Was slavery the primary cause of the war?

Natty · Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 7:33 am Post subject:

Most yanks sincerely believe the war was faught to free the slaves.

They are only ignorant because the truth is not taught in Northern schools, only yankee propaganda.

Otherwise they would know that the great emanicipator himself, and hero to the yanks Abe lincoln married into a slave owning family. Hmmmm.

And they dont even know that many Northern soldiers and even Northern generals owned slaves.

Generals Grant and Sherman owned slaves. Hmmmm.

And the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves of the Confederate states.

Yankee slaves did not apply....

Bet you yanks didnt know that or you would never think the war was about freeing the slaves....

Natty · Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 7:45 am Post subject:

Mr.O'Bruadair, The 2 richest per capita counties in the US as of 2006 are Fairfax county VA and Montgomery county MD.

Both are former Slave states.

Your argument just went down the toilet Sir.

O'Bruadair · Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 12:31 pm Post subject:

“The 2 richest per capita counties in the US as of 2006 are Fairfax county VA and Montgomery county MD.”

So what?

Those two counties are also in the DC metropolitan area and as such are chock full of yankee government employees. many if not most of them real yankees. You are not suggesting those two counties could be considered “Southern” in anything but a geographic sense are you?

Don’t reckon that changes anything even a mite

What were the richest two counties in 1860? I know one of them was Dallas county Alabama and it is now one of the poorest. Why should this be 145 years later? Once again if you can bring yourself to come to some understanding of the real reasons you might just start to realize some truth.

Besides the comparison of such small and so few subdivisions means little. There are certainly some rich political subdivisions in the South (many of them as chock full of yankees as Fairfax and Montgomery County)

Again so what?

charge_of_glory · Captain Joined: 01 Aug 2006 Posts: 136

Some Northerners believe it was faught to free the slaves because that's why some people fought. It was a reason for some, get it right. Don't trash our schools either since you've obviously never been to one. Besides, at least our schools teach the real outcome of the war. In the South, they used to teach children that they had won. Talk about propaganda. As for Licoln, he married into the family, but he didn't own those slaves. Many Northern military members didn't own slaves either. Not many people in the North did period. "Yankee" states didn't apply in the E.P. because they were already free states. So you see, I knew that and I'm a "Yank". I still think the war was about freeing slaves, among other things. Get your head out of places it doesn't belong.

deserteagle_810 · First Sergeant Joined: 18 Sep 2006 Posts: 32

Generals Grant and Sherman owned slaves!?!? I'm having and allergic reaction to all the B.S flying around here. That argument is so full of holes that it couldn't hold a drop of water. The only way that Grant might conceivably own slaves is the fact that his wifes family was slave owning; but that in no way implies that he himself had slaves. He was a poor clerk who worked in his fathers store before the war. And Sherman? Thats just crazy. Give me one primary source, one that is from the time period of the Civil War itself, that states that Sherman or Grant owned slaves.

And what is a "Yankee Slave?" Slavery, as a social institution did not exist above the Mason-Dixon Line; there were no slaves in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania, etc; all these states expressly forbid the institution in their state constitutions. I do not consider the border states Yankee states either, just for the record, so that knocks out Delaware, though it stayed loyal to the Union and slavery was a dying institution there.

And just to make this apply to the discussion, I, as a student to the Civil War, do not think that the main issue of the Civil War was slavery. It was a cause of the States Rights crisis, but it was not the main cause that men went to enlist in either side. Yes, there were some to be sure, but you would not hear most Northern men say they were going to free the slaves or a common southern soldier say he was fighting to keep slavery. It was just not that common to hear. And this is not coming from that "Yankee propoganda" that I was fed in school, but from extensive research into the time period. If I could hazard to say so, most schools don't know a thing about the causes of the Civil War. [/u]

Natty · Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:55 pm Post subject:

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/articles/00/black_confederates.html

I should not have to do your research for you. The 4th paragraph explains that Grant not only owned slaves but he didnt even free them after the Emancipation Proclamation.

