspapers published by and for the common soldiers during the war that have only recently been looked at by scholars, and they all show that the average confederate soldier knew the war was about slavery, and that the average soldier supported that position. Likewise, there were regimental newspapers on the Federal side, and they made it clear the average Union soldier knew slavery was behind the war and made up his mind very early in the war that in order for there to be a lasting peace, slavery had to be destroyed. We also have diary entries and letters written at the time that showed the average soldiers on both sides knew slavery was the main issue of the war. There's just no getting around it.

Regards,
Cash

Maybe this is where I've failed to communicate. I've never indicated that the Southern soldier, the average one, didn't know slavery was around and that that general concept was widely believed to be something that the southern states, rightly or wrongly, derived some financial benefit from. I suspect it was the labor more than the slaves. If you take out the average soldier, that leaves the above average and below average soldiers? Some of them fought and thought for themselves, not the slaves. Those are the ones getting a raw deal from gross generalization that all soldiers, north and south, fought over slavery. The word majority is a strong word. It draws folks to conclusions that such was the only viewpoint.

[Ozark Iron John]

Originally Posted by cash

Yes, they were. As long as those slaves were slaves and not free, paid labor, they were being exploited.

I just want to say, I appreciate all the debate associated with this thread. I had no idea .... ! Ya'll are great.

I don't know, Cash. I don't think so. "Exploited" is a very relative term. I guess maybe you could say they were being "exploited", but not in the same sense those black Africans who ended up in the West Indies and Central and South America were being "rode hard and put away wet". No, I reckon the blacks that ended up in the United States were not being "exploited", not nearly as bad as them. I reckon they had it pretty good compared to their black brethern who weren't so fortunate as to end up working for / with Johnny Reb.

This is my major "axe to grind" with the whole issue.

"Exploited" was the poor whites who couldn't find work or were forced to subsist on slave wages in a society / economy in which "slave labor" dominated.

Black people in general and Civil War historians specifically seem to forget about all of the poor and middle class white folks who didn't have / could have just because of the Southern Aristocracy's addiction to black Arican slaves. They was the one's that was being exploited. Still Are!

I don't mean to throw you all for a loop. I am following this thread with interest. I am at a ..... I don't know. You all have a good grasp on the matter.

[Ozark Iron John]

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

Ozark, you have done a fair job of expressing my sentiments as well. My sphere of reference is the area where the state lines of Virginian, North Carolina and Tennessee converge.

Thanks Larry. I appreciate your support. I am just trying to help out.

My wife and I just slipped through the Cumberland Gap. West to East. On our way to Staunton, VA. Dang Pretty Country.

[larry_cockerham]

John, you seem to be one of the few rascals in this pile who have a clue where I'm coming from. For that, I salute you!

My kinfolk, both gray and blue, were in that pile of privates you describe. (I did have one east Tennessee yank who was hung up over the Union and was mustered out as a Lieutenant).

Rank and wealth were not burdens to my respective families. Their blood flowed just as well as the rich boys, often with far more opportunity.

[Ozark Iron John]

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

John, you seem to be one of the few rascals in this pile who have a clue where I'm coming from. For that, I salute you!

Rich Man's War Poor Man's Fight.

I guess maybe that's how all war's are, but ... I don't know.

That'n for sure.

[johan_steele]

Larry, Ozark etc... you have one fan here... I may not always agree but I appreciate real discourse and I have always felt it is more important to understand where someone is coming from than to agree w/ them.

Simply put I have learned a lot from you gents and from Neil, Cash, Trice etc.

THank You all.

[cash]

Originally Posted by larry_cockerham

Maybe this is where I've failed to communicate. I've never indicated that the Southern soldier, the average one, didn't know slavery was around and that that general concept was widely believed to be something that the southern states, rightly or wrongly, derived some financial benefit from. I suspect it was the labor more than the slaves. If you take out the average soldier, that leaves the above average and below average soldiers? Some of them fought and thought for themselves, not the slaves. Those are the ones getting a raw deal from gross generalization that all soldiers, north and south, fought over slavery. The word majority is a strong word. It draws folks to conclusions that such was the only viewpoint.

Larry,

I'm not saying every confederate soldier consciously fought for slavery, but the evidence is there that the majority did, even those who didn't own slaves. Why would they do this? Because they were honorable men who wanted to protect their families. The prevalent view of the effects of emancipation was the situation in Haiti. There was a great fear of that action being repeated in the United States if the slaves were suddenly set free. The typical southern soldier's aim was to protect his family from that danger by keeping slavery intact.

Regards,
Cash