Restricted The soldiers of the Southern Confederacy were as brave as could be, but....

Status
Not open for further replies.

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Yeah, but is always a bug in the ointment.

And that "bug" is always going to be why Confederate soldiers had to be so brave and what they were being asked/told to fight for.

Bravery is not an uncommon virtue among soldiers of any army, past or present.

It's what they use that bravery for that always comes back to haunt those who ask them to employ that bravery in causes they think important and worthwhile.
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Location
Denmark
And for the record, the overwhelming majority of Southern soldiers didn't own slaves, and those who didn't own any and fought, fought to keep the Northerners off their land.
I would not call 2/3 a overwhelming majority. (majority yes, overwhelming, no)
Especially not considering that many of that group was still dependent on slavery. Rented slaves or sold good to plantations or in other ways worked in a profession that benefit from slavery.

And if that was why, then they are the most stupid people in history... all they needed to do not to have government troops in their backyard, was not to start a war in the first place.
 
Last edited:

Ethan S.

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 19, 2019
Location
Carter County Kentucky
You put the cart before the horse, Ethan. Had the white Southerners not rebelled (to protect slavery) no Northern armies would've come south.

Had the Northern states stayed out of it, the South would have left peacefully and that would have been the end of it. Actually, it would have only been a few states because when Lincoln called for regiments to be formed, and an army be readied, states like Virginia and North Carolina and such took it as a threat. The yankees would have to march through them, to get to the seceded states. Only the original seceded states would have left, not all 13. Lincoln created a bigger enemy when he called up for more troops.

I do not excuse the Southern states politicians and planters racist behavior at that time. However, I refuse to let the common confederate soldier, the lowly privates who fought so bravely, be mocked, shamed and ridiculed by modern folk who want to end the story of the confederacy. Whether you like it or not, they were Americans, they fought as Americans and died as Americans, and for one group of Americans to be portrayed as evil because of the actions of a few rich men, is shameful. God bless the boys in blue, for preserving the union, for freeing the slaves, and for I am descended from those who fought for the Union. And God bless the boys in gray, who fought so bravely throughout the war, who stood up to the government and died trying to protect their states and families. God bless the soldiers of the Civil War, blue and gray.
 

Ethan S.

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 19, 2019
Location
Carter County Kentucky
And where did you get the 2/3rds number? 2/3rds among the wealthy population? 2/3rds among the planter class, or the entire south as a whole? Numbers have ranged from 3% to 30%, and facts are twisted to fit an agenda. The modern agenda is to vilify the southern confederacy and the soldiers who fought for it.
 

Yankee Brooke

First Sergeant
Forum Host
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Location
PA
I would not call 2/3 a overwhelming majority.
Especially not considering that many of that group was still dependent on slavery. Rented slaves or sold good to plantations or in other ways worked in a profession that benefit from slavery.

And if that was why, then there are the most stupid people in history, sense all they needed to do not to have government troops in their backyard, was not to start a war in the first place.

Not to mention, many of them were unskilled laborers who had a "they'll take our jobs" attitude, despite the fact that there would be more unskilled labor jobs if there were no slaves to perform them without pay...
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Location
Denmark
Whether you like it or not, they were Americans, they fought as Americans and died as Americans, and for one group of Americans to be portrayed as evil because of the actions of a few rich men, is shameful.
About 1 in 3 of them came from a slave owning family.

That is, about 1 our of every 3 household in the states that became the CSA owned slaves.
The exact number depend on what states we include in the CSA.

And then obviously the % of men, is not exactly the same since some households had more sons than other households.
And some economic groups was more likely to be able to avoid serving in the army.

I remember reading one study showing that the % in Lees army was about 40%, but I don't have a link to it.

the % topped at 49% in Mississippi,
it was 46% in South Carolina
to a low 20% in Arkansas.

You can look the number up in the 1860 census yourself.
 
Last edited:

Ethan S.

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 19, 2019
Location
Carter County Kentucky
Ah, I see what they did. I think they may have counted house servants as slaves, or indentured servants (did they still have indentured servants back then, or was that a 1700s thing only?). Slave owning family could have meant, dad owned a slave or two, or an entire plantation, who knows, but his sons which could be about five to ten of them back then, so that adds up. 1 guy owns one slave, but has ten boys that go off to war, that sounds like a lot of slave owners, but it isn't. It's one guy being represented by however many sons he had.
 

Ethan S.

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 19, 2019
Location
Carter County Kentucky
I'm just saying, the numbers are incorrectly large in proportion to how many folks actually owned slaves, or supported slavery.

I have an idea. None of us are going to change each others minds, and we are clogging up the thread. I forgot what the thread was about in the first place.

I honor both sides, and you glorify one side, like the modern day philosophy calls for, and we agree to disagree, deal?
 

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Location
Denmark
I don't glorify any of the two sides, unlike you.

I post numbers that can easily be verified, if you are willing to do the work.
And the only reason that you need to to it, is that you are clearly not going to believe it, no matter what website or book I use as a source.



Only about 20% of the white population owned any property.
(https://www.bowdoin.edu/~prael/lesson/tables.htm)

Most woman didn't own anything. Children didn't own anything.
The 20year old son of a slaveowner would usually not own anything other then maybe his clothing. His farther owned the slaves, the land and so on.
But he still benefit from that ownership. And as such had a personal economic interest in slavery.
that is why the household is the relevant "unit" to use.



But in case someone else want too look at the numbers they can be found online in a number of places.
 
Last edited:

thomas aagaard

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Location
Denmark
Northern values: greed, scapegoating, high taxes and federal control.
Southern values: family, God, hospitality, states rights, low taxes.
So what do you call a person who own other humans and force them to work in cottonfields?
I would call that person greedy.

How about a a person who love it when the federal government trample on the states rights to decide if they want slavery within their borders? And love it when he federal government can force a citizen of a free state to help capture run away slaves against their will?
He clearly love federal control.

Both sides loved it when they could use the federal government to promote their goals.

Both sides loved protective tariffs, when they protected their wealth. And hated it when it made what they wanted to buy more expensive.

Both sides loved states rights when they wanted to do something differently than the federal government, and hated states rights when the government was doing what they wanted.

So you list is a clear sign that you only care about myth making, and not about actual history.
(and don't know that there by 1860 was only tariffs)



I do agree with God, since God have no issue with slavery. (as long as it is not Israelites who are the slaves)
 

Irishtom29

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 21, 2008
Location
Kent, Washington
Had the Northern states stayed out of it, the South would have left peacefully and that would have been the end of it...

However, I refuse to let the common confederate soldier, the lowly privates who fought so bravely, be mocked, shamed and ridiculed by modern folk who want to end the story of the confederacy. Whether you like it or not, they were Americans, they fought as Americans and died as Americans, and for one group of Americans to be portrayed as evil because of the actions of a few rich men, is shameful.

The United States was under no obligation to tolerate rebellion.

The story of the Confederacy ended in 1865. What is changing is how the story is told and the nature of the lessons to be learned. As for being American, at the time of the rebellion the Confederates were fighting to not be American; taking American by its common meaning of a citizen of or a person having allegiance to the United States. Gets kind'a twisty, don't it?

Regards
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top