Natty · Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 3:59 pm Post subject:

http://www.thetandd.com/articles/2006/02/27/news/doc4403c5e8c5621807671978.prt

The 7th paragraph here explains about Shermans slaves.

deserteagle_810 · First Sergeant Joined: 18 Sep 2006 Posts: 32

Sorry, to bust your bubble Natty, but you failed to follow simple instructions. I said that I wanted a document from the 1860's, proving that they owned slaves, not contemporary articles. Maybe you should go back and read it. Last sentence, first paragraph if I remember correctly.

The first article's author has a Ph.D, but we can all get those through hard work. His article is flawed for this because it does not cite where he got the information from. From all the information I have found, he took what he read out of context, a cardinal sin. Grant married a Ms. Julia Dent, daughter of a Missouri plantation owner who owned 20 slaves. When he resigned his commmission, his father-in-law gave him the use of some land, and several slaves to farm it, but he was not given ownership. The one slave he was given he freed, even when he could have used the money. But he was never a slave owner in the sense of the word. And I was able to find nothing on Sherman, after searching for an hour through several sources, that if anything, would have something on that. Sherman was not a fan of abolition, but he was not a slave owner. Now go back and find a letter, a memoir, something from the 1860's that proves that they did. Because in an academic forum, you would be torn to shreds for what you gave me. Sorry, but those are the plain facts. Grade on your assignment: F Try again.

Natty · Posted: Thu Sep 28, 2006 9:06 pm Post subject:

You asked for "one primary source" read your own writing.

Ever heard of Google? Type in 'Grant owned slaves' you will get over 1,000,000 hits read some of them....

Duhhh.

deserteagle_810 · First Sergeant Joined: 18 Sep 2006 Posts: 32

I did.......none of those are primary sources.....i should know, i am a history student, i have seen thousands of them. not a one of those were letters, documents from the 1860's; i want something from that period; the time Grant was born, to when he died; same for sherman. And Google....we history students don't normally use that as a source for research. we use the library. and i live in maryland, there are plenty around. go there and try and find one. you won't find them.

Definition of a Primary Source- a document from the time period in question, such as a memoir, letter, field report, period newspaper article.

Definition of a Secondary Source- a contemporary article such as a book or research article.

Oh, and if you type in 'Grant owned slaves' the first hit you get off of Google is a *beep* mens chat site. Not a good start there Natty. One more reason why the students who use google for research normally FAIL!!!!!!!

Natty · Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:17 am Post subject:

"Oh, and if you type in 'Grant owned slaves' the first hit you get off of Google is a *beep* mens chat site."

Not on my computer. What have you been looking at son?

Natty · Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 7:20 am Post subject:

Sign in

Web Images VideoNew! News Maps more » Books
Froogle
Groups
even more »

Advanced Search
Preferences

Web Results 1 - 10 of about 1,060,000 for grant owned slaves. (0.05 seconds)

Which US Presidents Owned Slaves?Yes. The only evidence that USG owned slaves is a document he signed in 1859 freeing one, William Jones. However, Grant certainly had some control over and ...
www.nas.com/~lopresti/ps.htm - 70k - Cached - Similar pages

Rob LoprestiMany presidents who owned slaves found it abhorrent to sell one, ... Grant apparently never bought or sold slaves but his wife received some from her father ...
www.nas.com/~lopresti/rank.htm - 11k - Cached - Similar pages

Ulysses S Grant National Historic Site - Slavery at White Haven ...In 1859, Grant freed William Jones, the only slave he is known to have owned. During the Civil War, some slaves at White Haven simply walked off, ...
www.nps.gov/ulsg/historyculture/slaveryatwh.htm - 35k - Cached - Similar pages

Robert E. Lee owned slaves and defended slavery: Geekery Today ...The savior of the north, US Grant, also owned slaves which he freed in 1859. The irony is that a large number of union generals owned slaves and did not ...
radgeek.com/gt/2005/01/03/robert_e - 231k - Cached - Similar pages

'Write the Truth' - Volume 16 No. 4 - Summer 2002 - Rethinking ...But it was a shock that Grant had owned slaves. "He was the commander of the Union army in the Civil War," I explained. "When I first learned about the ...
www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/16_04/Writ164.shtml - 34k - Cached - Similar pages

