The Confederacy was About Slavery

@Finn dAbuzz,

Without the straw man, you would be lost rhetorically. No news there . . .

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Ah.. the task then will be simple for you, Finn d'Abuzz: Make two lists of those posting here.

The first list (A) will be of those who, in your words, argue the Confederacy was only about slavery and refuse to acknowledge that there were concerns other than slavery that motivated the South to rebel.

The second list (B) will be of those who, again in your words, argue the Confederacy was about more than Slavery(sic) yet refuse to acknowledge that slavery was the primary root of Southern concern.

Please notify us when these lists are complete. Then we will able to move forward towards a resolution of this thread.

The bet I have made in my head is that List (A) will be empty.

I haven't paid much attention to anyone here who might be placed on List (B), but I'd like to know who you think they are.

In my life outside of these fora, I have found no one fit for List (A) but several to many who would be proud to be on List (B).

Joe(I am not going to be found on either list, how about you?)Nation

PS: I'm sure the unnecessary capitalization of slavery was a typo. Yes?

3 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Would you still take your position that "slavery was the primary root of Southern concern," if it could be argued that slavery was intended to be the modus operandi for Southern territorial ambitions, as a separate nation that eventually annexed Mexico, and perhaps countries farther South?

Can history really know what ultimate intentions really were, considering so much is agreed upon by "gentleman's agreements" (the proverbial knowing wink)? Being born close to a century after the alienation between North and South was already way under way, I believe I was taught, and could only read "vetted" versions of the history.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

So the Confederacy was all about slavery and nothing else.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Finn has that tendency to exaggerate issues that only he can think up. He has a very creative mind - that has no relevance.

0 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Can I get a B+ professor, I fall in there somewhere.

0 Replies

@Joe Nation,

It would be helpful of Finn studied the current events of secession of Texas. LOL

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie:
I think we can rely on the historical record: the South's defending the right of a State's legislature to declare itself a slaveholding State while, at the same time, opposing the right of a State's legislature to declare itself a free State.
It's clear that the preference of slaveholding States was that ALL of the United States be slave States, as they once were.

It was that goal that Lincoln was referring to in his House Divided speech:

Quote:

MR. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN OF THE CONVENTION: If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifty year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting and end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crises shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South.

We finally put an end to that pathetic and immoral notion by defeating the Confederacy.

The Civil War only ended the practice of slavery, the end of racism in the USA continues to a mission that we must all join together to complete.

Joe(Raise your hand)Nation

2 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

Foofie:
I think we can rely on the historical record: the South's defending the right of a State's legislature to declare itself a slaveholding State while, at the same time, opposing the right of a State's legislature to declare itself a free State.
It's clear that the preference of slaveholding States was that ALL of the United States be slave States, as they once were.

It was that goal that Lincoln was referring to in his House Divided speech:

Quote:
MR. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN OF THE CONVENTION: If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifty year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting and end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crises shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South.

We finally put an end to that pathetic and immoral notion by defeating the Confederacy.

The Civil War only ended the practice of slavery, the end of racism in the USA continues to a mission that we must all join together to complete.

Joe(Raise your hand)Nation

Nicely put, sir.

1 Reply

@snood,

Quote:

Nicely put, sir.

says the guy who is proud to be a black man, the guy who thinks about race constantly by all appearances.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

says the asswipe that thinks of other people as inferior trash...

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

So the Confederacy was all about slavery and nothing else.

Yes, without any doubt.

1 Reply

@Joe Nation,

Joe Nation wrote:

Foofie:
I think we can rely on the historical record: the South's defending the right of a State's legislature to declare itself a slaveholding State while, at the same time, opposing the right of a State's legislature to declare itself a free State.
It's clear that the preference of slaveholding States was that ALL of the United States be slave States, as they once were.

It was that goal that Lincoln was referring to in his House Divided speech:

We only interpret history, based on what transpired. What if the North decided to appease the South and re-adopt slavery? My question is, would the South then focus on their anathema to tariffs (forcing the South to buy from the factories in the North). In effect, can an argument be made that slavery was the existing modus operandi (aka, rationale) to allow the South to attempt to be an autonomous expanded nation, whereby they can freely buy from anywhere, with the profits from "king cotton"? Not that I'm in any way correct, but I just believe much of history is not only written by the "winner," but the loser also might sugarcoat their intent also? Meaning for posterity, it might be better to blame slavery as the cause of the seccession, rather than its own desires for autonomous nationhood?

And, naturally political speeches that are remembered do tend to mirror what the history books claim.

1 Reply

There is a culture war that has always existed in the US and it shows no signs of abating. But only slavery so far has been strong enough of an issue to push the south over the edge.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

says the guy who is proud to be a black man

You say that as if it's a bad thing...

2 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

Quote:
says the guy who is proud to be a black man

You say that as if it's a bad thing...

would it be a good thing if i kept yapping about being proud to be a white man? am i then saying that being white is better options? am I saying that men are better than women?

1 Reply

@snood,

touché

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

snood wrote:

Quote:
says the guy who is proud to be a black man

You say that as if it's a bad thing...

would it be a good thing if i kept yapping about being proud to be a white man? am i then saying that being white is better options? am I saying that men are better than women?

Either produce a post in which I'm "yapping about being proud" to be a black man, or admit you're pulling things out of your behind again, and STFU.

1 Reply

@snood,

You,

Quote:

pulling things out of your behind again

Yup, he's pulling things out of behind again, and again, and again.... Mr. Green

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

I dont get it. Just because one important confederate politician thought the war was about slavery doesnt mean it was......politicians lie all the time. I see the Civil War as basically about sorting out the constitution, one of the important apsects being the slavery inherent in it, but not the only one. Lincoln said if he could have fought the war without freeing the slaves he would have.

Money, power and political influence probably had more to do with cotton or tobacco costs than slaves.

1 Reply

The Confederacy was About Slavery

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know