61
   

The Confederacy was About Slavery

 
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 02:19 am
Whether or not the North fought the war to free slaves is actually irrelevat to the proposition here. The signal point is that the South started the war in order to preserve the institution of slavery. The North took up the cudgel and fought the war to a successful conclusion to preserve the Union. No one need kid him- or herself, there was no great love of Africans at the North, and racism flourished above and below the Mason-Dixon Line.

However, let's everyone focus here for a moment. The Confederate States fought and lost that war in the hope of preserving the institution of slavery. What anyone in the Federal government thought on these matters is not relevant to that point, which is the point of the thread.

Anyone bringing up Lincoln's motives or the attitudes of northerners is just attempting to go of on a meaningless tangent.
High Seas
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 02:24 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:

"States' rights" was always code for slavery or segregation,

Nonsense. It's been over 2 (TWO) centuries since the importation of slaves to the US was outlawed and states' rights still has a definite meaning and importance. Just because Snood is paranoid about color-based discrimination doesn't invalidate the budgetary logic of block grants to states for Medicare.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 02:55 am
@MontereyJack,
You're selectively quoting MJ, i suspect for purposes of making a point which is not relevant. This is the entirety of that portion of MJ's post:

MontereyJack wrote:
"States' rights" was always code for slavery or segregation, when the South seceded and when its successor, segregation, was finally overthrown a century later. When the south left under the "states' rights' banner, that was always the first thing on the list.


He's clearly speaking about states rights in the context both of secession, and resistance to the civil rights movement. He's clearly not speaking about anything so abstruse as Federal block grants to the states.
High Seas
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 03:12 am
@Setanta,
It's my turn to say I fail to see any substance in your objection. States have rights. Narrowing those down to "slavery" takes pathological myopia - at best.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 03:45 am
@High Seas,
Nobody was narrowing anything down. He was referring to states rights as a catch-phrase of those who, in the first instance wished to preserve the institution of slavery, and in the second instance, to resist the civil rights movement. Neither MJ nor i denied that states have rights. You're erecting a straw man.

More importantly, though, is that it is only in retrospect that southern apologists bleat about "states rights." If you look at documents such as the proposed Crittenden compromise, or the text of Alexander Stephens' remarks to the Georgia legislature, it is clear that in 1861, at least, everyone was being honest about the casus belli. It was only after the fact that apologists attempted to insist that the issue was states rights, rather than slavery.

Your remarks are irrelevant to the topic of the thread, and to MJ's post.
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 04:22 am
@farmerman,
I'm glad you enjoy drama written, directed and acted by you, but try thinking about cause and effect . The Constitution bent over backwards to include the southern states - that was about power . The south was reluctant fearing they would be swallowed by Big Brother ....a fear the States still have....nevertheless, they joined out of fear of the big players in the region.....Spain, France and Britain could all have swallowed the south (and the north for that matter) so they clung together for safety .

That compromise came to a head in the Civil War - yes, slavery was a part of it, but the North was about keeping the Union for reasons of geo-political power.....the south simply had enough of Big Government interfering with its money making endeavours .

If the North could have kept the Union and not freed the slaves, they would have . If the South could have freed the slaves and made money, they would have.....

No one was fighting over slavery as the primary motive . There simply weren't enough people then or now who care enough about others to fight the bloodiest war in their history, where casualties go close to equaling all the other wars put together, because they are such lovely people.....it didn't happen .

Slavery was an important issue.....the North didnt know what to do with all those freed slaves, they simply wanted to stop the south from ever seceding again . The south needed slaves for money, but it was money that was the primary motive . If someone said to them we will send all blacks to Liberia and you will make even more money, they would have jumped at it . Cause and effect...dont jump into the chain half way along . No one depserately wanted slavery, no one depserately wanted to free them...it was all about power and money .

