The Confederacy was About Slavery

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Yes, i am reasonably well for someone creeping up on death, as are we all. Thank you. I would say that you, like so many others, just wish i were losing my temper.

No I don't ever wish it. Laughing

I'm merely awestruck and bemused at the storms.

Anyway glad to learn you, like I, are creeping slowly.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You are an odd (but obviously intelligent) duck Foofie and I like you for that, but this thing you have about gentiles, of any ethnic background is a bit much to take.

Gentile just means "other nations." It reflects that Jews (aka, Hebrews), like to wax nostalgic back to the day when they, for only a few hundred years, had Israel all to themselves, surrounded by others, from other "nations" (that many eventually assimilated into the Jewish faith, since the Jews seemed to be having such a good times before, during, and after their holidays). Sort of like, without the Christmas festival, there was only Rosh Hashonah and Passover?

Now some anti-Semites like to take the term "gentile" and imply that, based on its meaning ("other nations"), Jews perceive themselves as a nation within any other nation. Not true. Jews perceive themselves as Jews, like Catholics perceive themselves as Catholics, or Protestants perceive themselves as Protestants. It is just that the Jewish narrative (Genesis) seems to have gained such popularity amongst "other nations" that many, in my opinion, feel that this gives them a pedigree, when in actuality they are quite the genetic hybrid, many times over.

And, you can rest assured, I don't go around using the term gentile flippantly. I mostly pander to people's main identity.

But, if anything makes Jews "different," besides the culture stressing education, it might be that they have learned, over the past three or so millennia, to not make being liked a criteria for having a good/healthy level for one's self esteem. And, it's not that they have learned to love their enemy. They might be offending others simply because they do avoid many people that they perceive as too different.

And, perhaps it should be pointed out, that since upper class/educated gentiles do like to cloister themselves away from the "riff-raff," and this includes most Jews, based on their historical status as a pariah, and today still being a social pariah to many, Jews get to live in areas where they are literally more educated than many a neighbor, so the coolness/avoidance towards a neighbor can incur less friendly interaction. And, not being heavy drinkers does alienate many a Gentile from the Jew, since it has been pointed out to me that many a Gentile believes that anyone that wants to remain completely sober, during socializing, is either hiding something or can't be trusted. And the Jew's perspective might be where anyone that needs to be inebriated when socializing with a Jew might just be using the alcohol as the alibi, to ones' Gentile friends, as to why he socialized with a Jew (aka, social pariah). So, if anything can be said, Jews do see some things from a totally different angle.

But, if the old prayer for the conversion of the Jews ever comes to fruition, I tend to believe, many Jews still will want to live in an all ethnically Jewish environment, even if they all go to a church on Sunday (a mostly Jewish congregation of course).

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

The civil war was about slavery, but it was equally as much about banking, monetary theory, and the so-called American System of Economics.

Bingo! When the slaves were emancipated, and the literal bank mortgage that was being paid off for a plantation's slaves were worthless, these now defunct banks were taken over by whom?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

...I had a look at the latest bullshit Miller/Foofie puked up. A more tarnsparent attempt to pick a fight i could not imagine. Not only have the Irish been literatre longer than the Anglo-Saxons and many of the Germans, it was Irish missionaries who brought christianity to the Anglo-Saxons, and many Germans in central Europe. Not that i would expect anyone to be grateful for that dubious gift--i just thought i'd point out how Miller/Foofie will make up any vile **** about other people in the hope of getting an angry response. In particular, she hates African-Americans and Irish-Americans...

Well, if you insist on my being a sock puppet, at least give credence to my being a Jewish (Ashkenazi) sock puppet that has written many a posting about the Holocaust/Final Solution being the main emotionally defining experience in the 20th century and beyond. This being said, you really think of me as too stupid to understand that Gentiles of European descent have a much greater propensity to violence and hate than any minority rioting in the U.S. So, your accusation that I have hostilities to Blacks is totally unfounded. Nor, do I have hostilities to white Gentiles. I just avoid many, since their world is really quite different than mine, and it values.

