The Civil War is still being fought at FR

[Charlie Brown]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1421830/posts

Yup. They're still debating the ethical and humanitarian dimensions of slavery in the old South.

[stepnw1f]

1. They Never Stopped...

the irony.

[DemsUnite]

58. And never will

[Geek_Girl]

2. Those people are grade a morons

and a disgrace to the human species.

[friesianrider]

30. LOL, very well said my friend!

Excellent-ly put!

[SteppingRazor]

3. I find it interesting that they go on and on about the 10th amendment...

without ever considering the constitutional rights of the slaves themselves. If a person is born in this country, he/she is a citizen. So what about the rights of the slaves themselves? Their own unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit if happiness obviously conflict with these 10th amendment rights of slave holders. Slavery itself is unconstitutional, a fact that should be obvious to all but the most apologist of commentators.
(Yes, sadly, I actually clicked on the link, went to free republic, and read some of the comments. I feel ill)

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. What were you thinking? *passing the Maalox*

[kliljedahl]

12. Do you have plenty of antiseptic soap?

I can't go anymore, I ran out.


Keith’s Barbeque Central

[Fire Walk With Me]

133. At the birth of the US, couldn't only property owners vote?

And much later, women? And slaves were freed at some point as well..someday, Florida will count their votes and they'll truly be free.

It just seems that there is a very slow process taking place, which might reach some amount of sanity in a thousand years or so. If allowed to progress, that is.

[whistle]

4. Of course, this has been like a shard of glass in their ass for...

... over seven generations. The civil rights legislation by LBJ put these weirdos over the top and the country has been splitting apart politically ever since then. Now, Bush and his operatives have rammed the wedge of bigotry, social division, educational separation, rich and poor tax issues, patriotism and the Iraq war to divide the country even further. let the freepers babble on about slavery and what their real values are, they condemn only themselves. Slavery can never be morally justified no matter how hard anyone attempts to do so. These people are racists no matter how they try to cover up that fact and it is a cancer that will eat their souls.

[Pong]

6. Most of the time

the argument they give is that it was about state's rights, which is actually mostly true, for most southerners fighting, it was about that, as most didn't own slaves and wouldn't fight for rich plantation owners to keep them. Of course the people leading the South were mostly slave owners, which points perhaps to their own desires as well... But that is what is usually argued, and that slaves would eventually have been freed regardles. At least that's what they say, but I'm skeptical.

[Clark2008]

18. I'll back you up, as you only have six posts.

Yes. My father was a Civil War historian and the fact is that most Southerners did not own slaves, yet were squarely for the war. They wanted each state to have the right to govern itself and to limit the powers of the national government.
They also didn't want the industrial north to shove, push and cajole them out of their agrarian lifestyle into industry (ironically enough, the city in which I live, Knoxville, TN, was home to many Union sympathizers because it, laying next to the Tennessee River, and being rather hilly, was more industrial than agrarian).
If the North had offered the South a plan for moving out of that lifestyle instead of just forcing a whole change of life, I'm fairly certain that the Civil War never would have occurred and slaves would have been freed. As it was, black people did not get equal rights under the law until a full 100 years later after the Civil Rights marches in the 1960s and are still struggling today.
I'm in no way condoning slavery - I'm just pointing out that slavery was NOT the main issue for the rank and file Southerner of the 1860s.

[Must_B_Free]

21. no

"I'm just pointing out that slavery was NOT the main issue for the rank and file Southerner of the 1860s."

No, it was the main issue for the rank and file northerner.

Recently saw Gone with the Wind; it makes it appear that the most influencial and powerful southerners were divorced from reality in their guilded antebellum lifestyle. They were arrogant in thinking they could preserve their disproportionate stranglehold over the lions share of the resources.

[seabeyond]

26. but gwtw isnt history. slavery is not the initial reason for the civil war

the poster above is correct. it was the best thing to come out of the civil war, ending slavery, but it isnt what got the northerners to fighting

now, are we back into the civil war like fr.

i learned this in history classes in calif. not southerner, never been a southerner

[Must_B_Free]

33. Uncle Tom's Cabin

"Stowe had written the novel as an angry response to the 1850 passage of the Fugitive Slave Act, which punished those who aided runaway slaves and diminished the rights of fugitives as well as freed slaves. Many writers have credited this novel with inflaming the passions of residents of the northern half of the United States to work towards the abolition of slavery, though the novel's historical influence has been disputed. Moreover, some critics highlight Stowe's paucity of life-experience relating to Southern life; for instance, she never set foot on a Southern plantation. However, Stowe did state she based the characters of her book on stories she was told by runaway slaves.

Before being published in novel form, the story was a long-running, anti-slavery serial called Uncle Tom's Cabin; or, Life Among the Lowly. It ran in the National Era, an abolitionist periodical, for eleven months starting in the 5 June 1851 issue."

from the Wiki

[Touchdown]

68. No. It was about slavery. Read "Look Away".

by William Davis. The Confederate Constitution, and the entire Birminham/Richmond government was set up specifically to preserve the institution of slavery.

one of the constitutional amendments...Any slave state can choose to join the CSA, but they cannot choose to not be slave states. They cannot secede from the CSA.

They also had plans for expansion into the Arizona territory and planned to invade Cuba and control the Carribean once they "whipped them yankees asses!" despite Jefferson Davis' plea for the North to "just leave us alone. We have no ambitions of aggression."

What the white proles in the South thought is irrelevant. Half of the US thinks we are in Iraq to "liberate the Iraqi people". Utter bullshit, and everybody on this site knows it. It's always the leadership that gets us to think what they want us to.

[fishwax]

79. What did get the northerners to fighting then?

I know the argument is often made that the southerners didn't see the war as being about slavery, but most northerners certainly did (even if the federal government maintained until '63 that the war was merely to preserve the union).

