View in: Desktop
Copyright @2022 SECRant.com. All rights reserved.
Posted by
Message
re: Knoxville and East Tennessee were pro UnionPosted by armytide373 
on 6/20/20 at 10:47 pm to Mithridates6
on 6/20/20 at 10:47 pm to Mithridates6It is not surprising. The Prussian virtues of fidelity (more an outgrowth from their continued sense of fielty/fealty and honor), austerity and discipline no doubt carried over with many of the immigrants who recognized the Union as the rightful seat of power where states were bonded in oath to a constitution that many of their grandfathers had fought to defend and win its freedom.
I've shared this as well, but my ancestry in the US is to the late 1600s and early 1700s when a bunch of Germanic Palantines were looking for greener pastures (at least on my father's side; my mother's family were a bunch of WOP Sicilians who snuck in through New Orleans and settled in Bham in the 1910s). They first stopped in England for a while before heading across the big pond. The Prussian-English cohort of mine settled mostly in PA before making their way into the Carolinas heading into the American Revolution. Then, they worked their way west from Asheville into and eventually across Tennessee and had ended up in Winston, CO Alabama by the mid-1800s. Just a bunch of traveling church builders (if you ever run across a Pleasant Grove or Pleasant Grove Church in that tract, it was likely the same group). They weren't very creative.
I've shared this as well, but my ancestry in the US is to the late 1600s and early 1700s when a bunch of Germanic Palantines were looking for greener pastures (at least on my father's side; my mother's family were a bunch of WOP Sicilians who snuck in through New Orleans and settled in Bham in the 1910s). They first stopped in England for a while before heading across the big pond. The Prussian-English cohort of mine settled mostly in PA before making their way into the Carolinas heading into the American Revolution. Then, they worked their way west from Asheville into and eventually across Tennessee and had ended up in Winston, CO Alabama by the mid-1800s. Just a bunch of traveling church builders (if you ever run across a Pleasant Grove or Pleasant Grove Church in that tract, it was likely the same group). They weren't very creative.
Posted by vol-boy 
on 6/21/20 at 7:52 am to Serraneaux
on 6/21/20 at 7:52 am to Serraneaux[quote]Knoxville and East Tennessee were pro Union/quote]
How can this be? In the movie Django Unchained (Quinten Tarantino) the bounty hunter and his slave had to visit every slave plantation in Gatlinburg. Are you calling Tarantino a liar?
How can this be? In the movie Django Unchained (Quinten Tarantino) the bounty hunter and his slave had to visit every slave plantation in Gatlinburg. Are you calling Tarantino a liar?
Posted by InGAButLoveBama on 6/21/20 at 9:22 am to vol-boy
Can someone explain to me why the US House voted down the 13th Amendment (which later passed and freed the slaves) in 1864, despite there not being any Southerner in the House? I thought the North was fighting to free the slaves. Can someone also explain why there were five Union states with slaves, during the war, if the Union was trying to free the slaves?
I have never denied that slavery was A motive of Southern oligarchs, among other motives across the Southern populace, such as the desire to retain a decentralized govt.. However, this deification of the UNION and Lincoln as if their main goal was fighting to free the slaves, especially at the beginning of the war, is just dumb. Uncensored history is not on your side.
Do look up what Lincoln said in the Lincoln Douglas debates to see what a real hard core racist sounds like. He certainly was more of a racist than I am. Sure I don't believe in biological White erasure, but that doesn't mean I don't want Blacks and other non Whites in the US. Lincoln on the other hand, was very clear that he did not want Blacks in the US.
I have never denied that slavery was A motive of Southern oligarchs, among other motives across the Southern populace, such as the desire to retain a decentralized govt.. However, this deification of the UNION and Lincoln as if their main goal was fighting to free the slaves, especially at the beginning of the war, is just dumb. Uncensored history is not on your side.
Do look up what Lincoln said in the Lincoln Douglas debates to see what a real hard core racist sounds like. He certainly was more of a racist than I am. Sure I don't believe in biological White erasure, but that doesn't mean I don't want Blacks and other non Whites in the US. Lincoln on the other hand, was very clear that he did not want Blacks in the US.
This post was edited on 6/21 at 9:24 am
Posted by vol-boy on 6/21/20 at 10:25 am to InGAButLoveBama
on 6/21/20 at 10:25 am to InGAButLoveBamaI think I can explain it. See, it’s kinda like the Union was for slavery before they were against it once they figured out they could use it as a edge issue to accomplish their real agenda. It’s quite a simple fact that most people find hard to accept.