But, for one that likes history so much, my little walk down the memory lane of NYC ethnic social history is quite true. Jews and Irish were quite contemptuous of each other on the Lower East Side. And, by the time they got to the outer boroughs they avoided each other in a civil, but contemptuous mode mostly. Even if there was a Broadway play, Abie's Irish Rose, the reality is that the two lived in different worlds. The Irish world revolved around the church (read a Tree Grows In Brooklyn, by Betty Smith), and the Jewish world revolved around dreams of upwardly mobility, either through entrepreneurial efforts or education. Only with the GI bill, after WWII, did many working class Irish tend to avail themselves of education. Before that it was a union job or civil service job that led to a paycheck to pay for raising a family. Nothing wrong with that, but let's not sugar coat the history. In fact, in a volume chronicling the 1863 Draft Riots, the Democratic German immigrants left the riots by the third day or so, while the Irish immigrants kept up the donny brook, so to speak, until troops arrived.

Now remember, back a few years ago, a poster asked you why you were so hostile to Foofie in your language. Your answer was I don't seem to mind. You really excuse your bully behavior. My reaction is not a rationale for your hostility.

And, I'm not hostile. Any comments that might be deemed offensive is likely based on my trying to help you know your place in society. I am the milk of human kindness, trying to help you in the mass delusion of who really counts in the U.S.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

By the way, i made a comment about the Miller/Foofie sock puppet, and Finn made his own decision to stick his nose in, while saying he wouldn't stick his nose in. Then he calls me a "black hole," and will probably claim, as he has done many times in the past, that he tries to be civil to me, but i won't have it. His hypocritical effrontery is amazing.

I think it's quite telling that you always seem to feel the need to justify your nasty comments after you post them. "By the way..." Smile

The days of my trying to be civil with you are long gone as are those when I simply ignore you. You are a bully and bullies need to be confronted.

The "black hole" comment followed this from you:

"...and certainly not that snide son of a bitch Finn"

On another thread that was moving along quite nicely I, apparently, committed the grievous sin of suggesting I agreed with you and got this in response:

"My remarks were in response to a claim about survival of the fittest, which you insisted on repeating. We were not saying the same thing at all. I even made a little political joke about it . . . Nope, ziiiiiiing . . . right over your head. I don't know why I bother to try to talk to you."

Giving the devil his due you are a quite intelligent and well educated person, but, sad to say, you're also a douche bag. It's sad because it's pretty clear that you are a douche bag because you're miserable.

Respond as you like, but I'm finished for now until you try your bullying bull **** again.

0 Replies

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

The civil war was about slavery, but it was equally as much about banking, monetary theory, and the so-called American System of Economics.

Bunk!

It was much, much, much more about slavery.

Was "banking"; monetary theory; or the American system of economics mentioned in any of the Declarations of Secession of any of the states that seceded?

The need to preserve slavery was!

0 Replies

The British empire viewed the American system of economics as a mortal threat and behaved accordingly.

http://www.xat.org/xat/usury.html

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

Was it 100% about slavery? No, nothing is 100% about anything.

Was it "mostly mostly" about slavery? Yes.

2 Replies

http://www.michaeljournal.org/plenty49.htm

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Rough guess, I'd figure it was about 40% about slavery.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Keep trying to perpetuate that fairy tale.

0 Replies

Has anyone ever reduced The Great War, or WWII, to one cause?

A thought experiment, what if the North had not ended slavery prior to the Civil War? Would there still have been a Civil War? I think yes, since it was King Cotton that was raining on the North's economic parade. Cotton sold to British textile mills. And, the desire for low tariffs, so the South could buy cheaper goods from Europe, rather than Northern factories. The South wanted autonomy for their King Cotton, as the main source of its wealth. Slavery was the inhumane approach to driving that economy.

Or, on the other hand, if the South ended slavery (like the North did), and paid freed slaves a wage, would there have still been irreconcilable differences. I think yes, since the South still would have likely wanted autonomy to not have to pay for educating freed slaves, and still wanted to optimize the value of King Cotton.