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Actually it was not the main issue for the northern rank and file

either... it was the issue for the elite in places like Boston, but not the troops in teh field.

It was even debated taht that the emancipation proclamations could lead to wide spread desertions, until it was explained to troops it did not cover those states that were not in rebellion (a pat on the back if you know which southern state did not go into open rebellion and remained for the most part neutral)

The Declaration was a strategic hit at Southern Economy, or so it was hoped. Its final result through the course of the war is still hotly debated.

But those who think that the North went to war over slavery needs to re read history and forget what they teach in HS mostly.

[Must_B_Free]

36. To deny the influence of the abolitionist movement is absurd

Please read the following information

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_the_American_Civil_War

[nadinbrzezinski]

37. I am not denying the influence

but the influence with the troops was not there... also remember a lot of them draftees were immigrants from places like Ireland who got off the boat and off to the army they went. So tell me exactly how did that troop learn of the abolitionist movement?

In many ways this reminds me of the many things I learned about Mexican History that later I learned were not that influential and the things that were influential or were major scandals had scant attention paid to them, if at all (race war in Yucatan comes to mind)

By the way I don't go to Wikipedia but I rely on what I learned in school, college, to be precise and the influence of the movement in the strategic thinking of the Federal Government has been exaggerated by those who study the civil war.

It is also studied and denounced by those who study the war between the states. You may realize I am talking of the same conflict, but as one of my professors put it in college, he believes, as well as many other students for the war, that this aspect has been exaggerated because it is simpler to understand than the other driving aspects for the war, such as economic and cultural differences, and the seeds of the war were placed at the compromise of 1850... and though was an issue was not the driving issue, rather the driving issue was economic... and while slavery was part of the society of the south the diving force was the quick separation in the well being between the industrial north and the agricultural south, pay attention and look at current trends

But if the war's cause was truly slavery, then the root is in 1787... the day the Constitution was ratified.

[Must_B_Free]

40. I don't fully agree with your statement

Here is some evidence I have gathered against this - what I consider a revisionist viewpoint - that you are arguing:

Caption: This poster depicting the horrific conditions on slave ships was influencial in mobilizing public opinion against slavery in Great Britain and the United States.

Thus the abolitionist movement was international and not a well kept American secret.

Abolition worldwide
Slavery was abolished in these nations in these years:

* Sweden: 1335 (but not until 1847 in the colony of St. Barthélemy)
* Haiti: 1791, due to a revolt among nearly half a million slaves
* Gran Colombia (Ecuador, Colombia, Panama, and Venezuela): 1821, through a gradual emancipation plan
* Chile: 1823
* Mexico: 1829
* Denmark: 1848, including all colonies

Also, in the social structure and expectations of the day, getting people to throw away their lives on war was not as hard as it is today.

You state that abolitionism is easier to understand than "economic and cultural differences, and the seeds of the war were placed at the compromise of 1850..." You are excluding the adoption of the abolitionist position in the reformist movement through the 30 years prior to the war, of which the Beecher Family was a seminal part, from the Father Lyman to Henry Ward and Harriet Beecher Stowe

"This country is inhabited by saints, sinners and Beechers."
Dr. Leonard Bacon, c.1863

Families that have been influential in American life and culture are often recognizable by their signature names. The Beecher family is an example of one such family whose deep religious convictions and social conscience spanned the nineteenth century and made them prominent historical figures whose impact on religion, education, abolition, reform movements, literature and public life were exceptional. Biographer Milton Rugoff claims that in "two generations the Beechers emerged, along with many other Americans, from a God-centered, theology-ridden world concerned with the fate of man's eternal soul into a man-centered society occupied mainly with life on earth."

Of Harriet:

Her closest confidant was her brother Henry, and throughout their lives they united in speaking out against the evils of slavery.

Of ther influence of the book that is credited with "starting the Civil War":

"Uncle Tom's Cabin" and influences on American culture

American fiction up to the publication of Harriet Beecher Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin was based on the fantasies of writers like Poe and Irving, and the romantic visions of authors such as James Fenimore Cooper, Hawthorne and Melville. In addition, the women publishing in the first half of the nineteenth century wrote sentimental novels appealing to their female audience. Milton Rugoff says: "At her best, Harriet Beecher Stowe was the first American realist of any consequence and the first to use fiction for a profound criticism of American society, especially its failure to live up to promises of democracy."

Reaction to the publication of the book took many forms and inspired plays, music, art, and anti-Tom literature. In 1852 there was actually a "Tom-mania" with Americans singing or playing Uncle Tom Songs and soon a stage version was produced with performances in New York, Boston and London.

The book received international recognition as a plea for the moral cause of abolition and is recognized today as a landmark in the history of American culture as well as American literature.

from http://newman.baruch.cuny.edu/digital/2001/beecher/default.ht

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Nobody is arguing that slavery was NOT horrible

at all, so get off that damn horse

What I am saying is something that makes many people in this country very unconforatble... that is that in the years that precede the civil war a war was fought among the Northern Elites about slavery (yes many were separated by the conflict) but when it came down to fighting the civil war the motives were not as simple as liberation of the slaves, or emancipation. When it came it did such as a STRATEGIC ATTACK on the Southern Economy. In fact as a policy the states that had Slaves (Maryland for example) that did nor rise in rebellion, were exempted. So if slavery was the casus belli, why was Maryland exempted? I might add, by policy.

Look nobody here is arguing that slavery should come back (though it exists today in your and my back yard... it has taken different forms, but it still exist). What we are saying, is that in the milieu of the era and among the troops who fought the war, it was not the driving force.

It was a good thing that came out of the civil war, but not the driving force, as much as this is taught in many American schools, The war, its causes and how it was fought are far more complex than one issue... they have to do with social control, economic development, international politics (some have argued Napoleon III invaded Mexico to support the Confederacy and when that died, he left Maximilian high and dry)...

