The Confederacy was About Slavery

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
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.

That is illogical.

Look at it this way.
Al Qaeda attacked the US because of US troops in Saudi Arabia.
Those that joined the US armed forces after could care less about whether US troops were Saudi Arabia. Does that mean that Al Qaeda didn't really think about US troops in Saudi Arabia? Or does it mean that the attacked country just RESPONDED to the attack without really caring why they were attacked?

It goes beyond that according to a Wikipedia article on the "Emancipation Proclamation." There were some Northern males in the Union Army that were not happy about the Proclamation. Why did they join? What did they think they were fighting for?

3 Replies

@Foofie,

Just because you're too damned lazy to read the thread doesn't mean the subject has not been canvassed exhaustively. No one here is obliged to post all of their evidence again just because Foofie's to fuckin' lazy to go back to read it.

It is not a non sequitur (learn to spell), it's very much to the point. Southerners were planning on war long before Lincoln was elected, even before he got the nomination. They were bent on war because they wanted a place to practice and protect their "peculiar institution." Read Alexander Stephen's speech to the Georgia legislature, it was posted in this thread.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Who give's a rat's ass where he is buried? That doesn't make you point, if you actually have a point in mentioning a motion picture.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

How dense can you be? Read the thread title again--why men enlisted in Mr. Lincoln's army is not to the point.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Quote:

It goes beyond that according to a Wikipedia article on the "Emancipation Proclamation." There were some Northern males in the Union Army that were not happy about the Proclamation. Why did they join? What did they think they were fighting for?

You might want to check the timeline before you ask such obviously ridiculous questions.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Quote:

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.

You do reaize that this thread hqad been going on loooong before you stepped in. Several posts cleary provide the reationship that slavery had to the Confederacy, including several "Articles of Secession" by the very states . Not reading and posting kinda bindly is not only impolite , it doesnt improve your credibility.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

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.

http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/document/DOCSLA1.htm

You could be incorrect. Since the males in Germany were fighting a war, the women were still home raising the next generation of ubermenschen. Germany did not have Rosie the Riveter, nor did German women fly aircraft like American and British women did. Germany needed manpower, and the link will explain it better.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
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.

You do reaize that this thread hqad been going on loooong before you stepped in. Several posts cleary provide the reationship that slavery had to the Confederacy, including several "Articles of Secession" by the very states . Not reading and posting kinda bindly is not only impolite , it doesnt improve your credibility.

Just because the Southern Confederacy wanted to continue, perhaps expand, its "peculiar institution," does not mean that the Confederacy was "about slavery." I say that since slavery was just the engine that drove the South's agrarian economy. It was the agrarian economy of the South that put it in contention with the industrial economy of the North. Slavery just happened to be the vehicle to drive the agrarian economy of the South, which was supplanted by a Jim Crow South that did not treat African-Americans as equal citizens.

So, I think I am arguing about a Northern perspective, and not the Confederate perspective. If that is the case, two people can have divergent views and be subjectively correct for themselves; however, that might not be the name of the game on this forum (allowing people to be subjectively correct). I say that in context of the ad hominems or snide/demeaning comments one may find on many a thread in challenging an opposing view.

2 Replies

@Foofie,

You dont understand. I feel that the Confederacy was about whatever the Confederate states SAID it was about, and in their various ARTICLES of SECESSION, the several states cearly define that the "central " core pof their secession was to preserve the institution of slavery. Nothing could be clearer than that. Also, the Crittenden amendments and the "Last ditch" conference to preserve the Union in Feb of 1861 each recognize the institution of slavery as the issue that drives the country apart. The North was willing to give a bunch in order to preserve the Union, in fact the Crittenden amendments defined clearly (ala the earlier"slavery map" acts of Congress) those states that could retain slavery as an inducement to remain in the UNION

Quote:

Slavery just happened to be the vehicle to drive the agrarian economy of the South,

Thats why it was the core issue of the Confederacy's existence. AS far as being a "northern POV" would you accept Shelby Footes views on the core of the Confedercy. He claimed (in a rather well quoted speech at Rice U) that the "revisionist views" of the "lost causers and the "Styates rightesers" need to be swept away to understand and ultimately accept the real basis for the Confederacy's existence, and that was SLAVERY .
Shelby Foote was no "Northerner", but he was arespected historian and researcher on the Civil War and Reconstruction

0 Replies

@Setanta,

speaking of films, how about Jabba the Hutt from The Empire Strikes Back, i'm pretty sure he had slaves

he was cremated (well blown up actually) over the Great Pit of Carkoon in Tatooine's Dune Sea

0 Replies

@Foofie,

You don't build tanks,or machine guns, or fighter aircraft, or submarines with slave labor. For that you need skilled labor. I didn't say that there was no slave labor, just that Germany didn't need it and didn't profit from it.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

So, I think I am arguing about a Northern perspective, and not the Confederate perspective. If that is the case, two people can have divergent views and be subjectively correct for themselves; however, that might not be the name of the game on this forum (allowing people to be subjectively correct).

What your alleged Northern perspective (and when it comes to history, your claims are always allegations, and are never substantiated) was is irrelevant. Look at the thread title as i've already told you you need to do. All that matters in this discussion is what the Confederacy thought it was about--what people at the North thought about the matter is not relevant.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

You don't build tanks,or machine guns, or fighter aircraft, or submarines with slave labor. For that you need skilled labor. I didn't say that there was no slave labor, just that Germany didn't need it and didn't profit from it.

Your original statement that elicited my response was, "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."

http://fcit.usf.edu/holocaust/resource/document/DOCSLA1.htm

However, from the link I posted, there is reason to believe that Germany did "need slave labor." And a good percent of the Holocaust victims found themselves being used as slave labor before they got downsized in the crematoriums (after they were worked to death).

Considering the question of Nazi slave labor is accepted by so many people, I find it odd that you are taking the position you are taking? There just weren't enough Germans to build a technologically advanced war machine, and do all the skut work that is always needed in a society. Slave labor solves that problem, if the country has a population that is not that large.

P.S. The very well known sign over the entrance of Auschwitz, "Arbeit Mach Frei" (Work Makes You Free) is quite self-explanatory, in that Auschwitz was a slave labor factory, and the sign was to fool the new arrivals that they were going to be utilized, as opposed to eventually go up in smoke. One should remember that there were SS officers that stood where the new arrivals came, to sort them into those for immediate death, or just worked to death.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Your document does not show that Germany needed slave labor or profited from it, quite apart from being from a biased source.

1 Reply

Try to stick to the topic, while were at it--your doing badly enough with that.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Your document does not show that Germany needed slave labor or profited from it, quite apart from being from a biased source.

You are being dismissive, in my opinion, about the function of Auschwitz.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Try to stick to the topic, while were at it--your doing badly enough with that.

Give orders to someone else.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

I don't care about your opinion on any subject, given that you long ago demonstrated that it's an uninformed and biased opinion. As for "giving you orders," someone needs to keep you on track, because so far you've wasted pages with your idiotic historical mythology and obsessive contrarianism.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

Do yourself, you all, a favor and read carefully:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_Proclamation

Do yourself a favor and read Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address:

"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."

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I don't care about your opinion on any subject, given that you long ago demonstrated that it's an uninformed and biased opinion. As for "giving you orders," someone needs to keep you on track, because so far you've wasted pages with your idiotic historical mythology and obsessive contrarianism.

Well, I do not think you are the one "to keep me on track," since I do not care for your management style. Perhaps, an entertaining management style would be nice.

0 Replies

The Confederacy was About Slavery

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know