Bravo sir. Well said. As a conservative, it’s sometimes sad to see the liberal stereotype of conservatives validated by many on this site.
Man Born in 1846 Talks About the 1860s and Fighting in the Civil War - Restored Audio..sounds like today IMO
- Thread starter ttown
- Start Date
What are your feelings on financial slavery practiced in the north during and AFTER the Civil War? Company towns, housing, company stores that would only accept company script,, being paid with company script, instead of legitimate currency, etc. This was widely practiced north, and south, after the civil war, in fact the 101 Ranch in Oklahoma, payed in company script, " THE 101 BUCK" that is where the slang term buck, for a dollar bill came from! Most businesses, mines, etc. nation wide, provided company housing, for a PRICE, and payed in company script!! This was slavery in every scene of the word, these poor people legally had the right to leave, but would NEVER IN FACT HAVE THE MONEY TO DO THAT! I AM NOT, AND NEVER HAVE BEEN, IN FAVOR OF HUMAN SLAVERY, IN ANY FORM, INCLUDING BUYING JUNK MADE IN COMMUNIST CHINA, USING HUMAN SLAVERY! This is a complex issue with far more than the one side, the history books, and Democratic Party propaganda allow us to know! In 1861 the year the Civil war started NOT ONE REPUBLICAN OWNED ONE HUMAN SLAVE in this country, all 4,000,000 were owned by Democrats, the Confederasy was sonomious with the Democratic Party, the Union was sonomious with the Republican Party, the party that freed the slaves under Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President! The winner gets to write the history, and guess who looks like the hero in that version? IGNORANCE IS NEVER BLISS!
John, I'm not gonna lie -- I usually just skim past your posts because you can be a little ... Well ... TOO much. Lol BUT thank you for this post. It seems too few people these days can -- or may be it's not "can" maybe it's "want to bother" to see the big picture. They only focus on one little tiny part of history. Not the whole of history. The whole story is certainly much more telling ...
THANKS........ My goal is to be too much! If history is not TRUTH, good, and bad, how can we possibly learn from our mistakes? If the NEWS MEDIA ONLY REPORTS ONE SIDE OF ISSUES, CAN WE MAKE REASONABLE CORRECT DECISIONS? Many WARS, LYNCHINGS, RIOTS, MURDERS, ETC. ARE THE DIRECT RESULT OF THE NEWS MEDIA SENSATIONALIZING STORIES, TO GAIN RATINGS, AND CIRCULATION, THE TULSA RACE RIOT, (MASSACRE), IS A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE OF THAT!
Having seceded, the South turned down every offer made by Lincoln to return to the Union and keep slavery. The most significant was the Corwin Amendment which would have placed slavery beyond the amendment process making it forever permanent as long as Southern States desired. All the South need do is return to the Union and it had the votes to easily ratify. Corwin had already passed both houses of a Republican controlled congress by super-majorities. And it had already been ratified by five Northern States. All the South need do was return to the Union and slavery was protected by what would have been one of only two amendments in the Constitution that could never be removed! The South seceded anyway because preserving slavery was not its cause. Hmmm, seems the North was just as 'evil' as the South...
Last edited:
Another offer made by Lincoln to keep slavery was when he offered the South the opportunity to return to the Union by January 1863 and the Emancipation Proclamation would be discarded. By returning to the Union before the proclamation went into effect, Southern slavery would once again be protected by the US Constitution. And the Corwin Amendment still on the table would make the Constitution beyond Congress’ power to change as far as slavery was concerned. The South seceded anyway because preserving slavery was not their cause.
In the first year of secession the one thing the South was willing to END to make secession a success was SLAVERY. The historical record is clear that in the Spring of 1862 the South began offering to end slavery in hopes of gaining French and British support in its war for Southern independence. France agreed to do so if Britain would ally with them. According to the Belgian paper “The Independent Belge,” a French diplomat went to Britain to push for alliance on behalf of the CSA. Britain agreed but said it wanted to wait until “the Roman Problem” was resolved. Unfortunately for the CSA, the Roman Problem was not resolved until 1871. So the offer to end slavery remained on the table. Later in 1864 CS Congressman Duncan Kenner, the largest slave holder in Louisiana, convinced Jeff Davis to let him travel to London to try and convince the British to accept the CS offer to end slavery in exchange for military support. But time ran out while Kenner was talking to the British as Lee surrendered at Appomattox.
This willingness to end slavery to secure independence is absolute proof that when Southerners said they did NOT secede to “preserve and extend slavery,” they meant it. You do not give up your cause for seceding in order to successfully secede. That would make no sense!!! CS Sec of State Judah Benjamin gave a note to Kenner for him to give to CS European diplomat Slidell which explains why the South was willing to endure the great economic and humanitarian hardship of ending slavery:
“The sole object for which we would ever have consented to commit our all to the hazards of this war, is the vindication of our right to self-government and independence... For that end no sacrifice is too great, save that of honour.’” Judah Benjamin to John Slidell, Dec 27, 1864.
The South was willing to end slavery to gain self-government and independence.
This willingness to end slavery to secure independence is absolute proof that when Southerners said they did NOT secede to “preserve and extend slavery,” they meant it. You do not give up your cause for seceding in order to successfully secede. That would make no sense!!! CS Sec of State Judah Benjamin gave a note to Kenner for him to give to CS European diplomat Slidell which explains why the South was willing to endure the great economic and humanitarian hardship of ending slavery:
“The sole object for which we would ever have consented to commit our all to the hazards of this war, is the vindication of our right to self-government and independence... For that end no sacrifice is too great, save that of honour.’” Judah Benjamin to John Slidell, Dec 27, 1864.
The South was willing to end slavery to gain self-government and independence.
Last edited:
There was also a bit of political posturing going on in talking about slavery (in the four Declarations that mentioned slavery) in that it made Lincoln’s attempts to raise troops seem to be for a war over slavery. The ploy almost worked as Northern newspapers and even members of Lincoln’s own cabinet were calling for him to “just let the South go.” Northerners wanted nothing to do with a war over slavery. Lincoln had to exclaim loudly and often that allowing the South to secede meant economic ruin for the North - It was about revenue and not slavery Lincoln repeated.