Now did the publication of Uncle Tom have an effect? Yes, among the socialites that were ready to be mobilized... did the book have an effect in the burroughs of New York? No, not at all. In fact there was a fear of these people coming north to steal their jobs.

I will argue that there were stories that had far more an effect as well, but in my view Frederick Douglas had just a large effect on the antislavery movement (his life experience mostly) as Uncle Tom, but hey I am willing to give Frederick Douglas more than just the benefit he deserves which many schools to this day ignore.. so if you want to call me revisionist so be it... I just see history in a far more complex fashion than you do, and rarely do historical events have one cause

[Must_B_Free]

46. I'm not on a horse

This horse you describe is a straw horse of your making. You have inaccurately characterized the content of my post with that line.

Slavery was the underlying issue of the Civli War. The economic aspects were based on the economic changes that abolition would cause.

Origins of the conflict.

On the eve of the Civil War, the United States was a nation divided into four quite distinct regions: the Northeast, with a growing industrial and commercial economy and an increasing density of population; the Northwest, now known as the Midwest, a rapidly expanding region of free farmers where slavery had been forever prohibited under the Northwest Ordinance; the Upper South, with a settled plantation system and (in some areas) declining economic fortunes; and the Southwest, a booming frontier-like region with an expanding cotton economy. With two fundamentally different labor systems at their base, the economic and social changes across the nation's geographical regions – based on wage labor in the North and on slavery in the South – underlay distinct visions of society that had emerged by the mid-nineteenth century in the North and in the South.

Before the Civil War, the Constitution provided a basis for peaceful debate over the future of government, and had been able to regulate conflicts of interest and conflicting visions for the new, rapidly expanding nation. For many years, compromises had been made to balance the number of "free states" and "slave states" so that there would be a balance in the Senate. The last slave state admitted was Texas in 1845, with five free states admitted between 1846 and 1859. The admission of Kansas as a slave state had recently been blocked, and it was due to enter as a free state instead in 1861. The rise of mass democracy in the industrializing North, the breakdown of the old two-party system, and increasingly virulent and hostile sectional ideologies in the mid-nineteenth century made it highly unlikely, if not impossible, to bring about the gentlemanly compromises of the past (such as the Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850) necessary to avoid crisis.

Sectional tensions changed in their nature and intensity rapidly during the 1850s. The United States Republican Party was established in 1854. The new party opposed the expansion of slavery in the Western territories. Although only a small share of Northerners favored measures to abolish slavery in the South, the Republicans were able to mobilize popular support among Northerners and Westerns who did not want to compete against slave labor if the system were expanded beyond the South. The Republicans won the support of many ex-Whigs and Northern ex-Democrats concerned about the South's disproportionate influence in the Senate, the Buchanan administration, and the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, the profitability of cotton, or "King Cotton," as it was touted, solidified the South's dependence on the plantation system and its foundation: slave labor. A small class of slave barons, especially cotton planters, dominated the politics and society of the South.

Southern secession was triggered by the election of Republican Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln was a moderate in his opposition to slavery. He pledged to do all he could to oppose the expansion of slavery into the territories (thus also preventing the admission of any additional slave states to the Union); but he also said the federal government did not have the power to abolish slavery in the states in which it already existed, and that he would enforce Fugitive Slave Laws. The southern states expected increasing hostility to their "peculiar institution"; not trusting Lincoln, and mindful that many other Republicans were intent on complete abolition of slavery. Lincoln had even encouraged abolitionists with his 1858 "House divided" speech<2>, though that speech was also consistent with an eventual end of slavery achieved gradually and voluntarily with compensation to slave-owners and resettlement of former slaves.

In addition to Lincoln's presidential victory, the slave states had lost the balance of power in the Senate and were facing a future as a perpetual minority after decades of nearly continuous control of the presidency and the Congress. Southerners also felt they could no longer prevent protectionist tariffs such as the Morrill Tariff, which generally placed a greater burden upon the South.

The Southern justification for a unilateral right to secede cited the doctrine of states' rights, which had been debated before with the 1798 Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, the Hartford Convention during the War of 1812, and the 1832 Nullification Crisis with regard to tariffs.

Before Lincoln took office, seven states seceded from the union, establishing a rebel government, the Confederate States of America on February 9, 1861. They took control of federal forts and property within their boundaries, with little resistance from President Buchanan. Ironically, by seceding, the rebel states weakened any claim to the territories that were in dispute, cancelled any obligation for the North to return fugitive slaves, and assured easy passage of many bills and amendments they had long opposed. The Civil War began when Confederate General P.G.T. Beauregard opened fire upon Fort Sumter in Charleston, South Carolina on April 12, 1861. There were no casualties from enemy fire in this battle.

It was all about the impact of abolition on free labor and thus peoples income.

[nadinbrzezinski]

63. that is why Maryland was excepted

and that is why Frederick Douglas in letters to Lincoln begged the formation of black units for two long years. It was one of the origins and an important one, but NOT the only one... sorry many of us who ar students of history are aware that history is far more complex than a single explanation.

[Yupster]

66. Kentucky, Missouri and Delaware

were also excempted from the Emancipation Proclamation as were occupied regions of the Confederacy like New Orleans.

Slavery ended in those places only when the 13th Amendment was passed after the war.

[Must_B_Free]

84. Just keep in mind that controversy is an industry

We can find books to claim just about anything in retrospect. So in terms of history, we will find people spinning it in every direction, sometimes for an ideological purpose sometimes just to say something controversial to sell books; (the names Alex Jones, Al Martin and Eric VanDanken come to mind.)

I realize that there were many currents that led to the war; ultimately it was to preserve the union, but none of my history classes in high school ever said that the war was fought to "free the slaves".

