Southern Fried Pride

[Gil Dobie]

Example A: Robert E. Lee was not kindly nor a gentleman.

When two of his slaves escaped and were recaptured, Lee either beat them himself or ordered the overseer to “lay it on well.” Wesley Norris, one of the slaves who was whipped, recalled that “not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.”

Link to a Myth

[Gil Dobie]

Example B: The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery

Mississippi's secession declaration began its list of "the prominent reasons which have induced our course" with the statement, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery."

Indeed, South Carolina did know the cause of their secession, and their convention, like Mississippi's, made a list of complaints in 1860. Every one of them was tied to slavery.

Link

[Gil Dobie]

[Gil Dobie]

[Ibanez]

I'm not sure why a flag from the Revolution was included in that one.

[Gil Dobie]

I'm not sure why a flag from the Revolution was included in that one.

They got it right at the end of the meme

[Ibanez]

I'm not sure why a flag from the Revolution was included in that one.

They got it right at the end of the meme

I get the last two. I'm just lost on why the first flag was chosen. Is it simply for the words? Or whomever it was that made that image, unsurprisingly, isn't aware of that flags history.

[Gil Dobie]

[Gil Dobie]

[UNI88]

I'm not sure why a flag from the Revolution was included in that one.

I'm guessing because it was a flag of a rebellion.

[CitadelGrad]

Example B: The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery

Mississippi's secession declaration began its list of "the prominent reasons which have induced our course" with the statement, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery."

Indeed, South Carolina did know the cause of their secession, and their convention, like Mississippi's, made a list of complaints in 1860. Every one of them was tied to slavery.

Link

Six of the eleven Confederate states listed slavery as the primary reason for secession.

Slavery was not Lincoln's primary reason for raising an army and invading the South. Lincoln didn't really give much of a shit about slavery. Even the Emancipation Proclamation permitted slavery in Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland, while allowing slavery in any state that voluntarily rejoined the Union.

So, was the war really about slavery? For some it wasn't. For others, it was.

[GannonFan]

Example B: The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery

Mississippi's secession declaration began its list of "the prominent reasons which have induced our course" with the statement, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery."

Indeed, South Carolina did know the cause of their secession, and their convention, like Mississippi's, made a list of complaints in 1860. Every one of them was tied to slavery.

Link

Six of the eleven Confederate states listed slavery as the primary reason for secession.

Slavery was not Lincoln's primary reason for raising an army and invading the South. Lincoln didn't really give much of a shit about slavery. Even the Emancipation Proclamation permitted slavery in Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland, while allowing slavery in any state that voluntarily rejoined the Union.

So, was the war really about slavery? For some it wasn't. For others, it was.

We've been through this before, at the root, it was almost entirely about slavery. If it wasn't about slavery directly, then it was about states rights, which were basically the right of the state and those in it to have slaves. Without slavery, the Civil War NEVER happens. See, I even used caps there.

[Gil Dobie]

Example B: The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery

Mississippi's secession declaration began its list of "the prominent reasons which have induced our course" with the statement, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery."

Indeed, South Carolina did know the cause of their secession, and their convention, like Mississippi's, made a list of complaints in 1860. Every one of them was tied to slavery.

Link

Six of the eleven Confederate states listed slavery as the primary reason for secession.

Slavery was not Lincoln's primary reason for raising an army and invading the South. Lincoln didn't really give much of a shit about slavery. Even the Emancipation Proclamation permitted slavery in Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland, while allowing slavery in any state that voluntarily rejoined the Union.

So, was the war really about slavery? For some it wasn't. For others, it was.

Slaves or slavery is referred to 10 times in the Confederate Constitution.

The 13th Amendment outlawed slavery across the nation.

[CitadelGrad]

Six of the eleven Confederate states listed slavery as the primary reason for secession.

Slavery was not Lincoln's primary reason for raising an army and invading the South. Lincoln didn't really give much of a shit about slavery. Even the Emancipation Proclamation permitted slavery in Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland, while allowing slavery in any state that voluntarily rejoined the Union.

So, was the war really about slavery? For some it wasn't. For others, it was.

We've been through this before, at the root, it was almost entirely about slavery. If it wasn't about slavery directly, then it was about states rights, which were basically the right of the state and those in it to have slaves. Without slavery, the Civil War NEVER happens. See, I even used caps there.

Yeah, let's just ignore the vastly disproportionate amount of federal revenues that came from the South.

Again, you only focus on the South's reasons for secession and not the North's unconstitutional response to it.

Without secession, the War of Northern Aggression NEVER happens. See, I even used caps there.

[GannonFan]

Six of the eleven Confederate states listed slavery as the primary reason for secession.

Slavery was not Lincoln's primary reason for raising an army and invading the South. Lincoln didn't really give much of a shit about slavery. Even the Emancipation Proclamation permitted slavery in Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland, while allowing slavery in any state that voluntarily rejoined the Union.

So, was the war really about slavery? For some it wasn't. For others, it was.