Posted by morriscat2 
on 6/21/20 at 12:47 pm to Prof
on 6/21/20 at 12:47 pm to ProfAn estimated 135k Tennesseans fought for the Confederacy, although “Tennesseans in War” has the number at 180k+. I think their figure is too high but they do list all the Tennessee regiments for both sides. The Confederate regiments take up 4.5 pages. The non African American Union regiments comprises on 2/3 of a page. There number is 31k but that number included a lot of under age or elderly men who were part of a home guard. They were never going to see battle.
Again,
Knox county was split down the middle. As far as the 2-1 vote against secession in East Tennessee, its one thing to vote against something. It is quite another to pick up arms against your State. Many who voted against secession never fought against the State.
Perhaps you are upset Tennessee was indeed a Confederate State.
Again,
Knox county was split down the middle. As far as the 2-1 vote against secession in East Tennessee, its one thing to vote against something. It is quite another to pick up arms against your State. Many who voted against secession never fought against the State.
Perhaps you are upset Tennessee was indeed a Confederate State.
Posted by Luke 
on 6/21/20 at 12:56 pm to Mithridates6
on 6/21/20 at 12:56 pm to Mithridates6The Sipsey Wilderness is a true untouched gem... trying to find men, much less forcefully remove them in that area of Winston and Lawrence County would be an impossible task.
Posted by Mithridates6 
on 6/21/20 at 1:21 pm to morriscat2
on 6/21/20 at 1:21 pm to morriscat2quote:
There number is 31k but that number included a lot of under age or elderly men who were part of a home guard. They were never going to see battle.
More like 50k, I'm not sure where you're getting the second part either, just to pick one example the 8th Tennessee infantry took part in most battles of the western theatre
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/8th_Tennessee_Volunteer_Infantry
quote:
As far as the 2-1 vote against secession in East Tennessee, its one thing to vote against something. It is quite another to pick up arms against your State. Many who voted against secession never fought against the State.
Many were willing to take up arms against the slavers' rebellion, but east Tennessee was under Confederate control and the Union commanders didn't assign it high strategic value so it wasn't liberated until late in the war. Patriots had to risk their lives to slip through rebel lines to enlist in the US army, the brave men who led them on these treks were called "pilots"
LINKThis post was edited on 6/21 at 1:22 pm
Posted by SummerOfGeorge on 6/21/20 at 1:30 pm to Mithridates6
on 6/21/20 at 1:30 pm to Mithridates6Mithridates6 and armytide great stuff in this thread.
Posted by morriscat2 on 6/21/20 at 1:37 pm to Mithridates6
on 6/21/20 at 1:37 pm to Mithridates631k is a matter of Union record. The North kept very good records, the South did not. Maybe your confused because the 31k was whites only. Black regiments would push that number higher.
SR Sponsor
SR Fan
USA
Member since 2001
SR FanUSA
Member since 2001
Thank you for supporting our sponsors Posted by Site Sponsor 
to Everyone
to EveryoneAdvertisement
Posted by Mithridates6 on 6/21/20 at 1:52 pm to morriscat2
on 6/21/20 at 1:52 pm to morriscat2Tennessee contributed something like 50 white regiments to the Union army, ofc not all of these men would've necessarily been from Tennessee, but that is more than 31,000. Arkansas contributed 15 and 10 from Louisiana I believe
Posted by Diamondawg 
on 6/21/20 at 1:58 pm to Serraneaux
on 6/21/20 at 1:58 pm to SerraneauxWhat was their RPI at the beginning of the war?
Posted by armytide373 on 6/21/20 at 3:38 pm to InGAButLoveBama
on 6/21/20 at 3:38 pm to InGAButLoveBamaquote:
However, this deification of the UNION and Lincoln as if their main goal was fighting to free the slaves, especially at the beginning of the war, is just dumb. Uncensored history is not on your side.
It has been acknowledged and made clear many times throughout multiple threads that "freeing" the slaves was not a goal of Lincoln or the Union. They receive such credit for the acts that hastened the freedom of southern slaves, which arose during the war and ultimately ended slavery in the US well before it would have run its natural course to an end.