The North's development just evolved so differently from the South's that one might argue that only with the loss of life could the Union remain one, or break into two, when the smoke cleared. And, let's not forget that for the first half of the 20th century, the Democratic South just left the South alone to continue Jim Crow. Jim Crow reflected a belief in elitism/superiority, not slavery. So, the South had to be pandered to for keeping the peace.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Was it 100% about slavery? No, nothing is 100% about anything.

Was it "mostly mostly" about slavery? Yes.

And all of the other side issues were predicated on the issue of slavery.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Was it 100% about slavery? No, nothing is 100% about anything.

Was it "mostly mostly" about slavery? Yes.

And all of the other side issues were predicated on the issue of slavery.

Tariffs were "predicated" on the South wanting to buy cheaper goods from Europe, and not be obligated through high tariffs to fatten the wallets of the North, to their detriment. The North just wanted a monopoly on the Southern consumer, through high tariffs, eliminating the competition with European goods. Slavery just happened to be the inhumane source of manpower in the Southern plantation system. In my opinion, this one "side issue" was not "predicated" on slavery.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

You are, of course, right. Infrablue simply wants to, for ideological reasons, insist that it was 100% about slavery.

I could be wrong here but I have a feeling he's someone who has a problem with the concept of "evil" ...except, of course, when it suits him.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

A thought experiment, what if the North had not ended slavery prior to the Civil War? Would there still have been a Civil War? I think yes, since it was King Cotton that was raining on the North's economic parade. Cotton sold to British textile mills. And, the desire for low tariffs, so the South could buy cheaper goods from Europe, rather than Northern factories. The South wanted autonomy for their King Cotton, as the main source of its wealth. Slavery was the inhumane approach to driving that economy.

I will respond to this, Foofie, not because I think it might help you. The mere fact that you would take the effort to write something so astoundingly idiotic is ample evidence that you are quite beyond any assistance that I may be able to offer. Rather, I write here for the benefit of those who read your post and might think to themselves: "hmm, that's an interesting idea."

It is not. Rather, it is so dumb that it doesn't even qualify as an idea. More like a reflexive burp from your reptilian cortex.

If the North had slavery, there wouldn't have been a civil war. If the South didn't have slavery, there wouldn't have been a civil war. That's because the Civil War was about slavery. Take away that issue and the Civil War becomes incomprehensible.

The Civil War wasn't about economic differences. Those differences existed long before the Civil War, and they existed long afterwards. There wasn't a civil war in the early 20th century, even though the economic differences between the sections of the US were, if anything, greater than they were in 1860. Furthermore, northern agricultural states were, in that respect, more like southern slave states than northeastern industrial states, yet northern agricultural states like Iowa and Minnesota didn't secede in 1861. That's because Iowa and Minnesota didn't have slavery.

Similarly, the South didn't secede over the tariff. First of all, we know that the tariff issue wasn't important enough to rally the South behind secession. How do we know that? Because some southerners had already tried it and it didn't work. Secondly, and more importantly, the South had no reason to complain about the tariff in 1860. That's because the tariff in effect at the time of the secession crisis was favorable to the South. Indeed, the tariff was at its lowest level in the century at that point.

There was no issue between the North and the South that didn't ultimately boil down to the issue of slavery. Economic, cultural, political differences - they were all, in the end, differences about slavery. All other issues were resolvable through normal political processes except for the slavery issue. That could only be resolved through war.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

You might feel that you proved that tariffs wasn't as important an issue, as I've stated; however, no one can prove that slavery was the cause of the secession, regardless of what was written in the documents to secede, since documents are for posterity, and in the minds of Southern politicians, I can see a motivation to utilize slavery as the alibi for wanting autonomy from the North. My belief is that by the time of the Civil War, the North and South had evolved in two directions, morally, emotionally, and politically. Therefore, for the South to prosper, it just had to estrange itself from the possible suffocation (from their perspective) of a North that thought quite differently.