Slaves or slavery is referred to 10 times in the Confederate Constitution.

The 13th Amendment outlawed slavery across the nation.

Well, the 13th amendment didn't get ratified until December of 1865. And even then it was a shadow of the more equal rights wording that the Radical Republicans wanted. Heck, as Trip likes to point out, it didn't totally outlaw slavery every where in the US - technically you can still use slavery in prisons.

[GannonFan]

We've been through this before, at the root, it was almost entirely about slavery. If it wasn't about slavery directly, then it was about states rights, which were basically the right of the state and those in it to have slaves. Without slavery, the Civil War NEVER happens. See, I even used caps there.

Yeah, let's just ignore the vastly disproportionate amount of federal revenues that came from the South.

Again, you only focus on the South's reasons for secession and not the North's unconstitutional response to it.

Without secession, the War of Northern Aggression NEVER happens. See, I even used caps there.

And they seceded for the purposes of maintaining slavery. Even if they didn't all exclusively put that as the primary reason for doing so, it was/is the only reason they did so. Again, without slavery they don't secede. I could care less about the constitutionality of the response to hold the nation together - we're talking about why it broke up, and it did so entirely because of slavery.

[Gil Dobie]

Slaves or slavery is referred to 10 times in the Confederate Constitution.

The 13th Amendment outlawed slavery across the nation.

Well, the 13th amendment didn't get ratified until December of 1865. And even then it was a shadow of the more equal rights wording that the Radical Republicans wanted. Heck, as Trip likes to point out, it didn't totally outlaw slavery every where in the US - technically you can still use slavery in prisons.

They did have reparations all laid out and ready to go for the most part, with 40 acres and a mule, until Andrew Johnson rejected it due to his southern leanings.

[CitadelGrad]

Yeah, let's just ignore the vastly disproportionate amount of federal revenues that came from the South.

Again, you only focus on the South's reasons for secession and not the North's unconstitutional response to it.

Without secession, the War of Northern Aggression NEVER happens. See, I even used caps there.

And they seceded for the purposes of maintaining slavery. Even if they didn't all exclusively put that as the primary reason for doing so, it was/is the only reason they did so. Again, without slavery they don't secede. I could care less about the constitutionality of the response to hold the nation together - we're talking about why it broke up, and it did so entirely because of slavery.

Yeah, ignore the Constitution when it doesn't support your opinion. That figures.

[Ibanez]

Example B: The Civil War had nothing to do with slavery

Mississippi's secession declaration began its list of "the prominent reasons which have induced our course" with the statement, "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery."

Indeed, South Carolina did know the cause of their secession, and their convention, like Mississippi's, made a list of complaints in 1860. Every one of them was tied to slavery.

Link

Six of the eleven Confederate states listed slavery as the primary reason for secession.

Slavery was not Lincoln's primary reason for raising an army and invading the South. Lincoln didn't really give much of a shit about slavery. Even the Emancipation Proclamation permitted slavery in Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland, while allowing slavery in any state that voluntarily rejoined the Union.

So, was the war really about slavery? For some it wasn't. For others, it was.

The fallacy that slavery wasn't the root cause was begun and perpetuated by traitors (i.e. confederates) and proponents of Lost Cause propaganda in an effort to make their treason more honorable than it really was.

The fact of the matter is that BOTH sides, USA and CSA went to war over slavery. It was a question of economics, not morality. The emancipation of slavery didn't gain traction until the 1862-63.

[Ibanez]

We've been through this before, at the root, it was almost entirely about slavery. If it wasn't about slavery directly, then it was about states rights, which were basically the right of the state and those in it to have slaves. Without slavery, the Civil War NEVER happens. See, I even used caps there.

Yeah, let's just ignore the vastly disproportionate amount of federal revenues that came from the South.

Again, you only focus on the South's reasons for secession and not the North's unconstitutional response to it.

Without secession, the War of Northern Aggression NEVER happens. See, I even used caps there.

You want to do a root cause analysis? Spoiler Alert - IT WAS SLAVERY.

Slavery is reason for the for. Plain and simple and undeniable except by those that wish to re-write history.

If slavery wasn't in existence, then a war to preserve it and retain the states that want it would not have occurred. It's that simple. The Civil War occurred b/c slaves states were afraid that they would lose their slaves.

/thread

[Ibanez]

And they seceded for the purposes of maintaining slavery. Even if they didn't all exclusively put that as the primary reason for doing so, it was/is the only reason they did so. Again, without slavery they don't secede. I could care less about the constitutionality of the response to hold the nation together - we're talking about why it broke up, and it did so entirely because of slavery.

Yeah, ignore the Constitution when it doesn't support your opinion. That figures.

Where in the Constitution is secession governed?

[GannonFan]

Yeah, ignore the Constitution when it doesn't support your opinion. That figures.

Where in the Constitution is secession governed?

Yeah, I'm not sure how much of the Constitution he did read. I've gone over it several times and I don't see it there.

[CID1990]

When it came to slavery, Lee was no angel, to be sure.