If it was about slavery, then WWII was about saving the Jews .
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 04:28 am
@Setanta,
Several historians have summarized what the SOUTHERN STATES meant when they used the term"states Rights". They meant that:
1. States' had rights to engage in slavery;
2. States' had rights to suppress the freedom of speech of those opposed to slavery or its expansion, by seizing abolitionist literature from the mail;
3. States'had rights to violate the sovereignty of the non-slave States by sending slave-catchers into their territory to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, to seize supposed runaway slaves by force of arms.
4. States' had rights to send armed Border Ruffians into the territories of the United States such as Kansas to engage in massive vote fraud and acts of violence;
5. States' had rights to deem portions of their population "beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect", (this was wording [as an explanation of condition]that chief Justice tTAney included in his writing for the majority in Dred Scott)
6. States' WERE within their rights to secede from the United States after an election whose result they disagreed with, the election in 1860 of Abraham Lincoln;
7. States' certainly had rights to seize forts and arsenals of the United States following their purported secession;
8. "Historians, like contemporaries, have long noted that an overwhelming majority of South Carolinians were for secession. The" majority "of South Carolinians in 1860 were slaves and didnt even have the right of being human, let alone voting "overwhelmingly"."
9. States' had rights to have a less democratic form of government; South Carolina, , had a far less democratic order than the several other United States. Although all white male residents were allowed to vote, South Carolina had the only state legislature where slave owners had the majority of seats.It was the only state where the legislature elected the governor, all judges and state electors. The governor didnt even have a veto
10. States' rights to overturn the ideal expressed in the Declaration of Independence — that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". This was liberally paraphrased from profs Sinha and Williams .

Adopting the same "code phrase" for the Anti civil rights countermovement was certainly an obvious consequence to obstruct a duty that the nation had to ultimately complete what the Declaration initially promised. Trying to wipe down this blemish with a bit of revisionism is insincere at the least


0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 04:32 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Anyone bringing up Lincoln's motives or the attitudes of northerners is just attempting to go of on a meaningless tangent.
It takes two sides to make a war .
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 04:34 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
More importantly, though, is that it is only in retrospect that southern apologists bleat about "states rights."
More importantly, though, is that it is only in retrospect that northern apologists bleat about "slavery."
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 04:37 am
Why did the North cripple the South ? To make sure they never did it again....not bring back slavery, but secede.....they wanted to make sure the South never seceded again . And it worked.....where was the war over segregation if black people are so important to white people ? Where are the wars to save black people in Africa ? Why have all the other USA wars been about white people ?

Some decades after the Civil War the USA fought the Chinese, not to end slavery but to forcibly sell them cocaine .....the idea of fighting a war to save people is as ridiculous now as it was then .
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 08:34 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:

Why did the North cripple the South ? To make sure they never did it again....not bring back slavery, but secede.....they wanted to make sure the South never seceded again . And it worked.....where was the war over segregation if black people are so important to white people ? Where are the wars to save black people in Africa ? Why have all the other USA wars been about white people ?

Some decades after the Civil War the USA fought the Chinese, not to end slavery but to forcibly sell them cocaine .....the idea of fighting a war to save people is as ridiculous now as it was then .


You can't really be as stupid as it appears you are, can you? No one thinks the civil war happened out of white people's love of black people. Slavery was big money - bigger than cotton. People didn't want to give up that big economic cow. Other people realized (among other things ) that it was untenable to build a nation on inhumanity. I refuse to believe that even you are stupid enough to think that anyone here is asserting that the war arose out of white people's love for black people.
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 08:45 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

Whether or not the North fought the war to free slaves is actually irrelevat to the proposition here. The signal point is that the South started the war in order to preserve the institution of slavery. The North took up the cudgel and fought the war to a successful conclusion to preserve the Union. No one need kid him- or herself, there was no great love of Africans at the North, and racism flourished above and below the Mason-Dixon Line.

However, let's everyone focus here for a moment. The Confederate States fought and lost that war in the hope of preserving the institution of slavery. What anyone in the Federal government thought on these matters is not relevant to that point, which is the point of the thread.

Anyone bringing up Lincoln's motives or the attitudes of northerners is just attempting to go of on a meaningless tangent.