Birdman Bryant: Free Black SlaveownersCharles Harris comments that many of the Confederate Generals were slave owners. true, but Union General Us Grant owned 4 slaves. At the outbreak of the ...
www.thebirdman.org/.../Others/Others-Doc-Blacks/Doc-Blacks-Slavery&Reparations/FreeBlackSlaveowners.html - 19k - Cached - Similar pages

Dump Grant! [Archive] - JustUsBoys.com *beep* CommunityGrant owned slaves while Lee had freed his. Washington owned slaves. Lincoln never thought of blacks being equal to whites (look at his speeches) and the ...
www.justusboys.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-69890.html - 14k - Cached - Similar pages

[PDF] White New Yorkers.qxdFile Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Far more typically, white people who owned slaves worked them hard, used physical ... and denied them rights that whites could take for grant- ...
www.slaveryinnewyork.org/PDFs/White_New_Yorkers.pdf - Similar pages

THE CORRUPT TREE: Ranking the PresidentsWe also downgrade presidents who have owned slaves and not freed them. ... stabilized the most amazing period of growth in human history begun under Grant. ...
thecorrupttree.blogs.com/my_weblog/2005/11/ranking_the_pre.html - 18k - Cached - Similar pages

Southern Educators Perpetuate Myths When They Should Know BetterBorn a slave in 1790, William Ellison owned 63 slaves by 1860, ... And General Ulysses S. Grant, who accepted Lee’s surrender on behalf of the Union at ...
www.daveblackonline.com/southern_educators_perpetuate.htm - 15k - Cached - Similar pages

Result Page:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Next

Free! Speed up the web. Download the Google Web Accelerator.

deserteagle_810 · First Sergeant Joined: 18 Sep 2006 Posts: 32

obviously my instructions are over your head. none of those are primary documents. im sorry. and most of those, which i have looked at, just perpetuate what I said earlier, that they were the slaves of his wives family, and that the one slave he was given one, William Jones, was given his freedom, not sold, which would have given him desperately needed money. And if you read the search result on the first one that it gave you there, the only document connecting him is the freeing of Mr. Jones. The slaves were inherited by his wife after her marriage. There is no record of his treatment of the ones that helped him on Hard Scrabble, but coming from an intensely abolitionist family, he most likely treated them like they were just farm hands. There is no evidences though. He had the use of them, but did not own them personally. They most likely went back to his father in law when he moved to Galena to help in his fathers store; hence the reason that they were not freed until after the war, b/c the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in territory in active rebellion. The border states and Union occupied and controlled territory did not apply.

And as I said before, if anyone used a source that came off of justusboys.com as an academic source in an academic paper, they would be the laughing stock of the entire faculty. Google is not a good source for this stuff b/c you can find just about whatever you want on the internet. As a history student, in every class where a research paper was required of us, we were expressly told not to use Google, or any search engine for that matter, because of the aforementinoned reason.Just because it is on the internet doesn't make it true, or even reliable. When it comes to history, as all history students are taught, you must go back to the sources. And from what I saw, there is only one out there, and its even open to speculation how he treated them.

Natty · Posted: Fri Sep 29, 2006 1:26 pm Post subject:

Hey Deserteagle, its history, if you cant accept it or are embarrassed or ashamed or ignorant of the yankee hipocracy so be it.

Sorry but I dont have time to do some school kids research.

deserteagle_810 · First Sergeant Joined: 18 Sep 2006 Posts: 32

I can guarantee you I have more training in historical research than you do. I can also guarantee you that I have done more than you have and from better sources. Sorry, but this isn't a high schooler you are talking to. I don't need others to do your research. You made a statement, I asked you to back it up with historical documentation, not a Google search. That isn't research. You can find anything on the internet. And as I stated, they were his wives slaves, and when he left Missouri, he freed the one given to him and the others were sent back to his father-in-law. Unless you have a degree in history and a masters in public history, and possibly a Ph.D, then you aren't qualified.