61
   

The Confederacy was About Slavery

 
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 09:05 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
You make yourself out to be an idiot of the same water as the Rapist Boy. The issue of the thread is not whether or not there were racists in the North, it is not whether or not the Union and Mr. Lincoln fought to free the slaves--it is that the purpose of the Confederate States was to preserve slavery. Any comments about Mr. Lincoln's attitude or why the North fought the war are non sequiturs. You know, it's bad enough that you say such stupid things, it's really too much that you try to claim you were being clever.
this thread has become a Mecca for the simple minded, so lets try to get you up to speed shall we?......

The confederacy was created out of a political conflict, one that came to look unsolvable so one side decided to end the relationship. If you want to know what caused the spit you need to go back and look at the dispute, getting the stories from both sides. Here we have the North flat out saying that the disputed was not about slavery, and we have the South saying that it was about states rights and preserving their culture, and yet Snood and a whole bunch of idiot moderns will tell you that they are both wrong, that it was really all about slavery.

This conclusion shows us how fixated we are on race, how our perception is warped towards noticing the abuser/victim dynamic to the exclusion of everything else that is going on. The idea that 600,000 people died over civil rights is not worthy of more than a few minutes of thought, the idea is completely without foundation. We are obsessed with civil rights now, but back then hardly anyone gave a **** about that. People who are going to try to learn something about history really should learn the difference between myth and reality before they set out on this endeavour.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 09:07 am
For anyone here who claims that the war was not about slavery, or that slavery was a "minor" issue, i'd be interested to hear what you claim the war was about. I don't mean some vague throw-away line about states' rights, either. What specific event or events triggered this militaristic reaction in 1860? What issue inspired a mob in Pensacola and state authorities in Charleston to make war on the Federal government?

Any of you jokers game?
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 09:08 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
The confederacy was created out of a political conflict, one that came to look unsolvable so one side decided to end the relationship.

Yup. They were skeered that someone would take their slaves away.

(Well, skeered that they wouldn't take their slaves away, and instead leave former slaves in place.)
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 09:10 am
@hawkeye10,
Your very nearly incoherent post does not answer the question of what lead the South to make war on the Federal government, if not the issue of slavery. So far, i've seen no one make a cogent, detailed argument for any other cause.

Let's see you divorce yourself from myth and explain the historical situation, in detail (just throwing "states' rights" out there hardly qualifies) with specific references to show that the war was not about slavery.

I've seen no one here allege that the issue was civil rights.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 10:03 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
Your very nearly incoherent post does not answer the question of what lead the South to make war on the Federal government, if not the issue of slavery. So far, i've seen no one make a cogent, detailed argument for any other cause.
you have it ass backwards, the union made war with the Confederacy when it refused to let the states leave. If the North had not insisted that the nation stay together there would have been no Civil War.

The dispute certainly revolved around the slavery issue, but it was much bigger than that. This was about Washington telling a whole lot of people that their way of life, all that they had ever known, was no longer allowed. Once you end slavery you destroy the plantation system and the entire economy of the south and most of the culture as well.

My main interest here is was the trauma to the nation necessary? The history from that date till now leads me to believe that given time the south would have given up slavery as a natural progression, that this war was caused by a slim majority pushing their will on a substantial minority. I think that the civil war is more than anything else a lesson on what can happen when the majority abuses the minority.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 10:13 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
you have it ass backwards, the union made war with the Confederacy when it refused to let the states leave.

You're an idiot. An idiot because you don't know this, and an idiot because you didn't even bother to look it up before you shot your mouth off.

American Civil War
Timeline 1861

Quote:
January 1861 -- The South Secedes.
When Abraham Lincoln, a known opponent of slavery, was elected president, the South Carolina legislature perceived a threat. Calling a state convention, the delegates voted to remove the state of South Carolina from the union known as the United States of America. The Secession of South Carolina was followed by the secession of six more states -- Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas -- and the threat of Secession by four more -- Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina. These eleven states eventually formed the Confederate States of America. Ordinances of Secession

January 7 - Speech of Tennessee Governor Isham G. Harris

January 9 - Mississippi seceded from the Union.
January 10 - Florida seceded from the Union.
January 11 Alabama seceded from the Union. Speech of E.S. Dargan
January 19 Georgia seceded from the Union.
January 26 Louisiana seceded from the Union.
January 29 Kansas admitted to the Union.
February 1 Texas seceded from the Union.