If one can understand that many Southern plantation owners really saw nothing morally wrong with owning another human, than the problem wasn't slavery; that was the symptom of the problem. The problem being the inability to see that owning another human being was morally wrong. And, the way it was carried out, with breaking up families, was not even what the Old Testament story reflected in Egypt. In my opinion, the South needed to estrange itself from a North that was living in a very different culture (if one even includes the bank mortgages on slaves).

So, the Civil War was fought, slaves were freed, and white Southerners coped with that by living in a mental Dixie after Reconstruction, through the Jim Crow era. If the Confederacy was just about slavery, then after the slaves were freed, Southerners would have just been Northerners in a warmer climate. And, that did not happen. And, as I understand, Southerners still think of their red states as the part of the country where they can only feel comfortable, culturally, and in other nuanced ways.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

The question is would all those who signed up to fight for the South would have done so if there weren't all of the ancillary issues. Yes, without slavery there would more than likely have not been a war, but if the absolutely only issue was slavery would there have been a war? Probably, but no one can say with absolute certainty.

For the Civil War historians here: Has anyone looked into how those who fought for the South were motivated, and determined that none of these "side" issues made a difference?

I'm not arguing that the South isn't responsible for the war, but I just don't think that things are ever as simple as some of you are suggesting. I can imagine Southerners whose prime motivation was the preservation of slavery ginning up their fellow Southerners with talk of how the North wanted them all to be second class Americans.

I can imagine Southerners who may not have been very keen about slavery still fighting for Dixie.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

You are, of course, right. Infrablue simply wants to, for ideological reasons, insist that it was 100% about slavery.

I could be wrong here but I have a feeling he's someone who has a problem with the concept of "evil" ...except, of course, when it suits him.

Ok, I'll bite.

What is this "concept of 'evil'" in reference to? That it's evil to say that the Civil War was anything more than 90% about slavery? 80%? 60-40?

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

You might feel that you proved that tariffs wasn't as important an issue, as I've stated; however, no one can prove that slavery was the cause of the secession, regardless of what was written in the documents to secede, since documents are for posterity, and in the minds of Southern politicians, I can see a motivation to utilize slavery as the alibi for wanting autonomy from the North.

I retract what I wrote about your earlier post being "astoundingly idiotic." That was before I read this post. You clearly had not fully plumbed the depths of idiocy in your previous contribution to this thread.

If you do not accept contemporaneous documents as evidence, then you're beyond rational discussion of this topic. All of the evidence for your position lies in your head, where it cannot be disturbed by any of the things that historians ordinarily rely upon for evidence. There it sits in your cranial cavity, dormant, collecting moss and cobwebs, and utterly impervious to contradiction. But then, as I noted before, I'm not writing to convince you, Foofie. You're a hopeless case. Instead, I write in an attempt to limit the contagion of your nonsense, so that others might avoid infection.

We know that the decision-makers who took the South into rebellion were motivated by their defense of slavery because they said so. The "Cornerstone Speech" and the secession ordinances have been brought up several times in this thread already - they lay out, in stark detail, the reasoning of the secessionists. And people in the North recognized it as well. Abraham Lincoln, no mean judge of the political currents of his time, laid it out succinctly in his second inaugural address:

Abraham Lincoln wrote:

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war.

Lincoln was right: all knew that slavery was the cause of the war. That's because slavery was the cause of the war. Nobody secedes from the union because they don't like the way the economy is going. The Populists in the second half of the nineteenth century were explicitly formed in reaction to what they perceived as the undue influence of the financial and industrial interests of the northeast, yet, unlike South Carolina in 1860, South Dakota didn't secede in 1890. That's because South Dakota wasn't a slave state.

Foofie wrote:

If the Confederacy was just about slavery, then after the slaves were freed, Southerners would have just been Northerners in a warmer climate.

Southerners were like Northerners after the war, insofar as they were all alike in their inability to own other human beings.

1 Reply

The Confederacy was About Slavery

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know