Grapesoda

History books, the media, the school systems, etc abound in falsehoods and inaccuracies of Confederate and Southern history. This fact sheet will help to clarify and dispell some of these rampant inaccuracies.

MYTH - The War of 1861 - 1865 was fought over slavery.

FACT - Terribly untrue. The North fought the war over money. Plain and simple. When the South started Secession, Lincoln was asked, "Why not let the South go in peace?" To which he replied, "I can't let them go. Who would pay for the government?" Sensing total financial ruin for the North, Lincoln waged war on the South. The South fought the War to repel Northern aggression and invasion.


MYTH - Only Southerners owned slaves.

FACT - Entirely untrue. Many Northern civilians owned slaves. Prior to, during and even after the War Of Northern Aggression.

Surprisingly, to many history impaired individuals, most Union Generals and staff had slaves to serve them! William T. Sherman had many slaves that served him until well after the war was over and did not free them until late in 1865.

U.S. Grant also had several slaves, who were only freed after the 13th amendment in December of 1865. When asked why he didn't free his slaves earlier, Grant stated "Good help is so hard to come by these days."

Contrarily, Confederate General Robert E. Lee freed his slaves (which he never purchased - they were inherited) in 1862!!! Lee freed his slaves several years before the war was over, and considerably earlier than his Northern counterparts. And during the fierce early days of the war when the South was obliterating the Yankee armies!

Lastly, and most importantly, why did NORTHERN States outlaw slavery only AFTER the war was over? The so-called "Emancipation Proclamation" of Lincoln only gave freedom to slaves in the SOUTH! NOT in the North! This pecksniffery even went so far as to find the state of Delaware rejecting the 13th Amendment in December of 1865 and did not ratify it (13th Amendment / free the slaves) until 1901!


MYTH - The Confederate Battle Flag was flown on slave ships.

FACT - NONE of the flags of the Confederacy or Southern Nation ever flew over a slave ship. Nor did the South own or operate any slaves ships. The English, the Dutch and the Portugese brought slaves to this country, not the Southern Nation.

BUT, even more monumental, it is also very important to know and understand that Federal, Yankee, Union ships brought slaves to America! These ships were from the New England states, and their hypocrisy is atrocious.

These Federals were ones that ended up crying the loudest about slavery. But without their ships, many of the slaves would have never arrived here. They made countless fortunes on the delivery of slaves as well as the products madefrom raw materials such as cotton and tobacco in the South.

This is the problem with Yankee history History is overwhelmingly portrayed incorrectly by most of the Federal & Yankee books and media.


MYTH - The Confederate Battle Flag represented the Southern Nation.

FACT - Not true. While the Southern Battle flag was carried into battle, the Southern Nation had 3 different National flags during the course of the war.

The First National flag was changed due to a resemblance of the US flag.

The Second National flag was subsequently modified due to the similarity to a flag of truce.

The Third National flag was the adopted flag of the Confederacy.

The Confederate Battle Flag was never a National Flag of the Confederacy. It was carried into battle by several armies such as the Army Of Northen Virginia and the Army of Tennessee. Was also used as a Naval Jack by the Confederate Navy.


MYTH - The Confederate Battle Flag is known as the "Stars & Bars".

FACT - A common misconception. The First National Confederate Flag is correctly known as the "Stars & Bars". The Confederate Battle Flag is known as the "Southern Cross".


MYTH - The Confederate Battle Flag represents racism today.

FACT - The Confederate Battle Flag today finds itself in the center of much controversy and hoopla going on in several states. The cry to take this flag down is unjustified. It is very important to keep in mind that the Confederate Battle Flag was simply just that. A battle flag. It was never even a National flag, so how could it have flown over a slave nation or represented slavery or racism? This myth is continued by lack of education and ignorance. Those that villify the Confederate Battle Flag are very confused about history and have jumped upon a bandwagon with loose wheels.


MYTH - The United States Flag represented freedom.

FACT - No chance. The US flag flew over a slave nation for over 85 years! The North tolerated slavery and acknowledged it as a Division Of Labor. The North made a vast fortune on slavery and it's commodities. It wasn't until the South decided to leave the Union that the North objected. The North knew it could not survive without the Southern money. That is the true definition of hypocrisy.


MYTH - Abraham Lincoln was the Great Emancipator.