February 1861-- The South Creates a Government.
At a convention in Montgomery, Alabama, the seven seceding states created the Confederate Constitution, a document similar to the United States Constitution, but with greater stress on the autonomy of each state. Jefferson Davis was named provisional president of the Confederacy until elections could be held.

February 1861-- The South Seizes Federal Forts.
When President Buchanan -- Lincoln's predecessor -- refused to surrender southern federal forts to the seceding states, southern state troops seized them. At Fort Sumter, South Carolina troops repulsed a supply ship trying to reach federal forces based in the fort. The ship was forced to return to New York, its supplies undelivered.

March 4 1861-- Lincoln's Inauguration.
At Lincoln's inauguration the new president said he had no plans to end slavery in those states where it already existed, but he also said he would not accept secession. He hoped to resolve the national crisis without warfare.

March 9 - Address of George Williamson to the Texas Secession Convention

March 11 1861-- Confederate Constitution.

April 1861 -- Attack on Fort Sumter.

When President Lincoln planned to send supplies to Fort Sumter, he alerted the state in advance, in an attempt to avoid hostilities. South Carolina, however, feared a trick. On April 10, 1861, Brig. Gen. Beauregard, in command of the provisional Confederate forces at Charleston, South Carolina, demanded the surrender of the Union garrison of Fort Sumter in Charleston Harbor.

The Garrison commander Anderson refused. On April 12, Confederate batteries opened fire on the fort, which was unable to reply effectively. At 2:30 p.m., April 13, Major Anderson surrendered Fort Sumter, evacuating the garrison on the following day.

The bombardment of Fort Sumter was the opening engagement of the American Civil War. Although there were no casualties during the bombardment, one Union artillerist was killed and three wounded (one mortally) when a cannon exploded prematurely when firing a salute during the evacuation.
From 1863 to 1865, the Confederates at Fort Sumter withstood a 22 month siege by Union forces. During this time, most of the fort was reduced to brick rubble. Fort Sumter became a national monument in 1948.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  3  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 10:23 am
@hawkeye10,
Please, your incoherence only grows. What was the Federal government doing in Florida in January of 1861 which lead an armed mob to attempt to take Forts McCrae and Barrancas? What military action had the Federal government taken in February, 1861, which lead seven states to secede and form a confederacy? What military action had the Federal government taken which lead the authorities of South Carolina to besiege Fort Sumter? All the military actions taken in the winter of 1860-61 were taken by states of the South. Have you ever really read the history of the period?

What steps did President Buchanan and or the Congress take in the winter of 1860-61 which constituted telling any state that their "way of life" was no longer allowed? You write: "Once you end slavery you destroy the plantation system and the entire economy of the south and most of the culture as well." Apart from being an incredibly naive statement about the economics of the situation, it only confirms that slavery was the perceived issue in the South. What had Buchanan or the Congress done which would have ended slavery as an institution?

How was an attack on the Federal forts at Pensacola by the citizens of Florida an attack on the minority by a majority? How was the siege of Fort Sumter by the illegal constituted forces of the state of South Carolina a case of a majority forcing anything on a minority? How was the attempt by a mob in St. Louis to take the United States armory there a case of a majority forcing anything on a minority?

You just make this **** up as you do along, don't you? You're in hog heaven right now, aren't you? You just love to go all melodramatic on us about the abuse of power. Can you explain to me what abuse of power President Buchanan or the Congress had carried out in the winter of 1860-61 which justified military action on the part of Florida and South Carolina? Don't make **** up, come up with solid historical evidence which can be examined.
joefromchicago
 
  3  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 10:26 am
@mysteryman,
mysteryman wrote:

Since less then 20% of southerners owned slaves, I dont see how it was all about slavery.

Whites who didn't own slaves were still tied into the slave economy and, even more, were beneficiaries of the slave system. Even the poorest of the "poor white trash" could be reassured that there would always be someone lower than them on the socioeconomic ladder. Poor whites were some of the biggest supporters of the confederacy -- and it wasn't because of the tariff.

mysteryman wrote:
And since free blacks in the south also owned slaves, I dont see how you can make it about white slave owners.

http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

Yeah, and there were probably a few Jewish Nazis too.

mysteryman wrote:
Was slavery an issue in the war?
Yes, but it was a minor one.