From my readings that I posted in this thread, an awareness developed from the pulpit that slavery was a moral wrong. Perhaps it was only recognized those who had leisure to worry about their "feelings". As far as the attitudes in the Boroughs, maybe they were desperate enough to feel like "better them than me".

The interesting thought to me is that the upper crust in the south must have also known that it was wrong, but were willing to rationalize it, because it benefited them. I find that same spirit alive today in the south - a willingness to consume deception because it satisfies an emotional need.

Now Nadine, what about women's suffrage? What was the "real" reason for that. We all know the stated reasons we learned in High School, but what do you students of history know as the real reasons?

[nadinbrzezinski]

92. Suffrage is one of those I have studied on the edges

so I will not go there. I know what you know.. but Susan B Anthony is one of my heroes.

But it may require some readying, in particular primary sources. Hey always wanted to read Susan B Anthony's and the rest of the gang's writings

;-)


Now to the attitude you see at the top in regard to slavery in the South you are correct and it lives to this day... it has never truly gone away, especially outside of large cities... and it is quite entrenched. Go back to that FR thread and you will see it, in full gale force.

;-)

[mattclearing]

71. Maryland.

Thanks for the pat.

[Clark2008]

69. This is also true.

But, in a somewhat timid defense of the influential and powerful Southerners, they never were presented a plan by their Northern counterparts to move past that agrarian lifestyle. It was "My way or the highway" from the North, in the Southern viewpoint.

[fishwax]

80. My Way or the Highway

Southern elites were also completely unwilling to imagine an agrarian existence that didn't rely on slave labor, and the unwillingness to imagine such an enterprise left the evil of slavery as a wide target for northern activists.

[Clark2008]

99. Also true.

I think both sides were very guilty of failure to compromise on strategic plans to end the agrarian society, thus ending slavery. Plus, during that time, Southern attitudes regarding slavery could have been cultivated to change in favor of freeing them.

[Yupster]

100. Oh I don't know

Southerners knew the rest of the world was getting rid of slavery, and they saw the two models right in front of them in Haiti and Jamaica.

[fishwax]

102. Southern leaders weren't exactly clamoring to follow the lead of Jamaica

or Haiti. Any assault on the institution of slavery was considered an assault on the economic interests of the south, b/c the powers that be considered them inseparable. Which is why, for example, the Mississippi Articles of Secession reads:

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world."

The upper class wanted to keep slavery for economic reasons, and racist arguments were used to persuade the non-landed southerners of the importance of slavery, such as the warning that "Abolition preachers will be at hand to consummate the marriage of your daughters to black husbands!"

[Yupster]

111. Oh I agree with you

An independant Confederacy would not beurging the abolition of slavery.

My reply was directed at your comment that the southern elites were unwilling to imagine an economy without slavery.

I think that's wrong. I think they were very much aware that slavery was being ended all around them, saw the good and bad ways it was being ended, and certainly could at least imagine life without it.

I think any of the educated of the south would realize that there was a chance slavery would be gone one way or another in a generation or so. I would think they all had thought about it.

[fishwax]

114. well, perhaps it's semantics, but

they may have been aware that slavery was ending all around them, but i haven't seen any evidence that they imagined any way of following that path. I don't think they saw "the good and bad ways it was being ended," because I don't think they could/would conceive of such a thing as a "good way" it could be ended. That's what I meant by not being able to imagine a "southern civilization" without slavery.

<i>I think any of the educated of the south would realize that there was a chance slavery would be gone one way or another in a generation or so. I would think they all had thought about it.</i>

I agree that they saw it as a possibility, and one that they were willing to go to war to prevent. The conditions in those areas that had seen slavery end (and Haiti particularly, i think, though my memory might be faulty) were touted as cautionary tales by those who were rallying the southern public against the threat of emancipation.

Even Robert E. Lee, who many like to think didn't like slavery, saw the theoretical end of the institution as an evil which would cause irreparable harm to both races.

[Yupster]

120. Yes Haiti was the cautionary tale

that every southerner knew well. The slave revolt which took over and prety much killed or drove out every white person on the island. It was during the Haiti fiasco that every southern county made sure their local militia was well armed and trained.

Jamaica, the gradual manumission was watched very carefully too, and was seen as much more of a success.

Anyway, if the Confederacy was allowed to go peacefully and there was no Civil War, I don't think tere would have been any particular pressure to free the slaves anytime soon.

But, let's say Lincoln lost his reelection in 1864, and Johnston was able to keep Sherman out of Atlanta, so Sherman had to withdraw from Georgia's mountains through the winter, I think under such a negotiated independance in 1865, there would have been pressure to do something about slavery.

For one thing, the orth had a ot of good bargaining chips including the south's largest city in its pocket (New Orleans). I think for the Confederacy everything would have been negotiable except independance.

It also would have been difficult to go back to the old ways. Large areas of the country had been occupied by the union army including cities like New Orleans, Nashville, Memphis, Chatanooga, Knoxville, Little Rock, Jackson, Baton Rouge, and the North Carolina coast. Just going back to the way it was would not be easy.

There were also many free African-Americans in the Confederacy who had taken on more important roles during the war. There were 50,000 alone in Virginia before the war and lots more freed during it.

In this scenario, I think Davis would have made the minimum deal he would have had to to get independance.

The problem long-term would be deferred to the second president since Davis could not run for reelection.

I have no doubt that the second president would have been Lee.

But which Lee?

The conservative Lee who would have tried to make the best of the muddle of the end of the was, or the bold and daring Lee of Chancellorsville . That's an interesting what if to me because I think that Lee would have the power and boldness to set up a graual generation of manumission, but would he see that as his duty or not?

Who's to say.