Lincoln would have been killed on the campaign trail pre-Civil War if that was his platform and it looked as if he may win. From the onset of war, he made it clear maintaining the Union was all that mattered. The Emancipation Proclamation was messaging to the South that there would be no bargained, acceptable peace outside of unconditional surrender. It was a shift toward total war, which expanded the conduct of warfare
Why would Union states not all vote for the 13th Amendment?. Aside from the clear fact that many influential slaveholders resided in the North that could cause a second wave of insurrection and resistance from Union States (or lack of backing a rep that voted for it), the northern states had absorbed many freed and runaway slaves over the years and truly throughout the Civil War. Employment shortfalls coupled with societal, ethnic/racial and cultural lines blurring in northern cities were all reasons not to want to so readily release more free slaves into an already crowding mix. So, the House representatives, who are always closer to their constituents, would have had some uncomfortable conversations with supporters back home had they fully supported such RADICAL reform. But, Lincoln saw this and had it added to the Republican presidency platform for the next election, which was another smart move. It would be one thing to not vote for freedom of people in private, but another thing entirely to have to debate in an open forum how the subjugation of one man to another was still socially acceptable given the evolution of the thoughts on "slavery" in the international stage and what the war had transformed to mean for many. The second house vote was an overwhelming majority in favor of abolishing slavery.
Further, the most progressive of minds in the 1800s would seem every bit a racist today. Context matters. Racial and ethnic divide based on a belief in the existence of racial and ethnic superiority was a prevailing thought well into the 1900s. The first era of real "globalization" preceded WWI, and the clash of cultures along geographic fault lines was a key macro societal factor for the first Great War that had been brewing in Central and Western Europe since Frederick the Great through to and beyond the Prussian wars of unification. In a large way, it was WWII that forced an awakening to the "wrongness" of that thought. It wasn't just what the horrors of the Nazis and the "white" controlling powers of the "civilized worlds" appeasement that allowed such horrific genocide. The SLOW integration of society and openness of thought saw people of all colors/ethnicities fight valiantly, make incredible contributions to the arts, athletics, academia, and science and truly begin to dispel a lot of "myths." WWI ushered in an age of idealism that ran counter to the prevailing more cut throat realist thought. Through increased observation and interaction, the old ways of thinking gave way to a greater hope of gender/racial equality, which meant opportunity and access to all of the advantages of whites.
Much of the prestige and honor of the South has been just as misconstrued and twisted as some of the narrative of the north, but that is life. The meaning of artifacts, words, and the "truth" changes as time goes on.
We are who we are because of who we were. We cannot change the past, but cannot sit idly by and say all is good. It is just the greedy, lazy few who want to stir shite and upset the apple cart. Well, for ~240 yrs in the Americas that Apple cart was slavery, then segragation and a fight for women's equality for another 100 years, and now we are ~50 years into greater integration of both races and women. Still, it isn't perfect, but it remains the best country in the world. And, we have to admit the amount of change in that 50+ yrs has been pretty impressive... more impressive is that we haven't fallen into greater divide sooner given the amount of cultural change in such a short time compared to out history. But, we are blind if we think it can't and shouldn't improve. We can lead change or have it thrust upon us... much of what we are living TODAY is the latter due to our collective resistance to the former.
Our southern culture and heritage has an extraordinary history that has positively impacted the world. I am always stunned that so many cling to such divisive artifacts of a time so non-representational of who we truly are today. It geneuinely feels a continued resistance to the advancement of society. A push back at a government that had to lead change to an improved society of free Americans, as it marginalized and stood to erase the established societal norms they clung to for far too long. Things like the Mississippi flag are going to change. It is always better to be out front to guide change than to remain behind it and be shaped by it.
This post was edited on 6/21 at 3:46 pm
Posted by Lynxrufus2012 
on 6/21/20 at 3:49 pm to Serraneaux
on 6/21/20 at 3:49 pm to SerraneauxAs was Eastern and Northern Kentucky. A truly divided state being the birthplace of Jefferson Davis and Abraham Lincoln.
Kentucky officially stayed in the Union with a Confederate government set up in Bowling Green It became more pro-southern after the war because the Yankees treated Kentuckians badly. Nostalgia aside, the right side won and the world was safer because we remained united. We are still being punished, however by Ohio and Michigan drivers clogging the passing lanes on I-75.
Kentucky officially stayed in the Union with a Confederate government set up in Bowling Green It became more pro-southern after the war because the Yankees treated Kentuckians badly. Nostalgia aside, the right side won and the world was safer because we remained united. We are still being punished, however by Ohio and Michigan drivers clogging the passing lanes on I-75.
Posted by armytide373 on 6/21/20 at 4:19 pm to Lynxrufus2012
on 6/21/20 at 4:19 pm to Lynxrufus2012quote:
Kentucky officially stayed in the Union with a Confederate government set up in Bowling Green It became more pro-southern after the war because the Yankees treated Kentuckians badly.