Would you agree that it is accurate to say that the biggest driver of the conflict was the rift between people that wanted to preserve the enormous economic benefit of an unlimited supply of free labor, and those that realized a country ultimately couldn't be built on the practice of enslaving human beings?
farmerman
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 09:18 am
@snood,
Ionus has a habit of, when the going is rough for him, to load up the tatters of his argument with several other straw men and irrelevancies in order to capture something out of his failing argument> I beleive that he thionks hes pulling the wool over evreyones eyes.
Cheap tricks not worth any response but it has to be responded to by someone , otherwise if any kids read this they will think that he may have a jot of credibility just because noone debunked his stuff.
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 04:39 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Is it me who is missing the point here? AM I in the world behind the mirror?

I think you are unilaterally bringing intellectual honesty to a debate with someone who just wants to keep people stirred up.
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 06:21 pm
@snood,
Quote:
Slavery was big money - bigger than cotton.
You have the reason for the South fighting the Civil War right there but you are too stupid or ignorant to see it.....MONEY....not slavery, was the reason . Oh and tobacco was a bigger money earner than cotton, though rice, sugar and Indigo were also big money earners . The Union blockaded the South to prevent export of their crops to Europe .

Quote:
I refuse to believe .....that anyone here is asserting that the war arose out of white people's love for black people.
That is exactly what you are asserting if you think the war was fought to free the slaves .
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 06:28 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
I beleive that he thionks hes pulling the wool over evreyones eyes.
No, I dont "thoinks" that about "evreyones" . The only kid reading this is you . Are you worried someone might not be brainwashed into believing what noble people inhabit the North ? Where many slaves went after the war to live in ghettos in the big cities, a place where many of their descendants still live .

Explain the reason for the North fighting the war if it was about slavery . Why would they want to free the slaves ? It was no skin off of their nose if others were slaves , there simply wasnt enough support to justify a war .

Explain the reason for the South fighting the war if it was about slavery . Why were they so against another people that they had to have them as slaves ?

The war was about money and power . Slavery was a secondary issue .
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 06:29 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
noone debunked his stuff.
Still waiting .
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 06:30 pm
@DrewDad,
Then explain to me how slavery was THE cause . Or why...either will do ....
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 9 Apr, 2011 10:38 pm
Farmerman and DrewDad,

You're right about the disingenuousness. I'm through with this assclown.
aidan
 
  2  
Reply Sun 10 Apr, 2011 01:57 am
Snood:
I'm not being disingenuous- truly- and I will readily admit that there's a big hole in my knowledge of American history in terms of detailed and specific historical facts, as I went to school in the seventies when they made the change in the junior highschool and highschool curriculum from 'history' to 'social studies'.
What this meant for me and for my learning peers, in suburban New Jersey public schools at least, is that we talked about societal issues and current events moreso than your basic and typical history with the dates and facts, etc.
I loved it, it was interesting, but as a result I have to admit I'm fairly self-taught when it comes to history and as I love biography and literature moreso than actual 'history' books, I know I could know more.

I have read Sandburg's biography of Lincoln though.
And having had a father who was an avid historian and a southerner and me being born a southerner who was subsequently raised in the north, but visited the south throughout my childhood and observed the very different lifestyles of black and white people and their attitudes toward each other and living alongside each other, the confederacy and slavery, etc. is a subject that was well-covered around our dinner table.

So when I read earlier in the thread that you said that the Union position was based more on the fact that morally it would be untenable to build a nation on the inhumane treatment or slavery of a race of people and that in no way does this mean you believe that the northerners ' loved' black people and so opposed slavery, I thought to myself, 'but wait a minute...in an abstract and non-personal way, if a group of people does not want to see another group of people treated inhumanely, is that not evidence of a sort of 'love' or at least indicative of them having assessed that group more kindly and having afforded them more (if not exactly equal) humanity than another group (the southerners) who had no issue with the fact that they were, and in fact were fighting to have them remain, slaves?