[Sparkman]

125. Today's upper class decry collect bargain'g, support NAFTA/CAFTA &

gutting health care, education, higher min. wages....just like elitist southern plantation overseers. War is a slave-intensive enterprise if there ever was one.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

118. "It was the main issue for the rank and file northerner"? Really??....

It's funny that virtually no diaries or letters written by Union soldiers early in the Civil War mention fighting to free the slaves. That's because the primary reason was to keep the South from leaving the Union, and Lincoln was prepared to do all that was necessary to preserve the Union.

If you'll do a little homework, you'll discover that the Emancipation Proclamation (EP) of 1862 freed only those slaves still living in territory controlled by the Confederacy. The idea was to create additional problems for the Confederacy by forcing them to divert troops to protect the home states against potential slave rebellions. Additionally, the EP was only made public after the Union won the terrible Battle of Antietam, forcing the Confederate army under Lee to retreat back into Virginia.

The Emancipation Proclamation did not address those slaves living in areas controlled by the Union. IMHO, this proves that the EP was nothing more than a political/psychological weapon in 1862. Lincoln also attempted to convince Black leaders in 1862 that relocating to the American colony of Liberia in Africa was the best possible solution for all concerned. Later, as Lincoln's thinking evolved, freeing the slaves did become one of the major political and psychological issues of the War.

But, again, Lincoln's thinking had little impact on the lives of the Union and Confederate rank-and-file...they were too busy trying to survive the day-to-day madness of the Civil War.

By the way, about 65,000 Blacks served in Confederate combat units during the Civil War. Some were slaves who served their masters who were Confederate senior officers, but most were free Blacks that went to war with their neighbors, friends, and relatives.

[okasha]

113. For most southerners, I doubt

it was as philosophical as "states' rights," still less about slaves they didn't own. It was the simple fact that they'd been invaded. Anyone will fight to defend his (or her) home and family.

[fishwax]

115. Just because they didn't own slaves didn't mean they had no interest in

slavery. Since the economics of the south so thoroughly relied on slavery, it was an important institution to the 90% of southern whites who didn't own slaves as well. And not just an important institution economically, but also socially and culturally, because it guaranteed their superiority over blacks. Without slavery, they were told, there was no freedom for non-propertied whites.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

123. 95% of the South consisted of poor white farmers who thought in terms...

...of growing enough food to feed their families and selling what was left. The institution of slavery had very little impact on those people economically, socially, or culturally.

None of my ancestors from Virginia and Kentucky owned slaves. They ran small farms and/or blacksmithing communities, often living side-by-side with free Blacks. In all of their letters and diaries, none of these people ever mentioned slavery in any way, shape or form. They were very typical of the people that lived in the South prior to, during, and after the Civil War.

Those that did own slaves were the major plantation owners who planted cotton as their primary crop. THEIR world did revolve around the institution and economics of slavery, and for them, their is no excuse.

[Must_B_Free]

127. That's like saying Autos have no impact on the people who dont own them

yet their food and clothing are all delivered with them. Our very economy is dependent on the automobile.

One of the articles i read on Wiki mentions three levels; the few who own the majority of the slaves; smaller farmers who relied on the shared equipment on the larger owners i.e. the cotton gin , finally, the poor whites who were authorized to hunt and abuse runaway slaves.

So they all had a share in the interest of slavery on some level.

[okasha]

130. And how many folks who don't own autos

do you think would fight and die for GM?

[Must_B_Free]

132. If they fight for their country are the fighting for GM?

GM is part of their country.

[fishwax]

129. it's BS to say it had no impact on most people

in the 1929 most people didn't own stocks, either, but the stock market crash was not felt only by the elites who did.

Perhaps your ancestors never mentioned slavery in any way, shape or form in the letters and diaries you have, but that doesn't make their experience typical, and I don't see what basis you have for extending their experience to the average southerner of the day. The south's "peculiar institution" was at the center of southern civilization, as articles of secession and the rhetoric of the day make clear. It's importance as a social norm was no less important, as newspapers, speeches, and other sources make clear.

[zanne]

62. Yeah, and the Clinton impeachment wasn't about sex...

It was about lying to the American people!

[im10ashus]

109. The impeachment may not have been about sex.

But the investigation sure in the hell was.

[blindpig]

83. I don't buy the slaves would be freed either

Southern politicos had their eye on Chihuahua and Sonora, if they had won independence.

Yes, slavery was the issue. The only states right of concern was to maintain their peculiar institution. I feel that the southern yeomanry were duped; slavery allowed slavers an unfair competitive advantage over them. I have read that the number of independent nonslave farms in the South steadily decreased over the years. They migrated to the West where many hoped to imitate those who had made it too hard to stay at home.

About the only benefit that the yeomanry had from slavery was having someone lower on the social totem pole to look down on, unfortunately not a inconsiderable thing to the stupid monkeys that we are.

Welcome to DU.

[Yupster]

112. The slaves would be freed eventually

I don't think they'd still have slavery in 2005.

Now when the slaves would be freed and how would be pure speculation.

A lot of it would depend on how the war ended and who the second president would be.

[jmowreader]

135. I think there would still be slavery in 2005

The industries that were operating in the South in the years before the Civil War--agriculture and textiles--are still operating. And they still need nearly-free labor.

If the South would have won, the Confederacy would still be a slave area. RIght now they're dependent on Mexicans. They wouldn't need to if they had slaves available.

[JHBowden]

85. states' rights...

to permit slavery!

:dunce:

[Yupster]

86. I think that's right JHBowden

One side says slavery -- the other side says states' rights.

I think they're both right looking at it from each's point of view.

As an example, a twenty year old woman is still living with her parents. She is staying out all night and coming home drunk or stoned.

Her parents tell her that if she's going to take drugs, she can't live with them.

After months of fighting, she moves out on her own.

So, why did the woman move?

Ask her parents and they'll tell you that it's because she wouldn't give up her drugs.

