My main goal is to educate people on the true history of the Confederacy. I am the Ohio Division Adjutant of the SCV (Sons of Confederate Veterans), a descendant of Robert E. Lee and many other Confederate soldiers. The South was NOT fighting for slavery. They were fighting a tyrannical government (taxes, tariffs, and state rights) similar to what we are dealing with today. Less than 4 percent of people in the South owned slaves. And there was more freed blacks in the South than there was in the North. The Confederacy was the American Revolution 2.0 - They were defending the constitution and protecting their families and land from invasion. You will find no greater Patriots than the brave Confederate Soldiers. This is NOT what they teach in liberal run schools. That is the yankee lies. History was re-written by the victors of the war. I recommend getting the book "Defend Dixie". Its short, to the point, and full of facts and sources.
Comments (91)
sorted by:
So I do and don't agree with you. The south was fighting what they viewed as a tyrannical north set on removing their way of life, which was reliant on slavery. What is definitely miss taught, is most of the North wasn't abolitionists, most needed slavery as well because they sold and developed what the south produced. The main political reason at the time for ending slavery wasn't that it was immoral, it was that the low class white man couldn't compete with the cheap labor of slaves. This is way you see the fight for free states popping up in the midwest and the 3/4 law happening. For some reason the south viewed Lincoln's election as the final straw, which honestly didn't make sense. Lincoln never campaigned on releasing slaves and only did emancipation as a way to turn the tide on the war. In reality Lincoln was only elected because the Tori's and the Whigs were fighting over end/not ending slavery and Lincoln snuck in for the win. I would argue the post civil war aftermath in the south does hinder your point considering the return to essentially forced work and endentured servitude for blacks. Laws were set in place that blacks had to work and if they didn't they went to jail. And to work meant forced labor on cotton farms. Also with the substantial suppression of blacks with Jim crow laws. Most of this was due to Lincoln's asassination and the following admin screwing it up. Essentially post civil war can be viewed as an ongoing insurrection until 1782 when the north finally gave up and left. I do agree that several prominent soldiers and generals for the south were slave owners nor did they care. Lee himself didn't own slaves, but his wife did. Stonewall Jackson was deeply religious and against it. However the political powers that be in the south (plantation owners) did and desperately needed it to continue. Before you come at me with, "you're just brainwashed"...I'm from the south and too am related to a prominent civil war figure. I don't want to name the name because it would dox my last name. I've also studied the civil war heavily from all sides because it is my favorite war to study, next to Vietnam.
Thanks for this post.
Thank you, I just don't want this black and white explanation of history. It's complicated and if we don't fully understand it then we are lost. Same with reading the bible.
Well thought out response. Don't know why you are getting downvotes.
Ha, yeah just seeing that. So the problem is, and being from the south I've always subscribed to states rights and still do. Now I argue that idea the war wasn't about slavery is dumb. It absolutely was, just isn't made out to be the good versus evil that's taught in schools. It was about economics. Both the north and south needed it, but the north needed it less. Also, this notion that it wasn't about that as identified by the OP is "fake news." This idea didn't start to actually surface until well after the war more around the turn of the century, which is why you have mostly confederate statues in southern states. Most confederate statues were built in the early 1900s. Although BLM would try to argue it's to suppress the black man, it's actually there because the south needed to recreate it's identity as to why it seceded to begin with, i.e. it wasn't about economics and slavery, it was about patriotism
Edit: just FYI, I don't believe in removing statues if anyone took that from my comment claiming it was about rebranding.
Interesting. Thanks for the reply.