Because I don't care what Ionus says, from personal observation I know that the attitudes of whites in the north toward black people were and still are, in a lot of places, very different from those of whites in the south.
And the title of your thread states that the CONFEDERACY was about slavery - not the civil war.
I just think it's inaccurate to paint a picture that gives the impression that Northern and Southern attitudes toward black people and their place in the US were similar at the core.
I don't think they were or are.
And as I said in an earlier post, as an outsider who's never lived in either region or in the US at all, Ionus can look at the tar paper shacks in the south and believe that the people who lived there were thought of and treated exactly the same as the people who live in the inner city ghettos of the North. But he's not experiencing the nuances- he sees poverty in both circumstances and thinks that this translates to de jure racism and segregation.

And there's a big difference in de jure and de facto anything.

All I can tell you is that my friend Frances was a little black girl when I was a little white girl in New Jersey and we lived across the street from each other and sat by each other in school. Her father was an attorney who rode the train into NYC with my dad and her mother was a nurse who worked in the hospital on the same floor as my mother at the same time (I learned to my shock and horror later) that black and white children in the south, same age as us were still attending separate schools.
If we'd been living in the south - she'd not have sat next to me or even walked the same halls of the same school I did.
Hello?! If that isn't indicative of a foundationally different attitude toward black people and how they should be treated - I don't know what is.
You know - history is about how people lived and live.
Black people in the north did not live the same existence as black people in the south because the laws concerning them were different.
How does this not translate into a different view or valuation of their humanity?

It's like when you look at the map of the US and you see all the red and blue states. Do you notice Ionus where a lot of the blue states are and where a lot of the red states are?
Do you not think this indicates a foundationally and historically different view of 'issues' both political and humanitarian in the people who live in those states?

Read about the Abolitionist movement Ionus. And believe me - it didn't spring up down south:
Quote:
Abolitionist Movement
by James Brewer Stewart

From the 1830s until 1870, the abolitionist movement attempted to achieve immediate emancipation of all slaves and the ending of racial segregation and discrimination.
Their propounding of these goals distinguished abolitionists from the broad-based political opposition to slavery's westward expansion that took form in the North after 1840 and raised issues leading to the Civil War.
Yet these two expressions of hostility to slavery—abolitionism and Free-Soilism—were often closely related not only in their beliefs and their interaction but also in the minds of southern slaveholders who finally came to regard the North as united against them in favor of black emancipation.