Ask her and she'll tell you that it is her right as an adult to not have to obey her parents.

So which was it? The drugs, or the woman's rights?

They're both right from each of their points of view.

I think it's the same in the secession of the southern states.

[Orangepeel]

103. so the Civil War was about states' rights the same way that the Iraq war

is about 9/11?

[livinginphotographs]

7. My head just exploded.

When are we as a country going to get past this issue?

Something is up. Emmett Till is exhumed and autopsied. There's a 1964 Civil Rights murder trial starting up. I believe there is a bill to outlaw/apologize for lynchings in South Carolina(?) that NPR was talking about this morning.

There are forces at work really, really pushing the whole "this country has a race problem" button. Maybe I'm missing the catalyst, but it seems odd to me.

If I had to speculate, I'd say that the Democrats are losing black voters and are desperately trying to get the message out that America hates blacks and that blacks would be safest if they stayed on the plantation.
29 posted on 06/13/2005 6:37:37 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies >

So justice for a murdered black man is some sort of conspiracy to inflame racial hatred? And apologizing for the abomination of lynching that was all but tolerated by the powers-that-be is some sort of conspiracy to inflame racial hatred?

Hey mouth-breather - if I had to speculate, I'd say that maybe someone is interested in justice. That whole Occam's Razor is kind of complicated, though.

[Bouncy Ball]

11. You win the award for the most Humorously Ironic Statement

"That whole Occam's Razor is kind of complicated, though."

[livinginphotographs]

13. Thank you.

I'd like to thank jesus.....

[Bouncy Ball]

14. OMG you are killing me.

:rofl:

[Arkana]

15. This guy wins the Assface Award for Dipshit Statements:

If I had to speculate, I'd say that the Democrats are losing black voters and are desperately trying to get the message out that America hates blacks and that blacks would be safest if they stayed on the plantation.
29 posted on 06/13/2005 6:37:37 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies >

Tell me, when have we ever said ANYTHING remotely CLOSE to this? Or even in any remote way IMPLYING this? What a moran.

[FreedomAngel82]

22. What really got me disgusted with all this

is when Ken Melhman apologized for how the republicans have treated blacks in the past and then he had to turn around and take it back. He finally did SOMETHING good and they got pissed off at him. :eyes: :mad:

[TomClash]

8. Free Republic

Ku Klux Klan Division

[La Coliniere]

9. Surrounded by freepers at Gettysburg a few years back.

We were on a tour bus that takes you around the battlefield. This group from Georgia kept on interrupting the tour guide to remind the rest of us how the Civil War was only about "states rights". Forget preserving the Union. Forget the liberation of slaves. For them, it was only about "states rights", i.e. the right to keep slaves. I began humming and whistling "We Shall Overcome" at various times along the tour, just to drive them nuts. They were wearing Confederate flag tee-shirts, underscored with "it's a southern thing, you wouldn't understand".

It's an ignorant thing, I think I understand.

[Bouncy Ball]

10. Sometimes they try to bring it here, too.

:eyes:

[booley]

16. if slavery was so great..why didn't white people volunteer for it?

really, I can never understand the kind of dellusion of some people, trying to get us to believe that slavery 'wasn't that bad". Funny, historicly slave owning societies have always had a universal fear.. that thier slaves would revolt. And indeed, that frequently happened. becuase the slaves sure as hell thought that slavery was "that bad".

It's just not a good idea to have yoru economy dependent on a class of people who lots of good reason to hate you and want you dead.

IF white people wouldn't want to be slaves, why would black people?

Though personally I think it would have better in the long run if the south had been allowed to succeed. The slaves would indeed have been freed..or I should say they would have freed themselves when they revolted.. and we in the North wouldn't have to be saddled with idiotic southern freepers like we are today.

[belle]

17. Ding ding ding!

[FreedomAngel82]

25. I agree

They should try it. See how long they'd last being a slave.

[Must_B_Free]

19. Here's my criticisms, right off the bat

In fact, the slaveholding states of Maryland, Delaware, Kentucky and Missouri remained in the Union during the war.

The Mason-Dixon line is between PA and Maryland.

Anyone even remotely familiar with Lincoln's speeches and writings knows that freeing the slaves was never one of his primary objectives. In 1862, he said, "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery…" It wasn't until his war against the South seemed to be going badly for the North that
slavery even became an issue for him.

Uncle Tom's Cabin, which exposed the cruelty of slavery in breaking up families to sell the various members off to different owners was THE precursor to the war. That's why we've all heard of it. Abolotion was the emotional selling point for the war.

Trying to turn what Lincoln did into a moral crusade that justified the deaths of over 600,000 Americans is no better than defending the institution of slavery itself.

Lincoln wasn't the one who seceded.

[cynatnite]

20. Now, they're trashing Lincoln?

The racism...yeah, it's a norm in freeptard land, but I've never seen anyone trash Lincoln. It wasn't like he illegally and immorally invaded another country plus bombed it back to the stone age. :eyes:

[Bouncy Ball]

29. I've seen a few people trash Lincoln HERE.

And yes, it did smell BAD if you know what I mean and I think you do.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

53. Repeatedly!

Certain posters seek out these lincoln bashing threads to talk about blah blah blah states rights! And they ALWAYS post the "if I could save the union by freeing the slaves I would, if I could save the union by not freeing the slaves..." without putting the whole quote because he goes on to say that the union cannot be saved with slaves because slavery is wrong.


Unfortunately, this same issue has been argued again and again on DU with many people taking the FR positions.

[fishwax]

104. I once knew a guy who stopped drinking his favorite whiskey b/c he learned

that it was distilled in the same town that lincoln was born. :puke: he was from mississippi ... not a racist, he insisted, even as he claimed the south was invaded, slavery wasn't that bad, lincoln was a tyrant, etc.

