The Confederacy was About Slavery

@Joe Nation,

Keep tapping Joe (Bojangles) Nation, and while you're at it, please hold your breath.

0 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Interesting that although according to the folks who contend that no one in this thread has argued that slavery was the sole cause of the Civil War, you have and a net +3 have thumbed up your contention.

Thumb Uppers, please reveal yourselves so Joe (The Quantifier) Nation can have his much desired list.

Chicago Joe - Given that the political issues, not involving slavery, of some Southerners, would never have resulted in a Civil War, I would hope that you would acknowledge that at least one or two Southerners, at least, felt succession was called for, irrespective of slavery, for fine ideals.

I have to admit though that in considering my response to your post, I have come to the conclusion that I agree that slavery was the sole reason for the Civil War, and so have to add my name to the list Joe (I'm not anal) Nation demands.

[Appears we are a tribe of at least five]

[This thread marks the last time I ever attempt to take a position espousing the middle ground.]

2 Replies

Jeeze, this is pathetic. Look up succession, the look up secession. (Hint: we already went over this with Whackeye very recently in this thread.)

1 Reply

@Setanta,

He's probably applying that word to mean both "secession and succession." Mr. Green

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

As one of those who gave joefromchicago a thumbs-up, please allow me to respond. Here is what Joe wrote:

joefromchicago wrote:

As much as any historical fact can be "proven," I think it is proven that southern secession was solely the result of the slave issue.

I believe the operative phrase here is "result of the...issue". In other words, nowhere do I see a denial that some southerners were extremely concerned about the prices on the London cotton market or the tariffs being imposed from Washington D.C. or, indeed, a slew of other matters. But all these other concerns arose out of the fact that the South was a slave-driven culture. Or, more precisely, all of its major revenue-producing activities (cotton, tobacco, indigo, rice etc.) were dependent on the peculiar institution of slave labor.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

A rational response

0 Replies

For all you spelling bee champs - good on you!

Now get to the meat of the issue and stop piddling around the edges.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Chicago Joe - Given that the political issues, not involving slavery, of some Southerners, would never have resulted in a Civil War, I would hope that you would acknowledge that at least one or two Southerners, at least, felt succession was called for, irrespective of slavery, for fine ideals.

I can't think of a single one.

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

Can some one explain how the word "succession" applies to this topic? LOL

Quote:

suc·ces·sion
/səkˈseSHən/
Noun
A number of people or things sharing a specified characteristic and following one after the other.
A group of strata representing a single chronological sequence.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Idiot . . . the meat of this issue was worked over long, long ago. You think everyone is obliged to rehash the whole thread because you're too goddamned lazy to read it? Clown.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

Wow, and since you are intimately familiar with each and every Southener who supported secession, I guess that means there were none.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

You must be addicted to this thread then.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Wow, and since you are intimately familiar with each and every Southener who supported secession, I guess that means there were none.

None that mattered.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Oh look . . . a complete non sequitur . . . how unsurprising.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

There were a number of different motives that significantly affected the people (and governments) of the confederate states, and I believe it is a serious error to categorically wave all but one of them away. The obvious adverse result here is the interest of some to categorize all sympathy for the culture of the former south as a covert approval of slavery.

somebody notices
finally

1 Reply

@ABE5177,

Oh bullshit--as i've already pointed out, the tariff didn't lead to war and secession, states rights didn't lead to war and secession, but even just the hint of a threat to the "peculiar institution" lead to war and secession. All O'George's statement figures as is a succinct statement for Confederate apologists.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Agree! The tariff was imposed for the southern states to make it more difficult for them to trade based on the slavery question.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Oh look a snarky and self-absorbed post...how unsurprising.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Even though youre full of shredded corncobs about the Confederacy not being mainly about slavery as an institution Finn, I hope you had a very Merry Christmas.

1 Reply

@snood,

Could one also say that post Reconstruction was about effecting the Jim Crow South? If yes, then post Reconstruction was about many white Southerners not giving up the concept of "white superiority." Therefore, one can argue that the Confederacy was about many 19th century white Southerners believing that slavery was perhaps the only concept of white superiority that they could envision. Just the most expedient way to effect white superiority, since many could not envision a post Reconstruction Jim Crow South with tenant farmers.

It might also be plausible to argue that many 19th century white Southerners felt that if the territories became free states, in time the slave holding states would see the white Southerner marginalized in the Union.

My opinion is that when nuanced, the Confederacy was about maintaining the status quo of white superiority, since that was the goal in post Reconstruction times (aka, Jim Crow South).

0 Replies

The Confederacy was About Slavery

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know