Just an odd observation in light of Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell comments on slavery...

[Javaman]

Today, we have the water carrying tea bagging ball lickers doing everything they can to support their corporate masters and voting against their own best interests.

Back during the civil war, many of the confederate soldiers also fought for their plantation masters and voted against their own best interests.

The vast majority of soldiers in the confederate army were poor uneducated and without. Yet, they did the bidding of the wealthy under the guise of keeping south "pure". Most of those fighting, didn't have a horse in the race. Never owned land, never owned anything of worth and most of all never owned another human being.

In fact, the use of slavery in the south has been argued as being a limiter of job opportunity upon the none slave poor.

So, back then as today, the poor and ignorant choose to support the wealthy and affluent, under the guise of losing their "freedoms".

slavery comes in many different forms.

(if I'm out of line by this observation, please let me know. I wasn't the most eloquent in writing this observation and am wide open for criticism.)

[Pamela Troy]

1. Your point is a good one.

But, for the record, I'd like to point out that there were quite a few poor whites in the south who recognized that it was not in their interests to fight for slavery. In the mountains of western carolina in particular, lots of people from the hills were asking why they should fight for a rich flatlander's right to own slaves. And there's hardly a southern state that was not also represented by a troop of American loyalists fighting on the Union side. The Confederacy was not actually very united at all.

[Javaman]

2. Very good point.

Sometimes I wonder if the South had to use various tactics to make some of their troops to fight.

Much like the Soviets had to do during WWII. Setting up machine gun nests to shoot the deserters.

I had distant relatives on both sides.

Like the old saying goes: the rich start the wars and the poor fight them.

[unpossibles]

4. Have you ever read "Lies My Teacher Taught Me" or

"Lies Across America"? Both are good, and in the latter one he deals a lot with how the Sons of the Confederacy essentially rebranded the war and the image of being the righteous rebel fighting a corrupt federal government. It's pretty fascinating.

[Javaman]

8. It's on my "to read" list. I think I will move it to the top. :)

Thanks for the suggestion and insight.

[EFerrari]

15. I just posted a link to the same topic but different book:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8111749

It was fascinating.

[liberalhistorian]

5. Actually, your last point isn't entirely true.

Yes, there were divisions and those who questioned fighting. That is how we got West Virginia, which broke off from Virginia during the War because it disagreed with secession from the union and didn't want any part of it.

HOWEVER. The south was actually much more united than the north in many ways. Despite popular belief, many in the north were not happy with having to fight the war, didn't care at all about slavery, and grew more resentful as the war dragged on. In fact, the north had to rely heavily on drafts in order to get troops to fight, unlike the south. This resulted in the New York City draft riots, which culminated in the mob burning an orphanage for black children with the children still inside.

[liberalhistorian]

3. I just want to clear up a couple of misconceptions.

First, the war was not only about slavery. Slavery was a major impetus, true, but there were many other factors affecting the causes and conduct of the war. Second, a lot of the "poor, uneducated" troops didn't know or care all that much about slavery. What they wanted was to preserve what they saw as the rights of their states to maintain their own sovereignty and their "way of life". They may not have thought about it in such lofty terms, but that's what they wanted. Many of them didn't have to be forced or coerced to fight, unlike Union troops which had to often rely on substantial drafts to get troops to fight.

The civil war cannot be thought of in black and white terms. There were many other causes besides slavery, such as deep sectional divisions that traced back to colonial times, states rights vs. a strong union, etc. It wasn't until after the civil war that most citizens of states in all regions of the nation started thinking of themselves as "Americans" first and THEN citizens of their state. Same was true of confederate soldiers, they thought of themselves as fighting to preserve the rights and life and culture of their states. They really weren't thinking much about slavery, for the most part.

And, yes, it is true that the powers-that-be of the south kept up the divisions between poor whites and slaves, in order to keep the "poor white trash" as they thought of them, on their side.

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

6. Thanks for trying to keep this thread on topic.

Slavery was one of many reasons the war came about but not THE reason for it. :toast:

[Bitwit1234]

7. I am sorry to disagree with some of the misconception

about the south fighting for the plantation masters. If you really really really studied history and really really really read up on all the reasons the war Between the States started, you would see the Confederate Soldiers were upset and joined the South because they thought the North was trying to take away their freedoms. The North was trying to over ride their livelihoods. Most of the southerns worked along side a lot of slaves, my ancestors did, they made a pittance. They got paid, and went home and the slaves couldn't. Most southerns abhorred slavery, and were against it as they saw first hand, more so than a lot of Northerns, what the plantation bosses did to slaves. But they were more afraid of the North takeover.

And if you studied history you would see that the elimination of slavery was not the main issue until Lincoln freed the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation. A lot of southerns supporting that edict went over to the North. So if people don't know the whole story they shouldn't make snap judgment.

[Javaman]

9. Again, like my statement at the end of the piece...

It wasn't very eloquent. I'm aware of the actual reason behind the civil war; states rights, but what I was more after was the influence the rich have over the poor in controlling their perspectives.

The rich regardless of the reasons will always use propaganda as a tool to control the masses to act in the riches own best interests.

this was my point and from a from a few of the comments, it appears as if I didn't get it across properly.

Cheers.

[ieoeja]

11. You should qualify that to "THEIR states rights".

Because they had no problem with federal laws forcing Free states to enforce the slavery laws of Slave states. Permitting law enforcement from Slave states to operate out of their jurisdiction in Free states wasn't a problem either. Ditto allowing that same law enforcement to draft citizens of Free states in their efforts. And finally in overturning Free state bans on slave ownership in their states which left the Free states with two options: end slavery nationally or become Slave states themselves.

I have no problem accepting the fact that the average Confederate soldier was the equivalent of your average misled Faux News Channel audience completely ignorant of the truth. So the average individual soldier may have thought he was fighting for states rights. But the real reason for the American Civil War was to preserve slavery, or states rights for only a select few states, but in no way to preserve the states rights concept.

[EFerrari]

14. Exactly. n/t

[unpossibles]

10. don't you think your point actually backs up part of what he is saying?

That Southerners "were more afraid of the North takeover" - which to me sounds like what I see today when Republicans are worried about governmental take over, not because of anything fact based, but because they were told by someone that it was happening. Do you think some of that concern in the Confederacy was from propaganda efforts (I'm seriously asking, not trying to be snarky, btw), that people fought against their own best interests because they did not have the complete picture?

[EFerrari]

13. But that was the Op's point. Just as with the tea baggers,

these people were working against their own best interests because their leadership told them the Feds wanted to steal their freedoms.

[mod mom]

12. "under the guise of keeping south "pure" same is true today. They think this is a white nation.

[Brewman_Jax]

16. Here are the Declarations of Secession

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/subject_menus/csapage.asp found at the top of the page. You can read their own words on the subject.