FACT - While Lincoln has went down in history as the Great Emancipator, many would not care to hear his real thoughts on people of color. Martyred President Abraham Lincoln was fervently making plans to send all freed slaves to the jungles of Central America once the war was over. Knowing that African society would never allow the slaves to return back to Africa, Lincoln also did not want the slaves in the US. He thought the jungles of Central America would be the best solution and conducive to the freed slaves best interest. The only thing that kept this from happening, was his assassination.


MYTH - The South revered slavery.

FACT - A very interesting fact on slavery is that at the time the War of 1861 -1865 officially commenced, the Southern States were actually in the process of freeing all slaves in the South. Russia had freed it's servants in 1859, and the South took great note of this. Had military intervention not been forced upon the South, a very different America would have been realized then as well as now.



MYTH - The Confederate Army was comprised of rich slave owners.

FACT - Very far from true. The vast majority of soldiers in the Confederate Army were simple men of meager income. Most of which were hard working farmers and common men. Then, as now, very few rich men ever fight a war.


MYTH - Only the North had men of color in their ranks.

FACT - Quite simply a major falsehood of history. Many blacks, both free and of their own will, joined the Confederate Army to fight for their beloved Southern home. Additionally, men of other ethnic extraction fought as well. Oriental, Mexican & Spanish men as well as Native American Indians fought with pride for the South.

Today, many men of color are members in the heritage group SCV - Sons Of Confederate Veterans. These men of color and pride rejoice in their heritage. The continued attacks on the Southern Nation, The Confederacy, and her symbols are a terrible outrage to these fine people. These attacks should be denounced with as much fervor as those who denounce the South.


MYTH - The Confederate Flags are an authorized symbol of Aryan, KKK and hate groups.

FACT - Quite the contrary. These dispicable organizations such as the KKK and Aryans have taken a hallowed piece of history, and have plagued good Southern folks and the memories of fine Confederate Soldiers that fought under the flag with their perverse agenda. IN NO WAY does the Confederate Flag represent hate or violence. Heritage groups such as the SCV battle daily the damage done to a proud nation by these hate groups. The SCV denounces all hate groups, and pridefully boast HERITAGE - NOT HATE.





MYTH - The SCV - Sons Of Confederate Veterans are a racist, hate group.

FACT - This is a blatant attack on one of the finest heritage groups ever. The SCV - Sons Of Confederate Veterans are a historical, patriotic and non-political organization comprised of descendents of Confederate Soldiers and sailors dedicated to insuring that a true history of the 1861 -1865 period is preserved and presented to the public. The SCV continues to educate the public of the memory and reputation of the Confederate soldier as well as the motives for his suffering and sacrifice.

The SCV - Sons Of Confederate Veterans are in NO WAY affiliated with, nor does it recognize or condone the terrible legacy of hate groups such as the KKK.

TampaToker

were did you copy and paste that from?

__________________
Icq 247-742-205

Grapesoda

probably from a site about the Sons Of Confederate Veterans which I came across reading about the blacks wanting stone mountain sandblasted off... most of the stuff I've know for years though... it's amazing to me that a group of people that think the moon lading was fake, there never were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 911 was an inside job believe the civil war was about slavery. In guess 'truth' gets better with age

dyna mo

The civil war was about slavery.

crockett

I don't disagree with those points...but why make a title "pretending" as if you researched all this yourself as if you are any different than the hive mind? You clearly just copied and pasted someone elses work.

I do agree there is a lot of war time propaganda which made its way to the history books.

But don't try to pretend you are researching this stuff when you just c&p just like the hive mind you are making fun of.

__________________
In November, you can vote for America's next president or its first dictator.

dyna mo

Even the first point is wrong and misleading.

Grapesoda

you're a weird guy with weird ideas... I haven't pretended anything nor have I done other than cut and paste... want to see if others would pull up any thing different, however I have know 90% of this for 40 years

Grapesoda

the Easter bunny will be by with your check.... just wait there

dyna mo

OK. The tooth fairy will need an extended stay at your place .

SuckOnThis

That's the funniest thing I've ever seen you say.

crockett

The civil war happened because the south succeeded from the United States. The south succeeded from the United States for several reasons.. States rights was one of the big ones as was slavery.

Despite that, slavery was not the reason the war started or was waged, it was just one of the reason. Had the south not succeeded from the union, there would of been a lot of turmoil but it wouldn't of been a civil war over slavery.

The war happened because of the succession of the south.. Slavery was the reason the North used as reason to wage war, rather than allow the split to take place...

SuckOnThis

And secession happened because of slavery.

Robbie

As I understand it...a lot of the problems were also caused by NEW states coming into the union. Would they be "free" or "slave" states.

