Fighting for Slavery?

John S. Carter

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
1,415
I think that he took it out of context in that Lincoln did state that the Union could not remain half slave and half free.Would this be considered a threat if you where on the receiving end of such a straight forward statement,not very diplomatic RIGHT?
 

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,639
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I think that he took it out of context in that Lincoln did state that the Union could not remain half slave and half free.Would this be considered a threat if you where on the receiving end of such a straight forward statement,not very diplomatic RIGHT?
I think one cannot be provoked unless he wants to be.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,411
I think that he took it out of context in that Lincoln did state that the Union could not remain half slave and half free.Would this be considered a threat if you where on the receiving end of such a straight forward statement,not very diplomatic RIGHT?


It was more a prediction, than a threat. But to the extent that , if the institution of Chattel Slavery was the end all, be all, of southern existence, then, of course, fully free, then, I think, it could be seen as a threat to southern existence.
 

Andersonh1

Major
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,963
Location
South Carolina
All of us with Confederate ancestors are stuck with it.
Those us of with American ancestry are stuck with it.

Whether they owned slaves or not, whether they enlisted to preserve slavery or not, for whatever reason they enlisted or not, they fought for slavery.
So did American soldiers in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Mexican War. The United States was a slave-owning republic from 1776 to 1865, so anyone who went to war for the United States during that time went to war to preserve slavery, no matter what other reasons they had.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,411
Those us of with American ancestry are stuck with it.
So did American soldiers in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Mexican War. The United States was a slave-owning republic from 1776 to 1865, so anyone who went to war for the United States during that time went to war to preserve slavery, no matter what other reasons they had.


I think you overstate the case. Fighting, Not to preserve Slavery, but for the Patrimony of the Country, that exists at any one point in their country's history.
 

Andersonh1

Major
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
7,963
Location
South Carolina
I think you overstate the case. Fighting, Not to preserve Slavery, but for the Patrimony of the Country, that exists at any one point in their country's history.
If a soldier fights for his nation's goals and institutions, and his own motivation ultimately does not matter, then I don't believe I'm overstating the case at all.
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,869
Location
District of Columbia
Those us of with American ancestry are stuck with it.



So did American soldiers in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Mexican War. The United States was a slave-owning republic from 1776 to 1865, so anyone who went to war for the United States during that time went to war to preserve slavery, no matter what other reasons they had.
In fact, the Revolution, the War of 1812, and the Mexican American War did have something to do with slavery, in their own unique way. The Civil War basically became the war to end all wars about slavery in the United States.

- Alan
 

Potomac Pride

First Sergeant
Joined
Oct 28, 2011
Messages
1,664
Location
Georgia
All of us with Confederate ancestors are stuck with it.

Whether they owned slaves or not, whether they enlisted to preserve slavery or not, for whatever reason they enlisted or not, they fought for slavery.
Yea sure, just like all the Union soldiers in the war were fighting against slavery. It sounds good but it isn't really accurate.
 

John S. Carter

First Sergeant
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
1,415
It was more a prediction, than a threat. But to the extent that , if the institution of Chattel Slavery was the end all, be all, of southern existence, then, of course, fully free, then, I think, it could be seen as a threat to southern existence.
Why has Eli Whitney not received the praise or credit for aiding in the expansion of slavery with his little toy the cotton gin or if I am correct the expansion of manufacturing in the North with interchangeable parts.May be we canblame him for the secession and the political turmoil . This is easy when the fact that the slavery may have died out but for this little toy.The North would not have become as industrialized if not for the interchangeable part.There was no copyright at this time so anyone could copy his machines which they did.Please to correct if in error.
 

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,538
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Why has Eli Whitney not received the praise or credit for aiding in the expansion of slavery with his little toy the cotton gin or if I am correct the expansion of manufacturing in the North with interchangeable parts.May be we canblame him for the secession and the political turmoil . This is easy when the fact that the slavery may have died out but for this little toy.The North would not have become as industrialized if not for the interchangeable part.There was no copyright at this time so anyone could copy his machines which they did.Please to correct if in error.
Roller cotton gins had been around a thousand years, Eli was not the only inventor working on short staple cotton gins. There were a bunch of copycats and knockoffs. If you are looking for the ultimate cause of secession consider Napolean Bonapart. He embargoed Linen and in searching around for a substitution, the British hit upon cotton.
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,612
Location
Midwest
So did American soldiers in the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Mexican War.
Nope, nope and nope. Whatever you're attempting to pull off with that we're calling you on it. Slavery was allowed and practiced or accepted by all the parties in those conflicts. Each of those wars was caused by something else (standard history textbook stuff, not going to get into it here).

