The Confederacy was About Slavery

@Finn dAbuzz,

No frothing at the mouth here, Finny--that's your métier. You were attempting to suggest that northerners were not fighting to end slavery, which, apart from being pure bullshit, is not relevant to the thread, which is about the Confederacy. Then you try a snotty remark to the effect that the conversation had moved on, but that was just you attempting to inject your typical reactionary polemic into the thread.

That southern heritage bullshit is all about white supremacy, and denial of the undeniable fact that the Confederacy was about slavery. No one was branding all southerners of a hundred and fifty years ago as evil. You seem to be the one with reading comprehension problems. I've already pointed out that thousands of southerners served in the United States Army then. There were eighteen regiments of infantry, seven cavalry regiments and eight artillery batteries raised in West Virginia, which had seceded from Virginia when Virginia seceded from the Union. There were eleven regiments of volunteer infantry, eight regiments of mounted infantry, fourteen regiments of volunteer cavalry, two battalions of heavy artillery and two battalions of light artillery raised in Tennessee which served in the United States Army.

You're peddling bullshit and that's all you've done in this thread. No bitterness and no frothing at the mouth from me--just the facts, ma'am.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Oh just shut up

0 Replies

@glitterbag,

Quote:

...but I think it's safe to say all war(s) is/are about power.

And who knows that better than the country that has been at war for over 90% of its years in existence.

And it has always been the US invading some poor third world country to steal their wealth, just like a band of pirates. That hardly meets with the propaganda of a kind and benevolent country saving people from oppression, does it, glitterbag?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Quote:

Oh just shut up.

Whoa. How are you EVER going to withstand a savage attack like that?

0 Replies

As one of my acquaintances, in 1963, told me: "If they hadn't shot Lincoln they never would have fought the Civil War." Smile

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

That the Confederacy was about slavery does't mean that the impetus of the North in the Civil War was about anti-slavery.

I just think that equating the Confederacy to being about slavery just ignores the reality that at the time of the Civil War the south just about had their fill, so to speak, of the north always being an obstacle to the south growing in their preferred way. Meaning there could have been no Confederacy without seceding, and setting up a new nation. So, my viewpoint is that the Confederacy was about seceding. Slavery was the immoral economic engine that already existed for 200 years, or so. One should just say that the south, since its origin, was about slavery. The Confederacy was about ending the north being the south's proverbial albatross, from their perspective. Naturally, there are those that would like to make the Confederacy about slavery, since few would argue that slavery is immoral, and then any Confederate symbolism would be immoral too. But, it is a hard argument today to claim on a moral ground that seceding is inherently immoral. That is just a political decision, accepted by both parties, or not.

And, to make (legislate) that Confederate symbolism should be outlawed is like saying that all the southerners with the first, or middle, name of "Jefferson" are really named after Thomas Jefferson, in my opinion.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

agreed. The War , originally was started by the Confederacy as an act of separation and the Union fought, initially, to reunite the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation reversed all that as the issue of slavery became THE major issue in history.

The Emancipation Proclamation made the war having to be fought to the bitter end, since it pauperized the southern banking system.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I largely agree with that statement, though like all such statements, it's not comprehensive. Certainly there were many thousands of northerners (and thousands of southerners) who fought for the Union and to end slavery. However, for most of them, the object was to preserve the Union. There was enough anti-slavery sentiment, though, far more than that statement implied, that many Federal troops would sing a little ditty to the tune of The Battle Hymn of the Republic, which ran:

John Brown's body lies amouldering in the grave,
John Brown's body lies amouldering in the grave,
John Brown's body lies amouldering in the grave,
But his truth is marching on.

Lots and lots of sinners--damned few saints.

I can't quote the book, but the northern whites that willingly joined the fray were hoping for a victory that would insure a "white west" as each territory was added to the Union, so white males would have jobs in the future. Plantations needed to hire few whites, if that existed in the territories, that would have been admitted as slave states.

Preserving the Union was more of a goal for politicians that understood that if the Union was not preserved, the U.S. would likely have to go back to Mother England for protection.

But Mr. Setanta, that's only my opinion, based on reading. And, you have your opinion too; I do not have to convert you to my opinion on anything. Conversion is not my goal for anyone.

1 Reply

Just curious...
Is there anyone here who thinks both of these things are true?
1) All things remaining status quo, the free market itself would've eventually phased slavery out of existence, just as a result of changing economic demands?
2) This would've been a preferable outcome to fighting the Civil War and all the accompanying upheaval.

6 Replies

@Foofie,

Foofie wrote:

But Mr. Setanta, that's only my opinion

opinions are useless

look for the facts - you may find it helpful in this, and other, discussions

1 Reply

@Foofie,

I take your point and I certainly don't dismiss it out of hand. There is a certain anti-South bias in some of the comments being made here and current affection for Confederate symbols is by no means necessarily a sign of racism, but I just don't think one can divorce slavery from the reason why the South seceded and thus became the Confederacy.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

This is just pussyfooting around the crux of the issue which is slavery. The Confederacy wanted to grow in their preferred way, with slavery in the territories. The Confederacy wanted to secede because of this. The albatross was the Union's opposition to the expansion of slavery into the territories.

What is hard is to claim on a moral ground is that the Confederacy seceded for the sake of seceding, without taking into account the reason behind its desire to secede, which was slavery.

What is immoral is not owning up to that fact.

2 Replies

@snood,

snood wrote:

Just curious...
Is there anyone here who thinks both of these things are true?
1) All things remaining status quo, the free market itself would've eventually phased slavery out of existence, just as a result of changing economic demands?
2) This would've been a preferable outcome to fighting the Civil War and all the accompanying upheaval.

I don't know the answers. Machines would have changed the labor requirements, but there are other ways to utilize workers. Some slave owners allowed slaves to hire out independently and then bring home their pay, as with Frederick Douglas. He was a ship caulker.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

Are you suggesting foofie needs to own up to any fact?

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Are you suggesting foofie needs to own up to any fact?

I'm suggesting that the Confederacy denialists need to own up to any facts about what the Confederacy was about, slavery.

If the shoe fits and all of that.

1 Reply

@snood,

#! Yes but only with continued moral pressure. #2 depends on how long #1 would take. Over a million casualties was, alone, a result to have been avoided. One could also make the argument that if slavery had ended peacefully, the entire Jim Crow era may have been avoided.

0 Replies

@InfraBlue,

More with "denier" label.

Foofie is hardly putting forth an opinion that qualifies.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

More with "denier" label.

It is what it is. Own up to it.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Foofie is hardly putting forth an opinion that qualifies.

Wow, denialism of denialism.

I've got to hand it to you. You've outdone yourself.

1 Reply

@InfraBlue,

What are you talking about?

Have you even bothered to read what I have written in this thread.

It would be nice if just one of you would specifically explain how a statement that the Confederacy was about slavery is actually a statement that it was not.

Denial of insipid thought is more accurate.

1 Reply

@snood,

snood wrote:

Just curious...
Is there anyone here who thinks both of these things are true?
1) All things remaining status quo, the free market itself would've eventually phased slavery out of existence, just as a result of changing economic demands?
2) This would've been a preferable outcome to fighting the Civil War and all the accompanying upheaval.

I think that the Confederacy's slave based economy would soon have collapsed of its own weight, as it were, and their nation would have been in shambles. Afterwards, they probably would have sued to rejoin the Union.

It seems that, but for the hotheads, it was an unnecessary war.

1 Reply

The Confederacy was About Slavery

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know