Find anything cool?

Well, he didn't own them for long. 😆

Neither did the Confederates. They weren’t fighting for slavery.

@@SteveBrownRocks2023 men weren’t fighting for slavery but politicians definitely seceded for it. It wasn’t the only issue but was one of the main reasons they left the union. The south had almost no industry and the economy was heavily reliant on slave labor. Without it the south would’ve been much poorer and the strict race based class system would be far less effective. That’s why after the war white southerners did everything in their power to put the formerly enslaved back in bonds with Jim Crow and harsher prison sentences. Today we try to pick sides but it’s almost impossible to without any bias. The north was just as racist and exploitive of blacks and lower classes. It wasn’t like the north was a modern thinking progressive country. Some of the biggest lynchings occurred in the north. On top of that the north effectively engaged in slavery on a smaller scale. Workers didn’t have rights and often city governments were corrupted by businesses and crime organizations.

@@TheEvbox I agree with almost everything you say, BUT; you’re dead wrong that the Civil war started due to slavery. The #1 cause was that the Southern States were being taxed beyond their GDP, which was much less than Northern States. They were being taxed into poverty, much like what’s happening today. They just wanted each State to be taxed a percentage of their GDP, as it should be. Slavery was an absolute NON-issue until the Yankee President Lincoln issued his illegal “Emancipation” speech. He only did that for 1 reason, & it was a good one. He knew the British & French were about to break the Yankee blockade so they could get the cotton they desperately needed to operate their textile-based economies, & in return the Confederacy would get needed supplies like clothing, medicine, weapons, & food. The British & French had only recently banned slavery & Lincoln knew they couldn’t support a country that still had slaves. That’s it. Also, the Confederate States did NOT base their whole economy on slavery! Only 1% of southerners actually owned slaves & they were the big plantation owners. Normal people couldn’t afford nor had any need for slaves. My ancestors were ALL Confederates, & they farmed. NONE of them nor any of their neighbors owned slaves. Not a single ONE fought for slavery, they fought for their State, their families, their land, & their livelihoods. Every single one of them joined the Confederate Army & all were killed except my great-great grandfather, who walked from Va. to Ga. barefooted carrying his rifle & his brothers rifle, (who was killed while sleeping by a stray bullet). So anytime you hear someone say the Civil War was all about slavery, you’ll know right away that they really don’t know what they’re talking about. Also, they never tried to return slavery, they were in fact about to end it anyway, war or no war. “Jim Crow” didn’t start in the Confederacy either. It came much later, & the Democrats started it. Either way, at least you seem to know more than most people, just have a few facts wrong. Now you know the real truth.

@@SteveBrownRocks2023 I definitely see what youre saying the south didn’t secede for slavery is like saying we didn’t go to the Middle East for oil. Slavery was seen as backwards and old fashioned by the early 1800s and by the time of the civil war it was very strange for a modern state to (openly) engage in slavery. This to me is proof enough that the south was fighting for slavery. It was the biggest difference between northern and southern (rural) life. While it would be more accurate to say they fought for states rights. one of those biggest rights was slavery. Whether Lincoln was originally an emancipator or not (he wasn’t) he still fought for the end of slavery. Intentions and actions are 2 very different things. While I appreciate you I don’t agree with you but I’m sure we can discuss it without getting racist, triggered, etc. right? It’s hard to comment on KZfaq these days lol

@@TheEvbox yes, it's an issue that will never be agreed on. Me being a lifelong Georgian & living in the days of the Civil rights movement, Vietnam, etc. (I'm 65) & being a retired historian gives me a different perspective than what others have. The vast majority of people today (ESPECIALLY young people that can barely read or write) don't know true history at all. Lots of historical things aren't exactly true, and even people like US have been told what was believed to be true but turned out it was just a BIT wrong. I'm sure you know what I mean!

Great comment - thanks. It would be difficult to say who reviled their enemy more since people, experiences, and perspectives varied greatly. Typically people are quick and eager to form stereotypes (especially in a war) and see everything through that lens. Some of the stereotypes may be mostly true, but there are always many exceptions and many things the same on both sides.

