The Confederacy was About Slavery

@glitterbag,

Who cares? I never read either of them. I always find it curious why people bother with such negativity and an obvious provocateur? Life's too short.

Back to the actual topic at hand...those who want to re-route this issue from the fact that Civil War was about abolishing slavery and not about States Rights..is an obfuscation. Those that do so are masking their own racism or in league with and/or sympathizing with racists.

1 Reply

@Ragman,

The argument could be made that in the vast majority of cases when 'States Rights' is raised as a defense to some smarmy activity - legal or otherwise - it is a dodge to avoid owning the true racist motives.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Wow, Civil War denial fan fiction.

Let's see if the other denialists will add to the meme, like discovering denalist fan fiction "historical documents."

You may have just started the next internet phenomenon.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Wow, Miller is really losing it. The first evidence of the Miller/Foofie sock puppet was when Foofie responded to a post addressed to Miller, and then denied knowing who Miller was. It was a fiasco.

But this is even better. Now Miller is responding to a post address to Foofie. What a tangled web.

Apparently some do not appreciate a Jewish sense of humor. Not that Gentiles don't have a sense of humor. For example, George Burns was not the funny one, in my opinion; his nice Irish Catholic wife was. But, I did like his monologues. Actually, to many ethnics the term "a funny WASP" is an oxymoron of sorts. But, they do try hard to be funny, pratfalls and all.

This conundrum of sock puppet identity could have been a very good Seinfeld episode, in my opinion. Pre-computer though, and when apartments on the upper west side were still affordable for a postman - "Neuman!!"

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

Miller wrote:

glitterbag wrote:

If I remember correctly, your family didn't wash up on these shores until well after the Civil War

Your memory is not correct.

My family was present in this Country, well before the Civil War.

My remark was addressed to Foofie who claims his/her family arrived 25 years after the Civil War, I didn't address you at all. Unless of course you are both Foofie and Miller. If you ARE both, pick a family history and stick with it.

Actually, on my father's side the family came around 1881 or 1882. That would be 16 or 17 years after the Civil War. My mother's side came just around 1898. That's 33 years after the Civil War. Both lived on the Lower East Side. Both sets of grandparents gave birth to my parents there. Both worked hard selling food to immigrants, 5 1/2 days a week (time off for the Sabbath).

However, I do find it interesting that you are taking umbrage with either Foofie or Miller, or the possibility of a poster that functions in a quantum field, so to speak.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

Putz

What about me? I thought I would qualify more as a putz?

Did you ever notice that all the Yiddishisms for euphemistic put-downs are relating to the male. The English put-downs are usually female references.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

glitterbag wrote:

Putz

What about me? I thought I would qualify more as a putz?

Did you ever notice that all the Yiddishisms for euphemistic put-downs are relating to the male. The English put-downs are usually female references.

Brush up on your Yiddish

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

The argument could be made that in the vast majority of cases when 'States Rights' is raised as a defense to some smarmy activity - legal or otherwise - it is a dodge to avoid owning the true racist motives.

You are ignoring the reality that 40 years hence, in the lifetime of children or grandchildren, slavery would have to end. That being said, I still believe that the Southern white intellectuals were gambling on a zero-sum game to give them autonomy when a new paradigm for the agrarian South had to be effected.

Otherwise, one is just pretending, in my opinion, that white Southerners were just oblivious to the calendar, and the soon to arrive 20th century. The rest of the world did not want Black slavery, and the South would have had to change. Especially, since they sold most of their cotton to Britain.

The desire to link the Confederacy to slavery in a colloquial manner, like the title of this thread, implies that the South believed that slavery could continue ad-infinitum. That cannot be true. They just wanted to manage it evolving to a different non-slave system, without the North putting in their two cents.

So, if the Confederacy was about a South that thought that slavery could exist ad infinitum, and that was the reason for secession, then to argue that position today implies/means that that supposed fact is being questioned by more than one person. And, those that are arguing that position have what motive? I'd only be guessing that it could have to do with a desire to erase the memory of the Confederacy from history, or at least make it a blip on the proverbial radar screen of history. If you are not aware, there is no record of the Hebrew bondage story in Egypt. It was too embarrassing for the Pharohs (Black Africans - the Arabs came much later) to have had the loss of likely 60,000 Hebrew slaves. So, one day there could be many whites that decide that for posterity the memory of the Confederacy/Civil War should not tarnish the image of the U.S. Like the moral of the fable, King Midas' Touch, be careful what one wishes for, one may get it. Just my opinion.

