Some dare call it freedom split from Oh Pooh its Confederate History Month

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 25, 2013
Location
Hannover, Germany
I fail to see why the truth that Union soldiers gave their lives in a cause that resulted in freedom is not worthy of anything.

I will not get seriously involved here as this will once more lead to nothing, but I will say that freedom means not only freedom from something (the forum rules forbid to give details, but with all due respect, maybe a European can understand better what it means to submit individual state's rights to an overwhelmingly regulative central government) but it means also freedom to something. I'll leave it to everybody's own imagination what that might have been and back out of this thread again.
 
Funny I remember recently reading a post where a certain someone had to acknowledge they didn't compile that list.

Lincoln manipulated the situation as a lawyer and a politician. Two career choices that are often derided. His duty to save the Union turned out to be a very costly event. As I said..... He wasn't a statesman. I liken it to the disaster at Ebenezer Creek, Not well thought out. Lot's of blaming and counter accusations. Editing out presidential quote by moderator JerseyBart
If you like we can continue this debate on one of the numerous preexisting threads about the above subject.
Interesting that no one can define what freedom Confederate troops fought for and lost.
Leftyhunter
 
Last edited:
Reb,

Those two are not even close to being "the most caustic and rude behavior" I have ever seen on this forum.

Stick around long enough and you'll know them as two of the sweetest, most polite members you'll ever know.

Seriously,
Unionblue
On the first forum I was a part of, personal insults were an acceptable way to score points in addition to the use of logic and evidence. Safe to say that nothing on this forum (at least in the relatively short time that I have been a part of it) has approached that level.
I quoted standard history and you tossed an fallacious fallacy to distract. That is sufficient.
You are arguing at cross purposes. Cash said the South fought for slavery, and you responded that the North wasn't necessarily fighting for freedom. Neither of those things contradict each other. But if you two want to argue in circles, feel free to continue.
 
Last edited:
If you like we can continue this debate on one of the numerous preexisting threads about the above subject.
Interesting that no one can define what freedom Confederate troops fought for and lost.
Leftyhunter

Some look at it as freedom from a over controlling over powerful tyrannical federal government. In reading books written from the southern point of view during and immediately after the end of the war, you see the word patriot thrown around a lot. Also comparisons to the revolutionary war. That's just what I've come across not here to argue if it's wrong or right.
 
Some look at it as freedom from a over controlling over powerful tyrannical federal government. In reading books written from the southern point of view during and immediately after the end of the war, you see the word patriot thrown around a lot. Also comparisons to the revolutionary war. That's just what I've come across not here to argue if it's wrong or right.
The federal government during the antebellum years was very tiny. Their was no income tax. Their were very few regulations. The U.S. military was very small. Their were but a handful of federal law enforcement officers.

Therefore what was this exact mysterious freedom that Southerners lost and never regained? I have read biographies of Confederate soldiers and they have not mentioned this mysterious freedom. If others have it would be great to know what it is? In other words what was this federal tyranny?
Leftyhunter
 
Last edited:
Was just an observation. Politics aside Confederate history month to me is for the soldiers who fought and died bravely. Whatever their reason. I was reading a thread on here the other day about soldiers individual reasons for fighting. I would think some of the men who fought for the south probably had very little understanding of the politics anyways. The Union too probably. I'd be all for a Union Army month also
Dying bravely is a political viewpoint. I can think of lots of various groups and criminals who fight well. That does not mean I admire them. People are free to think what they want about Confederate soldiers.
I am just trying to determine what this mysterious freedom is. So far no luck nor is it mentioned in any Confederate soldiers biography that I am aware of.
Leftyhunter
 
I believe somebody gave you an example earlier. Self government the ability to keep things at a state level ie states rights.
Yes I know that ties into the whole lost cause thing but it was one viewpoint. I guess you might say an example of this is Virginia and the reason they left the union. History is full of different viewpoints and opinions and that's what makes it fun. Seems is tho you're just looking for an argument tho.
No one has yet defined the freedom that the Confederate soldier was fighting for or what freedoms the federal govt was trying to take away. Funny that the succeeding states were not seeking state rule but a Confederation of only slave owning states. Interesting that they only succeeded when Lincoln became president. What right was Lincoln trying to take away?
Leftyhunter
 
No one has yet defined the freedom that the Confederate soldier was fighting for or what freedoms the federal govt was trying to take away. Funny that the succeeding states were not seeking state rule but a Confederation of only slave owning states. Interesting that they only succeeded when Lincoln became president. What right was Lincoln trying to take away?
Leftyhunter
The short answer that has been answered several times was the freedom to preserve the unique Southern Way of life based on Slavery. An agnostic historian looking strictly at the time and place has difficulty figuring out the problem provided that protection of slavery is agreed by all advocates and not some hypothetical philosophical concept of freedom. Otherwise we end up with Union advocates saying slavery like BOO! and all the Southern advocates scattering and hiding.
 
Last edited:
How does one of my post get moved and not the other, when they both go along the lines of the same subject. Is this a slavery thread? Not trying to be an @_s just a little confused.