I would say the Northerners had more disdain for Southerners than vice versa. And I’m not basing that off here say… The Northern prisoner of war camps were notorious for purposely starving their prisoners and abusing them, even though they had abundant food… You only ever here about Andersonville, but the Northern camps were much worse and had a high death rate. Southerners were just protecting what they saw as their homeland. I feel you could draw comparisons to Vietnam: frustrated soldiers that began raping and killing civilians because their enemy remained elusive…

0

​@sobohompkin-ls7cp Quite right! To add to what you said, it must be noted that the disdain and contempt the Northerners held for the Southerners goes all the way back to our colonial days-- evidenced by such things as the insulting criticisms the New Englanders had for Gen. George Washington, saying that he was nothing but a dirty pig farmer from Virginia, amonst other instances and quotes about the Appalachian peoples being little more than lazy, dirt poor savages and white indians. If I'm not mistaken, Washington even noted the divide betwixt the North and South in one of his letters, and he said that he was afraid that it might well lead to a war in the near future. The Civil War didn't just pop off over night, it was several decades in the making at this point. Then, when all the carpet baggers rolled into town in droves, taking shameless advantage of a devastatingly ravaged and war torn South, it certainly didn't help their image none!!!

They don't call it a lost cause for nothing!

Richmond rioted because of runaway inflation, people have a weird romanticism with the confederacy without looking at any reality. People often glass over how the confederacy was for normal white citizens, and just all about the war. It wasn’t a very functional government and was based on the failed articles of confederation gov from the revolution (Americas actually on its second government the first one with the articles failed after like 20 years)

@@CalkatProductions Yes, as far as I can tell it was very difficult domestically, but to say that the Confederate Constitution was based on the AoC is just incorrect. It was practically a carbon copy of the Union Constitution with the only major differences being about slavery and granting the states some extra powers (or arguably removing a few in certain areas). Yes, the CSA was closer to a Jeffersonian or Constructionist position, but, as far as I know, the Anti-Federalists gave up on bringing back the AoC after the illegal imposition of the Constitution and instead sought a compromise by adding the Bill of Rights. Also, I don't think it's fair to call the AoC a failure.

Demagogues and the politically powerful planter class led many good poor men astray. How sickening is Alexander Stevens? Reading his crap makes your skin crawl

An industrial base with always overcome an agricultural one. Also, there was only one type of uniform for the American army until the confederacy could make a their own

Must be a strange feeling to think of these things happening where you live.

It's called a cascable knob. They used it to attach ropes to keep the cannon from rolling backwards due to the recoil when the weapon is fired. They would have to do this if they were firing on a slope or if they were firing in small confines.

@@galndixie thank you! I’d seen them used for the anti-recoil on ships of that time, to prevent the gun from rolling backwards.

I would say it was for ropes to help control recoil, but glandixie already explained it. This was a dire requirement on ships at sea.

The Cascabel ( no knob) was a standard feature of Naval Cannon; to take up the recoil of firing on a 4 wheel mount. It served for a heavy cable to prevent a " runaway gun " on the deck, as well as supplying a tether for the Pulley Blocks to Run the gun back into Battery after reloading.

All the “founding fathers” were slave owners, another little point I read somewhere, the American colonies were the lowest taxed.

And if you ever have to do a ton of washing, then you can understand how slaves would have been handy. 😆

That war went on for over 100 years in the hills and backwoods all over the south.

What makes the Confederates traitors, as if that's a bad thing, but not the original Revolutionaries?

@@danielboone8256Fairly simple, but in order to see them that way you must agree with the principles of the US constitution. The revolutionaries fought for the very ideals of that document, and thus fought to better their country. The confederates wanted to tear down the constitution, and thus fought to destroy their country.

​@@samfann1768They didnt fight to destroy the country. They left the country.

You think if a wife decides to leave her husband, he has the right to go and kill her just for the sake of keeping the family together?

Under-representation in the controlling government was the final reason for both wars of independence. Its only treason if you lose.