The Confederacy was About Slavery

Daniel Boone and David Crockett were both, at some point in their lives, indentured to another person or family as were several of their family members. The difference between that condition and slavery was that there were limits to the indenture; once the term had expired or the amount of money owed had been earned, the indenture ceased.
Slaves were slaves until expressly freed for reason or for no reason, just as they were held.

Joe(and the reasons were always made up)Nation

This:

Quote:

It was about economics driven by two different economic engines, slavery being one in the South, and factories being the other in the North. So, if the South did not secede, the fear amongst white Southerners was that eventually new non-slave states could vote against the economic preferences of the South.

. . . is bullshit. You apparently either don't know the contents of the constitution, or you d0n't engage your brain before you post. There were fifteen slave states in 1861. It would require, even today, 38 states to ratify an amendment to abolish slavery. Had there been no war, the southern states could have blocked any such amendment right up to the present day. You just make **** up precisely because you believe all the bullshit you swallowed in school 40 years ago.

Long before a sufficient number of states had been added to the Union to force a tariff, European boycotts of slave-produced cotton would very likely have driven the south into the industrial arms of the north. European textile workers were serious about their opposition to economic exploitation. When Ghandi organized Indians to spin and weave their own cloth, and then visited England, he was treated as a hero by the textile workers who had been thrown out of work by the boycott, because they believed in his cause.

Your view of history, and your constant drum-beat of race-centered and ethnically-centered bigotry makes history into a comic book. You never know what the **** you're talking about.

Foofie wrote:

Also, getting back to the main theme of this thread. Here is an interesting thought experiment. If electricity, for example, was discovered 500 years earlier, and then all inventions continued on the same track, and by the time of the Civil War there were functioning inanimate robots to do the labor on plantations, would there have still been a Civil War? I believe, yes, since the war was fought for economic reasons, and slavery was just a symptom of the willingness to utilize human labor in such a dreadful, inhumane manner. Let us not forget that today there is "white slavery," so the willingness to utilize humans for one's profit did not end after African-American slavery ended. Some humans still have the ability to enslave others without a conscience (aka, Nazi slave labor).

This is truly one of the dumbest things I've ever read. I say that not for your benefit, Foofie, since I consider you beyond redemption, but for the benefit of any impressionable youngsters out there who might actually read your post and mistakenly believe that even a particle of truth or logic is lodged somewhere within it.

Ceili wrote:

Yes, but some of the indentured contracts were for much longer than the span of one lifetime, many of their children were held to the same contracts. Many died during their contracts and their working conditions were often as bad as the African slaves. And many were, without a doubt, slaves, especially if they had been convicted of some meaningless crime.

I am reasonably confident that every one of these statements is incorrect.

As a thought experiment, it may have more validity than you believe.

You did not prove the thought experiment incorrect, since you just engaged in a dismissive ad hominem ("...dumbest things I've ever read...").

Setanta wrote:

This:

Quote:

It was about economics driven by two different economic engines, slavery being one in the South, and factories being the other in the North. So, if the South did not secede, the fear amongst white Southerners was that eventually new non-slave states could vote against the economic preferences of the South.

. . . is bullshit. You apparently either don't know the contents of the constitution, or you d0n't engage your brain before you post. There were fifteen slave states in 1861. It would require, even today, 38 states to ratify an amendment to abolish slavery. Had there been no war, the southern states could have blocked any such amendment right up to the present day. You just make **** up precisely because you believe all the bullshit you swallowed in school 40 years ago.

Long before a sufficient number of states had been added to the Union to force a tariff, European boycotts of slave-produced cotton would very likely have driven the south into the industrial arms of the north. European textile workers were serious about their opposition to economic exploitation. When Ghandi organized Indians to spin and weave their own cloth, and then visited England, he was treated as a hero by the textile workers who had been thrown out of work by the boycott, because they believed in his cause.

Your view of history, and your constant drum-beat of race-centered and ethnically-centered bigotry makes history into a comic book. You never know what the **** you're talking about.

LOL. Setanta, we've just GOT to work on getting you out of your reticent shell, so you can stop holding back and say what you really think!

But for real though... I am grateful that you continue to give us the benefit of your obvious depth of knowledge about the Civil War.

Your argument could explain the two differing economic systems was not the cause of the war; however, you did not argue that slavery was the cause of the war, a war that was worth expending 600,000 + lives?

Today, I believe, there are some opinions that want to claim that the Civil War was fought to end slavery; however, the opinion could be in context of the periodic idea that someone today might be owed "reparations" for slavery. Well, if the Union lost "x" number of lives to "end slavery," the reparations were already paid with blood.

There is also the thinking that the war was fought to "preserve the Union." That would be important, since I have read that there were confederates that were thinking of expanding their new nation with the annexing of Mexico. If that happened, it could be believed that the Union North would have had to attempt to go back to the safety of Mother England, what with a hostile foreign country on the southern border. In effect, the U.S.A. would have lasted about 70 years. So, that might be the essential reason for the Union needing to be preserved.

Considering so few whites, Northern or Southern, had any of today's attitude about the inhumanity of slavery (excluding abolitionist preachers), regarding African-Americans, then the war must have had other reasons for coming to fruition. And, "fruition" might be the key word, since it is said that the Missouri Compromise only forstalled the war for ten years.

In my opinion, slavery was a symptom of an inhumane economic system, just like the slave labor in Nazi Germany was needed to continue the Reich; however, it was not the reason WWII was fought. It was competing world views (aka, economic and related territory).

It's pure bullshit that Germany had any need for, or profited from slave labor. In fact, most of the "smokestack barons" turned down Nazi offers of slave labor. This guy lives in some twisted version of Disney's fantasy land.

I doesn't surprise me for a moment that you think that historical truth is to be found in the movies.

I guess you didn't see the move Schindler's List?

The United States did not start the war, the southern states did.

Foofie wrote:

I guess you didn't see the move Schindler's List?

Non-sequitor. No one is explaining why the Confederacy was about slavery, in context of the lack of concern about slavery by many Northern males joining the Union Army.