What was the major one?
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 10:30 am
@snood,
The Crittenden Compromise

Quote:
The Crittenden Compromise was perhaps the last-ditch effort to resolve the secession crisis of 1860-61 by political negotiation. Authored by Kentucky Senator John Crittenden (whose two sons would become generals on opposite sides of the Civil War) it was an attempt to resolve the crisis by addressing the concerns that led the states of the Lower South to contemplate secession. As such, it gives a window into what the politicians of the day thought the cause of the crisis to be.

The Compromise, as offered on December 18, 1860, consisted of a preamble, six (proposed) constitutional amendments, and four (proposed) Congressional resolutions. The text given here is taken from a photocopy of the Congressional Globe for December 18, 1860.

Quote:
Article 1: In all the territory of the United States now held, or hereafter acquired, situate north of 36 degrees 30 minutes, slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, is prohibited while such territory shall remain under territorial government. In all the territory south of said line of latitude, slavery of the African race is hereby recognized as existing, and shall not be interfered with by Congress, but shall be protected as property by all the departments of the territorial government during its continuance. And when any territory, north or south of said line, within such boundaries as Congress may prescribe, shall contain the population requisite for a member of Congress according to the then Federal ratio of representationof the people of the United States, it shall, if its form of government be republican, be admitted into the Union, on an equal footing with the original States, with or without slavery, as the constitution of such new State may provide.

Article 2: Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery in places under its exclusive jurisdiction, and situate within the limits of States that permit the holding of slaves.

Article 3: Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery within the District of Columbia, so long as it exists in the adjoining States of Virginia and Maryland, or either, nor without the consent of the inhabitants, nor without just compensation first made to such owners of slaves as do not consent to such abolishment. Nor shall Congress at any time prohibit officers of the Federal Government, or members of Congress, whose duties require them to be in said District, from bringing with them their slaves, and holding them as such during the time their duties may require them to remain there, and afterwards taking them from the District.

Article 4: Congress shall have no power to prohibit or hinder the transportation of slaves from one State to another, or to a Territory, in which slaves are by law permitted to be held, whether that transportation be by land, navigable river, or by the sea.

Article 5: That in addition to the provisions of the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution of the United States, Congress shall have power to provide by law, and it shall be its duty so to provide, that the United States shall pay to the owner who shall apply for it, the full value of his fugitive slave in all cases where the marshall or other officer whose duty it was to arrest said fugitive was prevented from so doing by violence or intimidation, or when, after arrest, said fugitive was rescued by force, and the owner thereby prevented and obstructed in the pursuit of his remedy for the recovery of his fugitive slave under the said clause of the Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof. And in all such cases, when the United States shall pay for such fugitive, they shall have the right, in their own name, to sue the county in which said violence, intimidation, or rescue was committed, and to recover from it, with interest and damages, the amount paid by them for said fugitive slave. And the said county, after it has paid said amount to the United States, may, for its indemnity, sue and recover from the wrong-doers or rescuers by whom the owner was prevented from the recovery of his fugitive slave, in like manner as the owner himslef might have sued and recovered.

Article 6: No future amendment of the Constitution shall affect the five preceding articles; nor the third paragraph of the second section of the first article of the Constitution; nor the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of said Constitution; and no amendment will be made to the Constitution which shall authorize or give to Congress any power to abolish or interfere with slavery in any of the States by whose laws it is, or may be, allowed or permitted.

And whereas, also, besides those causes of dissension embraced in the foregoing amendments proposed to the Constitution of the United States, there are others which come within the jurisdiction of Congress, and may be remedied by its legislative power; and whereas it is the desire of Congress, so far as its power will extend, to remove all just cause for the popular discontent and agitation which now disturb the peace of the country, and threaten the stability of its institutions; Therefore,

1. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That the laws now in force for the recovery of fugitive slaves are in strict pursuance of the plain and mandatory provisions of the Constitution, and have been sanctioned as valid and constitutional by the judgement of the Supreme Court of the United States.; that the slaveholding States are entitled to the faithful observance and execution of those laws, and that they ought not to be repealed, or so modified or changed as to impair their efficiency; and that laws ought to be made for the punishment of those who attempt by rescue of the slave, or other illegal means, to hinder or defeat the due execution of said laws.

2. That all State laws which conflict with the fugitive slave acts of Congress, or any other constitutional acts of Congress, or which, in their operation, impede, hinder, or delay the free course and due execution of any of said acts, are null and void by the plain provisions of the Constitution of the United States; yet those State laws, void as they are, have given color to practices, and led to consequences, which have obstructed the due administration and execution of acts of Congress, and especially the acts for the delivery of fugitive slaves, and have thereby contributed much to the discord and commotion now prevailing. Congress, therefore, in the present perilous juncture, does not deem it improper, respectfully and earnestly to recommend the repeal of those laws to the several States which have enacted them, or such legislative corections or explanations of them as may prevent their being used or perverted to such mischievous purposes.