The United States was a slave-owning republic from 1776 to 1865, so anyone who went to war for the United States during that time went to war to preserve slavery...
Whoa, whoa, whoa. Whatever you're attempting to pull off that's an even more disingenuous statement. We simply know that the Northern part of that Republic had dropped slavery decades before the Southern part. CW soldiers from the Northern free states therefore were not going to war to preserve slavery, whatever varied personal reasons they had besides. By contrast CW soldiers from the Southern slave states were going to war to preserve slavery, whatever varied personal reasons they had besides.

You dishonor Southern soldiers by tying them to their failed political state rather than to what they actually prevailed for: their pards and their families. Most Southern soldiers didn't give a c--- about fighting to preserve slavery (so few owned any). In that respect Northern and Southern soldiers were more like each other than they were like their leaders, who had more of a stake in politics.
 
Last edited:

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Messages
2,612
Location
Midwest
Why has Eli Whitney not received the praise or credit for aiding in the expansion of slavery with his little toy the cotton gin or if I am correct the expansion of manufacturing in the North with interchangeable parts.May be we canblame him for the secession and the political turmoil . This is easy when the fact that the slavery may have died out but for this little toy.The North would not have become as industrialized if not for the interchangeable part.There was no copyright at this time so anyone could copy his machines which they did.Please to correct if in error.
Eli Whitney is regularly cited for his invention being a root factor in the expansion of slavery, and it's generally recognized that his ilk of inventors initiated the mode of interchangeable parts which greatly expanded the industrial revolution, and not for the better socially.

btw copyright was not the issue, that's for written creations. It was patents, and Whitney and Colt and McCormick and Deere all filed for them. In the case of the cotton gin though, the technology was so obvious and adaptable Whitney couldn't keep it under his hat. With that, the expansion of slavery by 1800 was made way more viable, and slavery became increasingly brutal because of it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Drew

Major
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
7,809
Eli Whitney was not of the same generation as Cyrus McCormack, John Deere or Samuel Colt. He came before them and did not live to see the Patent Act of 1836, which gave inventors solid ground on which to stand, for the first time.

Blaming Whitney for slavery is just more silly, "they" did it rhetoric. It was a heck of a lot more complicated than that.

Who, exactly, demanded relatively inexpensive, ginned cotton? Oh, wait, it was the Europeans and the developing Northern textile industry... :running:
 

jgoodguy

.
-*- Mime -*-
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Messages
35,538
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Eli Whitney was not of the same generation as Cyrus McCormack, John Deere or Samuel Colt. He came before them and did not live to see the Patent Act of 1836, which gave inventors solid ground on which to stand, for the first time.

Blaming Whitney for slavery is just more silly, "they" did it rhetoric. It was a heck of a lot more complicated than that.

Who, exactly, demanded relatively inexpensive, ginned cotton? Oh, wait, it was the Europeans and the developing Northern textile industry... :running:
Someone told me that slavery was legal at the time.
 

O' Be Joyful

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 6, 2015
Messages
3,191
Location
Use-ta be: Zinn-zä-nätti o-HI-o The BIG city.
She was right. I hope she also told you the Atlantic Slave Trade during most of Eli Whitney's adult life was being run out of New England.
It is a he and a fellow respected member that has reminded us repeatedly...that Slavery Was Legal, which jgg was referring to. But nonetheless, pray tell us, what does injecting New England complicity, which most of us are aware of, add here?
 

Drew

Major
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
7,809
It is a he and a fellow respected member that has reminded us repeatedly...that Slavery Was Legal, which jgg was referring to. But nonetheless, pray tell us, what does injecting New England complicity, which most of us are aware of, add here?
You referenced a, "respected member," who said he "heard" slavery was legal. Pardon me for choosing a pronoun not to your liking. A guy just can't win.

To your point, "most of us" are long time readers and posters here. New CWT members and anonymous readers of these Forums ought to know that New Englanders were responsible for the capture, importation and sale of African slaves for generations before the Civil War.

Perhaps it violates the Narrative, but it's true.
 


Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top