That's why the Mason Dixon line was established. Any new state admitted into the United States north of it would be free.

But yeah...the northern states still had slave owners when the war started.

I think the biggest mistake ever was the Civil War. It destroyed the power of the States and made the Federal Govt. very powerful. Which led us to where we are today with the Feds spying and starting wars and ruling our lives in a lot of ways.

On a side note...as I understood the founding of our country and the constitution...the states were supposed to be able to leave the union (it started as a "Union" of states) if they felt oppressed in any way. (just like the founding fathers led a revolution against England)

Only it wasn't supposed to be a "war". It was supposed to be as simple as a State legislature following the will of it's people and voting to secede.

Just thinking about that (without the hot point of slavery to muck it up emotionally)...it's pretty obvious that there will NEVER be any state able to secede from the "union".
This "Union" became a shotgun wedding. lol

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

dyna mo

wrong. ESPECIALLY this:

the South started the war, fired the first shot. and slavery was not the reason the North used to wage war, their reason for engaging in the war with the South started was to keep the Union together.


that simple fact is why this thread is wildy wrong.

crockett

You you agree that the war was started because the south succeeded and not because of slavery..

Robbie

crockett you're getting the verbiage a little confusing.

It's not succeeded or sucession.

It's secede and secession Just a quick grammar police moment.

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

crockett

But there wouldn't of been a war if the south didn't succeed from the Union. The north would not of sent troops into the south just because of "slavery". The south would have continued on with slavery just like normal, but eventually pressure would of been too great to keep it up.

The war was because the south succeeded.. Lincoln would have never started a war with the south over slavery.. He would of been tarred and feather and sent down the road on a donkey..

The south made the miscalculation that if they succeeded, the north wouldn't be able to stop them. They were wrong.

Just like the U.S. Would have never went to war against Iraq the first go round in 1991 had Sadam not invaded Kuwait. Just because Sadam was a bad guy wouldn't of cause the war.. It was the action of the Kuwait invasion which caused our intervention, just like it was the succession of the south which caused the civil war, not slavery..

dyna mo

lolz, i never stated any such thing. people spend their entire academic careers studying just this one facet of the war, what touched off the violence at ft sumter.


most Civil War experts cite that the South fired the first shots on account of the North resupplying the fort. The north defended the fort against that attack and the war was on. none of which has anything to do with slavery, money, or secession.

crockett

Ok I Stand corrected on that. I did think it looked a little funny when I typed it, but didn't bother to check myself.

crockett

I never said the South didn't fire the first shoots.. I said the war wouldn't of happened over slavery. If the south had stayed a part of the Union, there wouldn't of been a war just because of slavery..

IE.. The war wasn't over slavery but rather because the south's secession from the Union. Slavery was the excuse used to gain support by the north so they could claim the moral high ground over fighting former countrymen.

dyna mo

huh? your post i was replying to was your speaking for me, not yourself. that's why i corrected you.

"ifs" have no place in examining history. if the South stayed a part of the Union doesn't mean anything.

crockett

Propaganda is also part of history.. It's sounds a whole lot more PC to claim the war was over slavery vs not allowing states to leave the union..

Ask yourself this... If The same southern states choose to secede from the United States today do you think the govt would allow it to happen with out military intervention?

dyna mo

again, "if's" are not appropriate in studying history. looking back at an unbelievably complex event and time and asking what if that happened in 2015 is not how history is studied or learned and understood.

the indisputable facts of that time and event are the South seceded to protect their slave economy and they fired the first shots starting the war.

JuicyBunny

South provided raw materials, north provided manufacturing. If they had gone to stalemate and just glared at each other over the borders of the MD line, sooner or later both sides would have collapsed. Lincoln knew it and even said it. Both sides were interdependent but north wanted control. Usually when you try to control a southerner you get, and thats why Edmund Ruffin said fuck it and fired the first shot. Probably at the direction of his battery commander, Stephen Elliott. (Slave owning gentry.)

Wealthy landed gentry pushed the south into it to protect their holdings. Slavery was on its way out. Much cheaper to follow the northern example of freeing people, paying them pennies a week and make them responsible for themselves.

The same way landed gentry pushed the colonies into the American revolution. Its always about the $$$ and POWER.

dyna mo

i have to disagree that slavery was on the way out. in fact, quite the opposite- it was expanding and crucial. as i stated earlier, the South fought to protect their economy, a slave economy, so yes, it was about $$$ and power, the money and power that is derived from the antebellum slave economy.

dyna mo

"The cause of the great War of the Rebellion against the United States will have to be attributed to slavery."