3. That the act of the 18th of September, 1850, commonly called the fugitive slave law, ought to be so amended as to make the fee of the commissioner, mentioned in the eighth section of the act, equal in amount in the cases decided by him, whether his decision be in favor of or against the claimant. And to avoid misconstruction, the last clause of the fifth section of said act, which authorizes the person holding a warrent for the arrest or detention of a fugitive slave, to summon to his aid the posse comitatus, and which declares it to be the duty of all good citizens to assist him in its execution, ought to be so amended as to expressly limit the authority and duty to cases in which there shall be resistance or danger of resistance or rescue.

4. That the laws for the suppression of the African slave trade, and especially those prohibiting the importation of slaves in the United States, ought to be made effectual, and ought to be thoroughly executed; and all further enactments necessary to those ends ought to be promptly made.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 10:32 am
Oh sure . . . provide documentary evidence . . . how ill-mannered of you, DD.
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 10:34 am
@Setanta,
Truth's a bitch, but I love Her, and She sets me free.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 11:06 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
What had Buchanan or the Congress done which would have ended slavery as an institution?
Said as if you are ignorant of the fact that there had been a long running battle in Congress over the right of the states to choose slavery, and that the Southern vote was rapidly being diluted by expansion of the US. You might think that the Southerners were stupid rednecks, but they knew what time of day it was.
panzade
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 11:14 am
Jeeesus! Talk about your rose-colored rear view mirror!
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  3  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 11:17 am
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
You might think that the Southerners were stupid rednecks, but they knew what time of day it was.

I don't think people thought of them as dumb, but the South knew it was time to secede in order to preserve the plantation system.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 11:34 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
What had Buchanan or the Congress done which would have ended slavery as an institution?
Said as if you are ignorant of the fact that there had been a long running battle in Congress over the right of the states to choose slavery, and that the Southern vote was rapidly being diluted by expansion of the US. You might think that the Southerners were stupid rednecks, but they knew what time of day it was.

So basically, you agree with the original premise, which is that the Confederacy was about slavery.
panzade
 
  2  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 11:38 am
@DrewDad,
my take was that hawk agreed with the premise but thought the War was avoidable since the South was going to give up slavery in a matter of a few decades anyways
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 01:42 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:

For anyone here who claims that the war was not about slavery, or that slavery was a "minor" issue, i'd be interested to hear what you claim the war was about. I don't mean some vague throw-away line about states' rights, either. What specific event or events triggered this militaristic reaction in 1860? What issue inspired a mob in Pensacola and state authorities in Charleston to make war on the Federal government?

Any of you jokers game?


As I read in a book that I admit I cannot recall the name, nor author, white Northerners were willing to join the Union Army based on the belief that they would be fighting for a "white west," as each western territory joined the Union. The perception was supposedly that since "slave states" did not need white men for jobs, since plantations were self-sufficient with slave labor, white men would have employment in "free western states," as the territories joined the Union.

But, the answer to the thread's question, in my opinion, is that "yes" the Confederacy was about slavery, in that the economy of the Confederacy ran on the labor of slaves, and that was what the Confederacy wanted to maintain, and expand, if they could have sued for peace and make a demarcation across the continent of any state below the Mason-Dixon Line as a slave state.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 01:50 pm
@hawkeye10,
The "Southern vote" was based on the three-fifths compromise, which already meant that a member of the House from a slave state had been elected by far fewer eligible voters than a member from a free state. The notion that their vote was being "diluted" would be laughable if were not so pathetic. That is, like the rest of your "contribution" here, a non sequitur to the question asked. What do you allege that Buchanan or the Congress were doing in the winter of 1860-61 to "dilute" the Southern vote which justified those states making war on the Federal government?
Ionus
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 04:50 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
You're not this stupid--you do yourself a disservice to peddle this horseshit.
If someone disagrees with you they are stupid. Your whole purpose in being here is to be a bombastic arsehole with the manners of gutter slime and you think you are clever in the process.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 1 Jun, 2010 04:52 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
I don't mean some vague throw-away line about states' rights, either.
But you do mean vague throw away lines like :
Quote:
For anyone here who claims that the war was not about slavery
 

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 © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/09/2022 at 07:53:30