Although abolitionist feelings had been strong during the American Revolution and in the Upper South during the 1820s, the abolitionist movement did not coalesce into a militant crusade until the 1830s.
In the previous decade, as much of the North underwent the social disruption associated with the spread of manufacturing and commerce, powerful evangelical religious movements arose to impart spiritual direction to society.
By stressing the moral imperative to end sinful practices and each person's responsibility to uphold God's will in society, preachers like Lyman Beecher, Nathaniel Taylor, and Charles G. Finney in what came to be called the Second Great Awakening led massive religious revivals in the 1820s that gave a major impetus to the later emergence of abolitionism as well as to such other reforming crusades as temperance, pacifism, and women's rights.
By the early 1830s, Theodore D. Weld, William Lloyd Garrison, Arthur and Lewis Tappan, and Elizur Wright, Jr., all spiritually nourished by revivalism, had taken up the cause of "immediate emancipation."
In early 1831, Garrison, in Boston, began publishing his famous newspaper, the Liberator, supported largely by free African-Americans, who always played a major role in the movement.
In December 1833, the Tappans, Garrison, and sixty other delegates of both races and genders met in Philadelphia to found the American Anti-Slavery Society, which denounced slavery as a sin that must be abolished immediately, endorsed nonviolence, and condemned racial prejudice.
By 1835, the society had received substantial moral and financial support from African-American communities in the North and had established hundreds of branches throughout the free states, flooding the North with antislavery literature, agents, and petitions demanding that Congress end all federal support for slavery.
The society, which attracted significant participation by women, also denounced the American Colonization Society's program of voluntary gradual emancipation and black emigration.
All these activities provoked widespread hostile responses from North and South, most notably violent mobs, the burning of mailbags containing abolitionist literature, and the passage in the U.S. House of Representatives of a "gag rule" that banned consideration of antislavery petitions.
These developments, and especially the 1837 murder of abolitionist editor Elijah Lovejoy, led many northerners, fearful for their own civil liberties, to vote for antislavery politicians and brought important converts such as Wendell Phillips, Gerrit Smith, and Edmund Quincy to the cause.
But as antislavery sentiment began to appear in politics, abolitionists also began disagreeing among themselves.
By 1840 Garrison and his followers were convinced that since slavery's influence had corrupted all of society, a revolutionary change in America's spiritual values was required to achieve emancipation.
To this demand for "moral suasion," Garrison added an insistence on equal rights for women within the movement and a studious avoidance of "corrupt" political parties and churches.
To Garrison's opponents, such ideas seemed wholly at odds with Christian values and the imperative to influence the political and ecclesiastical systems by nominating and voting for candidates committed to abolitionism.
Disputes over these matters split the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1840, leaving Garrison and his supporters in command of that body; his opponents, led by the Tappans, founded the American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society.
Meanwhile, still other foes of Garrison launched the Liberty party with James G. Birney as its presidential candidate in the elections of 1840 and 1844. Although historians debate the extent of the abolitionists' influence on the nation's political life after 1840, their impact on northern culture and society is undeniable. As speakers, Frederick Douglass, Wendell Phillips, and Lucy Stone in particular became extremely well known.
In popular literature the poetry of John Greenleaf Whittier and James Russell Lowell circulated widely, as did the autobiographies of fugitive slaves such as Douglass, William and Ellen Craft, and Solomon Northrup. Abolitionists exercised a particularly strong influence on religious life, contributing heavily to schisms that separated the Methodists (1844) and Baptists (1845), while founding numerous independent antislavery "free churches."
In higher education abolitionists founded Oberlin College, the nation's first experiment in racially integrated coeducation, the Oneida Institute, which graduated an impressive group of African-American leaders, and Illinois's Knox College, a western center of abolitionism.
Within the Garrisonian wing of the movement, female abolitionists became leaders of the nation's first independent feminist movement, instrumental in organizing the 1848 Seneca Falls Convention.
Although African-American activists often complained with reason of the racist and patronizing behavior of white abolitionists, the whites did support independently conducted crusades by African-Americans to outlaw segregation and improve education during the 1840s and 1850s.
Especially after the passage of the 1850 Fugitive Slave Law, white abolitionists also protected African-Americans threatened with capture as escapees from bondage, although blacks themselves largely managed the Underground Railroad.
By the later 1850s, organized abolitionism in politics had been subsumed by the larger sectional crisis over slavery prompted by the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Dred Scott decision, and John Brown's raid on Harpers Ferry. Most abolitionists reluctantly supported the Republican party, stood by the Union in the secession crisis, and became militant champions of military emancipation during the Civil War.
The movement again split in 1865, when Garrison and his supporters asserted that the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery made continuation of the American Anti-Slavery Society unnecessary.
But a larger group led by Wendell Phillips, insisting that only the achievement of complete political equality for all black males could guarantee the freedom of the former slaves, successfully prevented Garrison from dissolving the society.
It continued until 1870 to demand land, the ballot, and education for the freedman. Only when the Fifteenth Amendment extending male suffrage to African-Americans was passed did the society declare its mission completed. Traditions of racial egalitarianism begun by abolitionists lived on, however, to inspire the subsequent founding of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People in 1909. Blanche Glassman Hirsh, The Feminist Abolitionists (1978); Benjamin Quarles, The Black Abolitionists (1970); James Brewer Stewart, Holy Warriors: The Abolitionists and American Slavery (1986).

URL: http://able2know.org/reply/topic-145429
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 09/28/2024 at 10:22:18