Neutrality isn't a bad move in a war that would have made your backyard the Frontlines. No one wants to be Poland or Alsace-Lorraine.
I'd imagine the mood soured quite a bit after the 13th amendment more so than anything. Kentucky, Delaware, and Missouri were likely the most affected of the non-confederate states. This is likely why Kentucky and Delaware were two of the last 3 states that existed during the Civil War to ratify it. Delaware waited until 1901; Kentucky felt the Union spirit in the bicentennial year of 1976 and Mississippi drug their feet until 1995.
and they remain the last to cling to their act of defiance (even if other states more subtly retained a Confederate flavor to their designs) It takes years to change culture, but local climate can change overnight.
This post was edited on 6/21 at 4:20 pm
Posted by Mithridates6 on 6/21/20 at 4:38 pm to armytide373
on 6/21/20 at 4:38 pm to armytide373Public opinion in the north had turned decidedly against slavery due to the work of Stowe, Douglass, etc. I don't think Lincoln would've been elected on a platform of abolishing slavery by force, but a large majority of northerners did support curtailing the spread of slavery and that was what he campaigned on. Lincoln was staunchly opposed to slavery on principle and talked about wanting the "eventual extinction" of slavery, but if Southern Democrats hadn't kept pushing their luck and instead compromised with Northern Dems, they probably could've avoided this or it forestalled it for a very long time. Ironically the secessionists served as de facto abolitionists (some slaveholders could see that outcome was likely and opposed secession)
Posted by turnpiketiger on 6/21/20 at 4:52 pm to Serraneaux
on 6/21/20 at 4:52 pm to SerraneauxNorth, West and Central Texas (German Hill Country) were mostly pro union as well. Access to cheap Mexican labor as well as people who worked their own land was why. Didn’t need other people to do your own work. Plus no major rivers played a role.
Southeast Texas was as confederate as LA, MS, GA and SC. Mainly due to soil fertility, river access and proximity to the rest of Dixie. These historical connections are still evident today for those familiar with Texas.
Southeast Texas was as confederate as LA, MS, GA and SC. Mainly due to soil fertility, river access and proximity to the rest of Dixie. These historical connections are still evident today for those familiar with Texas.
This post was edited on 6/21 at 4:53 pm
Posted by armytide373 on 6/21/20 at 9:24 pm to Mithridates6
on 6/21/20 at 9:24 pm to Mithridates6quote:
Southern Democrats hadn't kept pushing their luck and instead compromised with Northern Dems, they probably could've avoided this or it forestalled it for a very long time. Ironically the secessionists served as de facto abolitionists (some slaveholders could see that outcome was likely and opposed secession)
This is very correct. Another rich man's war fought by poor people who were either coerced through conscription or co-opted through irrational nonsense. They forced a permanent, immediate, and significant cultural change in a very short period of time largely through their pride, bravado, and ignorance.
The world was changing its views toward slavery (not racial or ethnic class), but slavery was certainly out of vogue and a dying institution for a variety of reasons. It truly would have run its course naturally within 1-2 decades tops as the US desired greater worldly stature. We were England's version of cousin Eddie at the time to most of Europe. They needed a Mahanian concept of seapower and slave free nation to gain true legitimacy.
To your point on irony, had the Civil War not happened when and as it did, the South keeps slaves longer. Racial tensions of today are likely non-existent and/or certainly less tumultuous. It would have allowed for a natural transition of slaves to free people, to landowner to voter. And, fewer southeners would be clinging to treacherous icons that needlessly led to the deaths of 1000s over the balance of political power and influence, the rights of other states to expand slavery, and the rights of other states still to not to force runaways to return home.
This post was edited on 6/21 at 10:00 pm
Posted by EarlyCuyler3 on 6/21/20 at 9:51 pm to Serraneaux
on 6/21/20 at 9:51 pm to Serraneauxquote:
Admiral Farragut was ahead of his time.
This the dude who's boat burned down in the Vol Navy?
Posted by InGAButLoveBama on 6/21/20 at 10:14 pm to armytide373
Honoring men who gave their lives to protect their homes and families from an aggressive invasion is worth continuing. Or do you feel the same way about the Vietnam War which was never about putting the US first, nor about freeing the Vietnamese. If we can honor the brave men who fought in Vietnam, we can honor the men who fought to defend the South from a govt who had and has far more blood on its flag than the rebel flag ever did.
Page 3 of 4
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News