2 Replies

@InfraBlue,

InfraBlue wrote:

Wow, Civil War denial fan fiction.

Let's see if the other denialists will add to the meme, like discovering denalist fan fiction "historical documents."

You may have just started the next internet phenomenon.

I just tend to believe that there are diversionary interpretations of history to keep the little chickens' feathers unruffled, or perhaps to pander to a demographic.

For example, I believe (I know not this thread's topic) that the Holocaust is thought of as anti-Semitism on steroids, so to speak. I just see that it was a very effective way to "cow" the populations of all the invaded countries. In effect, anti-Semitism to the top Nazis was not the anti-Semitism of European peasants. Jews were just EXPENDABLE, and therefore, could be used to cow the Third Reich. Naturally, the descendants of anti-Semitic peasants in Europe often thought Hitler was doing a good deed by eliminating Jews from their country. The funny thing is how Germany, as I type, is busy marketing a new German image, by taking in 800,000 refugees from the middle east. It can almost be seen as humorous by some.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Holocaust fan fiction to boot!

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

snood wrote:

The argument could be made that in the vast majority of cases when 'States Rights' is raised as a defense to some smarmy activity - legal or otherwise - it is a dodge to avoid owning the true racist motives.

You are ignoring the reality that 40 years hence, in the lifetime of children or grandchildren, slavery would have to end. That being said, I still believe that the Southern white intellectuals were gambling on a zero-sum game to give them autonomy when a new paradigm for the agrarian South had to be effected.

Otherwise, one is just pretending, in my opinion, that white Southerners were just oblivious to the calendar, and the soon to arrive 20th century. The rest of the world did not want Black slavery, and the South would have had to change. Especially, since they sold most of their cotton to Britain.

The desire to link the Confederacy to slavery in a colloquial manner, like the title of this thread, implies that the South believed that slavery could continue ad-infinitum. That cannot be true. They just wanted to manage it evolving to a different non-slave system, without the North putting in their two cents.

So, if the Confederacy was about a South that thought that slavery could exist ad infinitum, and that was the reason for secession, then to argue that position today implies/means that that supposed fact is being questioned by more than one person. And, those that are arguing that position have what motive? I'd only be guessing that it could have to do with a desire to erase the memory of the Confederacy from history, or at least make it a blip on the proverbial radar screen of history. If you are not aware, there is no record of the Hebrew bondage story in Egypt. It was too embarrassing for the Pharohs (Black Africans - the Arabs came much later) to have had the loss of likely 60,000 Hebrew slaves. So, one day there could be many whites that decide that for posterity the memory of the Confederacy/Civil War should not tarnish the image of the U.S. Like the moral of the fable, King Midas' Touch, be careful what one wishes for, one may get it. Just my opinion.

Foof,

Print that response out on clean white paper; shred it; and sprinkle it around the rose bushes in your garden if you have any.

It will do wonders for them.

If you have no rose bushes...donate the shredded response to someone who does. That person will be forever grateful.

The Civil War was about slavery...and the southern plantation owners were not thinking past their noses. And although they were Democrats, they were American conservatives, which means their attitude was in keeping with American conservatism of today.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

[quote="

I have little interest in the Civil War, since my family came about 25 years after the war ended. Plus, the world I grew up in, and still live in, is not Black and White, like some parts of the nation. I live in an amalgam of ethnic groups and races. To be honest, as a secular Jew, I am more alienated from (and avoid) some of the cultures of some socioeconomic groups that identify as white than many non-white groups. As MLK said in a speech, I believe, whites have a drum majorette complex. So, from that perspective, I have discerned too much superiority directed at myself and extended family to really feel that white is how I see myself. Otherwise, I would be no smarter than a box of crayons with its many colors.