But that he whipped his own slaves is also a myth. Lee famously had no stomach for it, and whipping was not a “gentleman’s pursuit”.

Lee did in fact have slaves whipped on two occasions, and in one instance he sold some slaves “south”... leased them out to a tough owner to discipline them.

An interesting note about the Lee slaves- he inherited them all through his wife, Mary Custis. Mary was part if George Washington’s family and she inherited them from the late President with the enjoinder that they would be freed once they were able to be self sufficient. Lee never freed them.

You should read the book, “Reading the Man: Robert E. Lee Through His Letters”

I forget the author’s name off the top of my head, but she was a Foreign Service Officer when she wrote it. An excellent biopic, and it does not hide Lee’s significant warts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ivytalk]

Why did a stolid Norskie like Gil Dobie start this thread in the first place? Minnesota was barely a State when the Civil War started.

[Gil Dobie]

When it came to slavery, Lee was no angel, to be sure.

But that he whipped his own slaves is also a myth. Lee famously had no stomach for it, and whipping was not a “gentleman’s pursuit”.

Lee did in fact have slaves whipped on two occasions, and in one instance he sold some slaves “south”... leased them out to a tough owner to discipline them.

An interesting note about the Lee slaves- he inherited them all through his wife, Mary Custis. Mary was part if George Washington’s family and she inherited them from the late President with the enjoinder that they would be freed once they were able to be self sufficient. Lee never freed them.

You should read the book, “Reading the Man: Robert E. Lee Through His Letters”

I forget the author’s name off the top of my head, but she was a Foreign Service Officer when she wrote it. An excellent biopic, and it does not hide Lee’s significant warts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

According to one of his former slaves, Lee had the stomach to order and watch, then wash in brine.

The testimony of Wesley Norris appeared in the National Anti-Slavery Standard on April 14, 1866.

My name is Wesley Norris; I was born a slave on the plantation of George Parke Custis; after the death of Mr. Custis, Gen. Lee, who had been made executor of the estate, assumed control of the slaves, in number about seventy; it was the general impression among the slaves of Mr. Custis that on his death they should be forever free; in fact this statement had been made to them by Mr. C. years before; at his death we were informed by Gen. Lee that by the conditions of the will we must remain slaves for five years; I remained with Gen. Lee for about seventeen months, when my sister Mary, a cousin of ours, and I determined to run away, which we did in the year 1859; we had already reached Westminster, in Maryland, on our way to the North, when we were apprehended and thrown into prison, and Gen. Lee notified of our arrest; we remained in prison fifteen days, when we were sent back to Arlington; we were immediately taken before Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free; he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where, in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable, was called in, who gave us the number of lashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to lay it on well, an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done. After this my cousin and myself were sent to Hanover Court-House jail, my sister being sent to Richmond to an agent to be hired; we remained in jail about a week, when we were sent to Nelson county, where we were hired out by Gen. Lee’s agent to work on the Orange and Alexander railroad; we remained thus employed for about seven months, and were then sent to Alabama, and put to work on what is known as the Northeastern railroad; in January, 1863, we were sent to Richmond, from which place I finally made my escape through the rebel lines to freedom; I have nothing further to say; what I have stated is true in every particular, and I can at any time bring at least a dozen witnesses, both white and black, to substantiate my statements: I am at present employed by the Government; and am at work in the National Cemetary on Arlington Heights, where I can be found by those who desire further particulars; my sister referred to is at present employed by the French Minister at Washington, and will confirm my statement.

Testimony of Wesley Norris Link


The Carroll County Democrat published a report on June 2nd, 1859 saying that four fugitive slaves had been arrested in Westminster, Maryland. On June 24th of the same year, two anonymous letters appeared in the New York Tribune. One of these reports that since becoming owner of his wife's family's estate, conditions on Lee's Arlington plantation had deteriorated sharply. The author alleges that an 80 year old man is made to work as a field hand, that elderly women were made to work through the night making clothes for field hands, that food rations had been slashed, and that arbitrary punishment had become common. She or he also recounts a very similar story to the one in the Testimony of Wesley Norris, though in this letter, the whipping is thirty nine lashes for both of the Norris siblings (the legally permitted maximum) rather than fifty and twenty. A second letter reportedly from a neighbour of Robert Lee also reports that the incident occurred, with alarm. Both letters protest that upon the death of his wife's father, the Arlington slaves were supposed to have been freed, and they strongly imply that Lee prevented the publication of the notice of manumission. Curiously, these letters portray Lee in a worse light again - both claim that he flogged the slaves himself:

Letter 1: The officer whipped the two men, and said he would not whip the woman, and Col. Lee stripped her and whipped him herself. These are the facts as I learn from near relatives of the men whipped. After being whipped, he sent them to Richmond and hired them out as farm hands

Letter 2: the men received thirty and nine lashes each, from the hands of the slave-whipper, when he refused to whip the girl, and Mr. Lee himself administered the thirty and nine lashes to her
Link