[flaminbats]

23. Freepers badly need to learn some American history..

Despite the wishes of a select few, slavery had already begun to disappear by the mid- to late-1800s. Even Southern leaders realized slavery wouldn't last. In language far more explicit than its U.S. counterpart, the Confederate Constitution included an outright ban on the international slave trade: "The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slave-holding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same." Clearly, there is no reason to believe that slavery wouldn't have died of natural causes in the South as it had in every other civilized part of the world.

Actually slavery began to boom after the invention of the cotton gin.


It nearly tripled from 1820 to 1860.

For one thing, the vast majority of slave owners were not cruel, a stark contrast to how slaves were treated in pagan cultures. In many cases, slaves were considered part of the family--so much so that they were entrusted with helping to raise their masters' children.

If slavery isn't cruel..what is? Obviously this freeper doesn't believe in freedom. And how can anyone argue that freeing slaves and fighting the Civil War was "anti-Southern bigotry"? Freeing slaves was good for the everyone in the south and putting down treason, led by a bunch of unelected aristocrats, was the patriotic thing to do!

All slave owners like Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens viewed slaves as nothing more than property, not as human beings who are free and equal under the law. It confuses me that anyone who calls themselves prolife would also oppose the abolishment of slavery. :puke:

[maxrandb]

64. It's Easy to Understand How They Think About This

"It confuses me that anyone who calls themselves prolife would also oppose the abolishment of slavery."

They have to convince themselves and as many Amurikans as they can that "slavery wasn't that bad". After all, they are the ones mostly responsible for helping lead our country to "serfdom", where we all become slaves to our corporate masters.

Their "slavery was not that bad, and not the "sole" reason for the Civil War" is the same as their argument that "organized labor is destroying this country and the only ones profiting from organized labor are the "fat-cat, big Union Bosses".

Perhaps after CAFTA, when the Freakers have to compete with the worker from Honduras making $1 a day; perhaps after the Republicans have brought us down to the quality of life of your average Brazilian; perhaps after every safety net is gone and they're eating catfood,...Perhaps then they will open their eyes.

Doubtful though, because at least "gays can't get married".

[flaminbats]

81. excellent points..shelton's entire premise is wrong

"Everywhere you turn it seems there is a concerted effort to erase part of America's past by stamping out Confederate symbols. Why? Because no one wants to take the time to truly understand history. The general consensus is that Abraham Lincoln saved the Union and ushered in a new era of freedom by defeating the evil, slave-owning South. Therefore, Confederate symbols have no place in an enlightened society."

Slavery was just as bad, if not worse in some ways, than the Holocaust. But there is no more of an effort to stop individuals from flying Confederate flags as Nazi swastikas! People can fly whichever symbols they choose to. I think taxpayers don't want state and local governments incorporating this on our government symbols, but this is because these state and national symbols represent all of the taxpayers..but a concerted effort to stamp out Confederate symbols? :shrug:

[ithinkmyliverhurts]

24. Yeeeeeehawwwwwww.

This here's war. Start pickin'.

[Uncle Joe]

70. Regarding the demonization of the South

Has anyone viewed the movie "Deliverance" and also read the book? I have not read the book, but I have heard that it is vastly different than the movie. I have heard that the book was based on a true incident, to begin with in the book, those "redneck hillbillies" actually never raped any of the kayakers in the woods, on the contrary, they saved them. Of course when Hollywood got their hands on it, they turned a 180, I guess you cannot have those Southerners looking too good.

[Warren DeMontague]

27. Didn't you hear Rick Santorum? State Legislatures should have the right

to pass "dumb laws".

[mcctatas]

31. and apparently...

the people of this country have the right to "elect" dumb people...friggin Santorum, I keep hoping that he is merely mentally ill instead of evil, but somehow I doubt it.:grr:

[rasputin1952]

32. How anyone can believe that one human can own another is

so far beyond anything that I can conceive, I figure the whole place has found a new, lower level of insanity.

For those that believe in this type of gzrbage, perhaps they could spend a few years as a slave...:evilgrin:

[Nevernose]

34. Many people here at DU have a rather simplistic view of history

It's not black or white, slavery or not. "Either/or" is Repuke thinking in its basest form. If you don't believe me, then I suggest you read a few books from as varied authors as neo-Confederate jackasses to die-hard liberals like Howard Zinn. Even the new Lincoln Library/Museum (I went to Lincoln's and Clinton's on my summer vacation -- both were great :)) did not ignore the fact that Lincoln's personal preference was freeing the slaves even though it was not politically expedient and thus ignored the issue altogether

Wars are fought over property. Though slavery (and therefore property) was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, it was not the only reason. Why did over a thousand African-Americans in Georgia own slaves?

Why were the first shots at Bull Run fired by a freed slave fighting for the Confederacy?

How did Southern states manage to raise militias of thousands of free black men?

Why were most slaves imported through the heart of abolitionism, Boston?

Why did the hero of the movie "Amistad" spend the rest of his life collecting money from abolitionists and use the money to import slaves to Cuba?

Why did so many abolitionists hate Lincoln? Why did Southern states pass laws protecting the treatment of salves?

Why did Jefferson Davis try and free the slaves if the Articles of Confederation mostly listed slavery as their reason for secession?

I'm not trying to defend the South, seccession, or slavery, and I am, in fact, certain that if Freepers are discussing this it's probably not so much in the pursuit of scientific excellence as in the defense of racism. What I AM saying is that the issue of slavery and the Civil War is not black/white, either/or, cut and dried. I also suspect that the people in the North are somehow trying to assugae their conciences -- though not a minority, I've found OVERT racism to be much stronger in the north than in the south (Malcolm X would agree).