General Grant, from his memoirs.



"It is very certain that the immediate cause of the political agitation which culminated in the dissolution of the Union was the institution of slavery." "There can be no doubt," he wrote, "that the Southern people" were "fighting to maintain slavery or prevent its overthrow by the hands of their enemies."

General Robert E. Lee's aide-de-camp, Col. Charles Marshall, in his memoirs.



"Abandon it [slavery], we cannot, interwoven as it is with our wealth, prosperity and domestic happiness."

--Governor Isham G. Harris of Tennessee."


"When I say that this rebellion has its source and life in slavery, I only repeat a simple truism."

US Congressman George W. Julian, in a speech to the House of Representatives, January 14, 1862.


"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution--African slavery as it exists amongst us--the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."

Alexander H. Stephens, vice-president of the Confederate States, March 21, 1861.

Just Alex

Should've picked their own cotton. Now we got stuck with 40 million dindu nuffins and no way of returning them.

__________________

DVTimes

the great problem was that you lot thought you could run yourselves rather than allow England to rule you.

anyway we let you, and you made a right mess of things.

even we did not think you would mess up so quick.

do not worry, one day we will take the USA back and sort everything out again.

__________________
The Affiliate Program

Grapesoda

that would be way normal in my life.... I shoot content on a daily basis

Grapesoda

was about expansion in the west and the funds needed pulled from southern aristocrats ... slavery was a dying institution, not profitable after mechanization and becoming less profitable every year

Grapesoda

yes and had the south stopped laid down their arms slavery would still be in existence

Grapesoda

you do know there were draft riots in the north, the invasion of the south was not really that popular

Grapesoda

the slave economy was failing and beginning to be phased out by the time of the war due to mechanization...

dyna mo

jtfc.

slavery wasn't profitable after mechanization? wtf!

Though the role of emancipation in President Abraham Lincoln’s decision to fight the Civil War remains debated by many, Civil War history is remarkably clear about the fact that maintaining slavery was the primary motivation for Southern Secession in 1860 and 1861. The agricultural South was dependent on cotton production and the economic and political elite there feared that as more new states entered the union they would choose to be free-states, shift the balance of power in Washington, and ultimately lead to higher tariffs for the South as well as threats to the institution of slavery.

However, many experts trace the deaths of more than 600,000 U.S. citizens on Civil War battlefields to an older cause: the cotton gin. This machine revolutionized the process of separating cotton from its seed, making it dramatically faster and less expensive to turn picked cotton into usable cotton for textiles. Eli Whitney invented the gin in 1794, and by 1850 the tool had changed the face of Southern agriculture.

Before Whitney’s gin entered into widespread use, the United States produced roughly 750,000 bales of cotton, in 1830. By 1850 that amount had exploded to 2.85 million bales. This production was concentrated almost exclusively in the South, because of the weather conditions needed for the plant to grow. Faster processing of cotton with the gin meant it was profitable for landowners to establish previously-unthinkably large cotton plantations across the south. But harvesting cotton remained a very labor-intensive undertaking. Thus, bigger cotton farms meant the need for more slaves. The slave population in the United States increased nearly five-fold in the first half of the 19th Century, and by 1860, the South provided about two-thirds of the world’s cotton supply. Southern wealth had become reliant on this one crop and thus was completely dependent on slave-labor.

In terms of understanding what the cotton gin means for Civil War history, the connection to the growth of slavery and its economic centrality for the South is clear. Between the political conflict of the 1820s to 1850s regarding new states and slavery, the election of Lincoln, whom Southerners perceived to be anti-slavery, and the high tariffs imposed on cotton and cotton goods by laws written in the North, the fact that the cotton states of the Deep South chose to secede seems far less surprising.

Civil War History: How the Cotton Gin Contributed to the Civil War

slavery exploded exponentially on account of mechanization.

Grapesoda

look again you can find just as many quotes stating that the war was NOT about slavery

Grapesoda

Grapesoda

thanks guys... very informative thread and wroth the read

Grapesoda

you might find this interesting

Economic history: Did slavery make economic sense? | The Economist

dyna mo

so fucking what. you're the uneducated one here calling others loudmouth stupid sheepeople because they happen to disagree with your revisionist history.

you obviously have a problem with Robert E.Lee & General Grant stating in no uncertain terms they fought that war over slavery, that's your problem, not mine.

dyna mo

there is nothing in that article i hadn't already learned while studying the Civil War era in college. and there is nothing in there that contradicts the fact that mechanization created an explosion in slave labor in the South.