As far as slavery goes In my Opinion it's hard for people to look at the south back then without using a modern view. Today I'm pretty sure most of us can agree slavery is evil and an abomination. Back then they looked at it different because that's what they were taught. Doesn't make it right but that's how it was. To me this is not a reason to demonize my ancestors and everyone else in the south back then. Others obviously disagree. Also if this wasn't meant to be a slavery thread I apologize for going off topic. Like I said I'm a little confused why this part of the other thread was split.
 
Also if this wasn't meant to be a slavery thread I apologize for going off topic. Like I said I'm a little confused why this part of the other thread was split.

Don't worry 'bout it. You got swept away into a new penance thread that was created from an old penance thread (don't think I have seen this before) As I mentioned in the last thread: a penance thread is created when micro-topics form inside existing threads, and persist overtake the original topic. A new thread is formed, the outlying posts are tossed in, a silly name is attached...and presto! @FarawayFriend is the newest member to drag around this ball and chain for the rest of her natural forum life (mine is "His Evil Badness John C. Calhoun) It's not a bad thing, really, because your post was saved, rather than being vaporized. Think of it as a fork in the creek :smile:
 
Don't worry 'bout it. You got swept away into a new penance thread that was created from an old penance thread (don't think I have seen this before) As I mentioned in the last thread: a penance thread is created when micro-topics form inside existing threads, and persist overtake the original topic. A new thread is formed, the outlying posts are tossed in, a silly name is attached...and presto! @FarawayFriend is the newest member to drag around this ball and chain for the rest of her natural forum life (mine is "His Evil Badness John C. Calhoun) It's not a bad thing, really, because your post was saved, rather than being vaporized. Think of it as a fork in the creek :smile:
A thread name change can be requested at no charge. Some sites say new thread forked from old thread. Fork is a computer term for starting a new processe from an old and both proceed onward.
 
How does one of my post get moved and not the other, when they both go along the lines of the same subject. Is this a slavery thread? Not trying to be an @_s just a little confused.

As far as slavery goes In my Opinion it's hard for people to look at the south back then without using a modern view. Today I'm pretty sure most of us can agree slavery is evil and an abomination. Back then they looked at it different because that's what they were taught. Doesn't make it right but that's how it was. To me this is not a reason to demonize my ancestors and everyone else in the south back then. Others obviously disagree. Also if this wasn't meant to be a slavery thread I apologize for going off topic. Like I said I'm a little confused why this part of the other thread was split.

If you want a post moved, just reply with the post number.
 
Don't worry 'bout it. You got swept away into a new penance thread that was created from an old penance thread (don't think I have seen this before) As I mentioned in the last thread: a penance thread is created when micro-topics form inside existing threads, and persist overtake the original topic. A new thread is formed, the outlying posts are tossed in, a silly name is attached...and presto! @FarawayFriend is the newest member to drag around this ball and chain for the rest of her natural forum life (mine is "His Evil Badness John C. Calhoun) It's not a bad thing, really, because your post was saved, rather than being vaporized. Think of it as a fork in the creek :smile:

Thank you Bee, I was a little confused.

If you want a post moved, just reply with the post number.

It's OK but thank you.
 
The federal government during the antebellum years was very tiny. Their was no income tax. Their were very few regulations. The U.S. military was very small. Their were but a handful of federal law enforcement officers.

Therefore what was this exact mysterious freedom that Southerners lost and never regained? I have read biographies of Confederate soldiers and they have not mentioned this mysterious freedom. If others have it would be great to know what it is? In other words what was this federal tyranny?
Leftyhunter
Plus the south had much power in congress and the senate for most of the 19th century up to the civil war. Most of the presidents up to the civil war were sympathetic to the southern cause etc etc.
 
Self rule vs federal rule because?It is very interesting no one yet can define the exact freedom that the federal government was supposedly taking away from the South and never returned. Hopefully my good friends @Rebforever @Harvey Johnson @Mike Griffith can define this most mysterious freedom.
Leftyhunter
The South were antsy because the huge amount of power they had in Washington might be slightly eroded by the new Republican Party
 
The South were antsy because the huge amount of power they had in Washington might be slightly eroded by the new Republican Party
They feared the worst case scenario projected into the future panicked by fire eaters and ambitious politicians.
Or maybe just prudent. Remember we are looking at the bright and shinny path back. In 1860, it was not as obvious.
 
Self rule vs federal rule because?It is very interesting no one yet can define the exact freedom that the federal government was supposedly taking away from the South and never returned. Hopefully my good friends @Rebforever @Harvey Johnson @Mike Griffith can define this most mysterious freedom.
Leftyhunter

??? I can't speak for the others addressed, but goodness knows I have discussed why the Republican Party's political platform of 1860 so alarmed Southerners that it drove seven states to secession. The now serious schemes of an empowered “free-soil” movement into confiscated western Indian lands would have rendered the Southern slave states into little more than useful vassals unable to protect their political and economic interests from the all powerful rest of the country.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top