But, don't let my lack of interest dissuade you from enjoying arguing over the causes of the Civil War. You can also evolve into arguments over better battle plans, or other Civil War topics. It can really be a great hobby, I've heard. But, it usually is enjoyed best by those whose families were here to fight the war. That leaves me out. I'm only second generation born in the country.
[/quote]

You mentioned the dates of your family's arrival as the reason you have no interest in discussing the Civil War. I acquired the 25 year quote from you, if 25 wasn't the correct time period perhaps you could have corrected your misspeaks instead of challenging my memory of what you state. If you tell the truth you don't have to remember so many different falsehoods.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

You are ignoring the reality that 40 years hence, in the lifetime of children or grandchildren, slavery would have to end.

Really? The Confederate Constitution made slavery legal and made it almost impossible for it to end. It would have required 2/3 of the Confederate states voting to change the Confederate Constitution. That was not going to happen within 40 years. I doubt you could even get 2/3 of the present states in the South to vote that way.

Foofie wrote:

implies that the South believed that slavery could continue ad-infinitum. That cannot be true.

It is very true based on the documents produced by the South. The Confederate Constitution states this:

Quote:

(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

You seem to want to deny history and the documents associated with that history.

1 Reply

Di gantse velt shteyt af der shpits tsung.

1 Reply

@Miller,

did you mean af or auf? I don't have a clue who I'm addressing, are you Foofie or Miller or KAK?

On second thought, don't bother to answer, it's of no consequence. Frankly, engaging either screen name is like talking to the Cheshire Cat, mildly mysterious but altogether pointless.

0 Replies

I'll repeat myself--ascribing some portion of the belligerence of the southern leadership to a cause other than slavery does not alter the criminal behavior which cost a million Americans their lives. But apart from that, the turd-stirrers here, principally Miller/Foofie, are obliged to ignore a mountain of evidence that the southern leadership willfully seceded, and started a war for the purpose of perpetuating the institution of slavery.

After her shrill, hysterical attacks on Deval Patrick, before she created the Foofie sock puppet, i have no doubt in my mind that Miller is an unreconstructed racist. She hates Irish-Americans only slightly less. These bigotries shine clearly through in her Foofie sock puppet. Truly, Miller is a disgusting hater.

1 Reply

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

You mentioned the dates of your family's arrival as the reason you have no interest in discussing the Civil War. I acquired the 25 year quote from you, if 25 wasn't the correct time period perhaps you could have corrected your misspeaks instead of challenging my memory of what you state. If you tell the truth you don't have to remember so many different falsehoods.

I didn't challenge you on what you read from an earlier post of mine. The earlier post was just a rough estimate. I did the math and gave more exact dates.

I just changed my mind to have an interest in the Civil War, since it occurred to me that many academicians study ancient civilizations, and none were here, nor their families, when those ancient civilizations existed.

Call me fickle, if you prefer. You need not reply; we do not agree, and I have no interest in convincing you or anyone else that my thinking is correct.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

...The Civil War was about slavery...and the southern plantation owners were not thinking past their noses...

I cannot believe that, since I have met white Southerners that were not the emotional stereotype that is promulgated in the country by the media, in my opinion. And, this thread would not have been started if the contention was an open and shut case. There apparently are winds of dissent, including my high school curriculum that taught that the Civil War was not caused singularly by slavery.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

You seem to want to deny history and the documents associated with that history.

I am just saying that thinking people know that sometimes change is imminent, and therefore documents written might not show that thinking for a tactical advantage. If any documents of secession affirmed the thinking that slavery had a finite lifespan, then the North might offer a paradigm to effect an end to slavery and institute some sort of indentured type of substitute for a period of time. So, the South kept their cards close to their vest, so to speak, and seceded, since my contention is that uppermost in the South's collective mind was to secede from the North's continual interference with their business.

Naturally, until some personal journal is discovered that relates to what I'm conjecturing, we can all go on with the standard beliefs. However, remember not everyone was taught that slavery was the one singular reason. The main reason, I believe, was the North's obtrusive behavior, and the desire to rid the South of that behavior FOREVER.

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

glitterbag wrote:

Brush up on your Yiddish

Try offering your suggestions so they do not sound like a "direct order." I might then listen.

0 Replies

The Confederacy was About Slavery

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know