TCLGirls

Robbie

Heck no they wouldn't be "allowed" to by the Feds. Too much money at stake.
And yeah, these days it would be nasty if it ever happened. But it won't of course.

By the way, on the subject of slavery...slavery was NOT going to end and wasn't why the civil war was fought.

Slavery was going to be alive and well in any state that already had it.

Ending slavery in all the states wasn't done until the middle of the actual war in 1863 with the "Emancipation Proclamation" and didn't become official until after the war when the U.S. congress with it's new members passed the 13th amendment. The Civil War started in 1861.
And it started when the State Of South Carolina seceded and ordered U.S. troops out of the fort in Charleston.
Fort Sumter was smack dab in the middle of the port of Charleston which was the center of commerce for the state.
When the Union army refused...the South Carolina army attacked.

There were no casualties on either side by the way. The union army surrendered the fort and then politicians from both the southern states and the northern states went ballistic over it and the war started.

Fort Sumter still stands today by the way.
If any of you are ever in Charleston there is a cool boat ride that takes you out to the ruins of the Fort and it has a museum in it as well.
It's a nice way to spend an afternoon in Charleston.

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

Just Alex

I always thought mechanization reduced human labor. We must've been going to different colleges.

__________________

dyna mo

yes we most certainly did attend different learning institutions.

here, i will explain to you what you are not grasping-

a cotton gin does not pick cotton. it separates cotton.

cotton picking was manual labor until the 1940s. to keep up with the speed of the cotton ginS, more slaves were needed to pick cotton.

dyna mo

some of my favorite Blues musicians worked much of their life picking cotton and they crafted their art and made music doing it

dyna mo

quoted for those that missed it.

Robbie

In South Carolina...it was all about RICE, not cotton believe it or not.
In the "low country" on the coast of South Carolina...it was the biggest producer of rice in the world.

That later went to China. But slavery was used in South Carolina for getting rice during that period of history.

I never even knew that until I spent time in Charleston and toured some of the old plantation homes that are still there today and the "Slave Market" in downtown Charleston.

__________________
-Robbie
ClaudiaMarie.Com

dyna mo

cotton production wasn't evenly spread across the South at all.

dyna mo

some more interesting info on that, RObbie

The South Carolina planters were, at first, completely ignorant of rice cultivation, and their early experiments with this specialized type of tropical agriculture were mostly failures. They soon recognized the advantage of importing slaves from the traditional rice-growing region of West Africa, and they generally showed far greater interest in the geographical origins of African slaves than did planters in other North American colonies. The South Carolina rice planters were willing to pay higher prices for slaves from the "Rice Coast," the "Windward Coast," the "Gambia," and "Sierra-Leon"; and slave traders in Africa soon learned that South Carolina was an especially profitable market for slaves from those areas. When slave traders arrived in Charlestown with slaves from the rice-growing region, they were careful to advertise their origin on auction posters or in newspaper announcements, sometimes noting that the slaves were "accustomed to the planting of rice." Traders who arrived in Charlestown with slaves from other parts of Africa where rice was not traditionally grown, such as Nigeria, often found that their slaves fetched lower prices. In some cases, they could sell no slaves at all and had to sail away to another port.

The South Carolina and Georgia colonists ultimately adopted a system of rice cultivation that drew heavily on the labor patterns and technical knowledge of their African slaves. During the growing season the slaves on the rice plantations moved through the fields in a line, hoeing rhythmically and singing work songs to keep in unison. At harvest time the women processed the rice by pounding it in large wooden mortars and pestles, virtually identical to those used in West Africa, and then "fanning" the rice in large round winnowing baskets to separate the grain and chaff.

The slaves may also have contributed to the system of sluices, banks, and ditches used on the South Carolina and Georgia rice plantations. West African farmers traditionally cultivated local varieties of wet rice on the flood plains and dry rice on the hillsides. During the 1500s the Portuguese introduced superior types of paddy rice from Asia, and travellers in the 1700s noted that West African farmers?including the Temne of Sierra Leone?were constructing elaborate irrigation systems for rice cultivation. In South Carolina and Georgia the slaves simply continued with many of the methods of rice farming to which they were accustomed in Africa.

South Carolina Rice Plantations

bronco67

So all this makes you....not racist?

__________________