Started By
Message
re: Our University is not woke. Will remove Confederate plaques, study building names
Posted on 6/10/20 at 3:27 pm to InGAButLoveBama
Posted on 6/10/20 at 3:27 pm to InGAButLoveBama
quote:
Do you really believe the CSA soldiers even read those articles? What do they write about in their letters home? They were not defending slavery. They were defending their homes from war criminals. The Union burned UA down for goodness sake, and you want to pretend the rebel soldiers cared more about preserving slavery.
I was speaking as to how wars start and how wars end, the answer to both falls in the political realm. War is nothing than the extension of politics by other means.
That has been true of all war since the birth of civilizations.
The propaganda to stir the morale of the troops and energize the passion of the people is a seperate matter. The passion of the people act on both politics and the conduct of warfare, but the true nature of war between civilizations is political.
Slavery was a dying institution worldwide and, to put it bluntly, a factor of production that was soon to become obsolete or, at worst extremely inefficient with the mechanical revolution.
But, to your point, yes, the poor white southerner had every bit of interest to fight against slaves gaining their freedom and any sense of freedom that resembled equality to them as a man (both of which went into high gear with the Emancipation Proclamation).
This is evident in two basic concepts (one just mentioned). Although the majority of southerners owned no slaves, the status symbol of the wealthy and elite was property and slaves, so, yes, most likely all southerners aspired to own them. Moreover, it was the sense of racial superiority. The only thing some poor dirt farmers had going for them across the South was that they weren't black and held at least a higher status from that alone. The latter is the prevalent mindset that caused the longest lasting turmoil (and contributes to the systemic nature of the problem) between the races. So, yes, fighting to keep that edge coupled with all of the propoganda of the war of Northern aggression intended to burn, rape and pillage the South kept southerners engaged. That said, Confederate conscription started as early as 1862 and continued throughout the war, strictly because of the inability to muster and retain adequate numbers of Soldiers for what became a war of attrition where the South could not keep up in terms of manpower.
That said, there were plenty of pro-Union pockets across the south. Grant exploited that to a great degree. The 1st Alabama Cavalry was a union force composed primarily of these supporters and aided the efforts of Union. The intent toward the end of the war was to make the people feel the war in the South and to make and maintain contact with the Army of Northern VA. Both proved critical to breaking the spirit of the South and allowing for the eventual surrender of Lee.
1
Posted on 6/10/20 at 3:56 pm to Che Boludo
quote:
e: Our University is not woke. Will remove Confederate plaques, study building namesPosted on 6/10/20 at 3:27 pm to InGAButLoveBama
quote:
Do you really believe the CSA soldiers even read those articles? What do they write about in their letters home? They were not defending slavery. They were defending their homes from war criminals. The Union burned UA down for goodness sake, and you want to pretend the rebel soldiers cared more about preserving slavery.
I was speaking as to how wars start and how wars end, the answer to both falls in the political realm. War is nothing than the extension of politics by other means.
That has been true of all war since the birth of civilizations.
The propaganda to stir the morale of the troops and energize the passion of the people is a seperate matter. The passion of the people act on both politics and the conduct of warfare, but the true nature of war between civilizations is political.
Slavery was a dying institution worldwide and, to put it bluntly, a factor of production that was soon to become obsolete or, at worst extremely inefficient with the mechanical revolution.
But, to your point, yes, the poor white southerner had every bit of interest to fight against slaves gaining their freedom and any sense of freedom that resembled equality to them as a man (both of which went into high gear with the Emancipation Proclamation).
This is evident in two basic concepts (one just mentioned). Although the majority of southerners owned no slaves, the status symbol of the wealthy and elite was property and slaves, so, yes, most likely all southerners aspired to own them. Moreover, it was the sense of racial superiority. The only thing some poor dirt farmers had going for them across the South was that they weren't black and held at least a higher status from that alone. The latter is the prevalent mindset that caused the longest lasting turmoil (and contributes to the systemic nature of the problem) between the races. So, yes, fighting to keep that edge coupled with all of the propoganda of the war of Northern aggression intended to burn, rape and pillage the South kept southerners engaged. That said, Confederate conscription started as early as 1862 and continued throughout the war, strictly because of the inability to muster and retain adequate numbers of Soldiers for what became a war of attrition where the South could not keep up in terms of manpower.
That said, there were plenty of pro-Union pockets across the south. Grant exploited that to a great degree. The 1st Alabama Cavalry was a union force composed primarily of these supporters and aided the efforts of Union. The intent toward the end of the war was to make the people feel the war in the South and to make and maintain contact with the Army of Northern VA. Both proved critical to breaking the spirit of the South and allowing for the eventual surrender of Lee.
I appreciate your thoughtful response. However, I think the poor Whites resented slavery for it made them have to compete with free labor. For them, the fight was not about slavery, but a cultural one, and one in which their homes and family were being terrorized. Also, you are forgetting the revolts in the North against war. The war was not popular there.
Your argument about the motive of poor Southerners echoes that of people who claim that the problems of today's Black Southerners are due to stubborn, hateful White Southerners who would rather stay poor than be equal to Blacks. But across the South, Blacks have had ample opportunity to make something of the increased opportunities. Many have, but too many have not. The out of wedlock pregnancy rate, the crime rate, the murder rate, the rape rates, and the academic failures are due to negative behavior patterns, perhaps made worse via well intentioned, but destructive social policies.
By 1862, the North was losing, despite the enormous manpower advantage and had to rely on Irish and German conscripts to overpower the South. So the South started to have trouble then.
This post was edited on 6/10/20 at 4:01 pm
Page 1 of 1
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News