[Must_B_Free]

38. You contradict yourself

Your initial premise is that "Many people here at DU have a rather simplistic view of history" you go on to "It's not black or white, slavery or not. "Either/or" is Repuke thinking in its basest form"

The you make this sweeping generalization of all wars in history:
"Wars are fought over property."

So, I see your premise as a criticism of unnuanced thinking followed by an explanation based on your own unnuanced statement.

[Nevernose]

39. There was more than one sentence.

For instance, the very next sentence was "Though slavery (and therefore property) was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back, it was not the only reason." Would you have preferred I used a semicolon to separate the two thoughts rather than an element of punctuation? There was more than one argument at work in my original post.

And is there some answer for the many other sentences and several other questions that I wrote? Also, I have yet to see your own Civil War paradigm presented, or is the only accurate viewpoint your own, assumedly "nuanced" version?

Are you even aware of what "nuance" means?" It refers to different shadings of the same color, complicated views of what may or may not appear to be a simplistic issue.

I happen to believe that the Civil War, as most other historical events, is not so cut and dried. If it was, or if the North was some sort of all good superhero, then answer my original questions,as well as why did Lincoln not free ALL for the slaves in his proclamation and only some of them?

And, finally, I ask you honestly: did you not read all of my first post, wherein I essentially called the pro-confederate contingents "assholes" and mentioned that I thought enough of Lincoln to visit his library/museum? In fact, I remember typing the phrase "I'm not trying to defend the South, seccession, or slavery, and I am, in fact, certain that if Freepers are discussing this it's probably not so much in the pursuit of scientific excellence as in the defense of racism." All I was and am trying to say is that the issue of the Civil War is ot as simple as slavery vs. freedom, as many here at DU would say.

Should i have used the word "usually" in between "fought" and "over?" Probably.

[Must_B_Free]

42. "I have yet to see your own Civil War paradigm presented"

check post 40, there you'll find that the abolitionist movement was brewing for 30 years prior to the civil war, Longer actuially when you consider the northern states dropped slavery from the 1780s to about 1830.

"the Civil War is not as simple as slavery vs. freedom"
My position is that it really is that simple; it was a culmination of what was being cast from the pulpit for the 30 years prior to the war- good vs. evil.

Are you even aware of what "nuance" means?" Yes and that question was disingenuous; in my view you have failed to defend the contradiciton I pointed out where you criticize the unnuanced and then go on to exemplify it.

I'll agree that the South held on to it for economic reasons - free labor for the biggest owners and access to the benefits thereof by the smaller farmers. But, I submit that the economic aspects were derivative of the social impact of the reform movement and its espousal of abolitionism.

As for arguments about the soldiers and how were they made to fight - that's academic; how are our soldiers made to fight today? Simple brainwashing. It was further ingrained in the social structures of the culture back then, so it was even easier at that time.

[Nevernose]

45. I will try and respond Paragraph by paragraph:

Upon cheching post forty, you are correct. However, as my last post was numer 39, it is not fiar to expect me to know what you have written in post 40, nor to asnswer to it.

I will say that the aboltion movement, when considered as a world whole and not just an American problem, was addressed even earlier than the 1780s. For instance, Howard Zinn would have it that the racial motivation for slavery was not present until slave owners decided to make it that way, in order to prevent white slaves from enjoining with black slaves in a revolt. Sweden as taken from an example in your later post as having forbiddden slavery until 1335 is not enitrelty fair, since the first Afrrican slave in quasi-modern times was not taken unitl the 1400s, and not the 1300s when slavery was first ruled against (which peobaby had more to do with Scandanavia's desire to be a part of continental politics than any real concern for the status of slaves.

Your position that "it is that simple" as a being as a result of having been preached against is not what is generally considdered "proof." I have never claimed that an abolitionist movemnet (although it was small in relation to the rest of the party) existed, only that it was not the sole cause for a war, and, thus, not "Black and White" as people would generally believe.

If the question YOU asked was disingenuous, than how can you possibly and with credibility fault someone on an Internet board for it?

You still haven't anserewed any of the original questions I presented, including the ones not related to war. Although the ones directectly to the Civil War weren't answered either, except by an answer that would make Plato weep.

[Must_B_Free]

47. Response

Upon checking post forty, you are correct. However, as my last post was numer 39, it is not fair to expect me to know what you have written in post 40, nor to answer to it.
Misunderstanding; I simply did not want to repost everything I had just posted in reply to nadine, so I referenced you to it.

Re: Sweden; relatively irrelevant; it happened to be in the list I posted. My point was to demonstrate that abolition was an international movement, futher supported where it mentions Uncle Tom-Mania and the musicals in Boston, NY, and London.

Your position that "it is that simple" as a being as a result of having been preached against is not what is generally considdered "proof." I have never claimed that an abolitionist movement (although it was small in relation to the rest of the party) existed, only that it was not the sole cause for a war, and, thus, not "Black and White" as people would generally believe.

Without the abolitionist movement there was no threat to the labor force of the south. In the synopsis of the origins of the war in the upper conversation with Nadine, you'll see that slavery is the root issue in all of the paragraphs.

If the question YOU asked was disingenuous, than how can you possibly and with credibility fault someone on an Internet board for it? Sorry, you lost me on this one - did I ask a question?

You still haven't answered any of the original questions I presented, including the ones not related to war. Although the ones directectly to the Civil War weren't answered either, except by an answer that would make Plato weep. I have debunked a couple, in regards to getting soldiers to fight (i.e. what was the alternative; death?) and the suspect evidence on the statement regarding cinque.

Its getting late; 3:35 AM my time, but perhaps tomorrow evening I can give another effort to researching the questions you posed.

[Nevernose]

49. Further Response:

Upon checking post forty, you are correct. However, as my last post was number 39, it is not fair to expect me to know what you have written in post 40, nor to answer to it.
Misunderstanding; I simply did not want to repost everything I had just posted in reply to nadine, so I referenced you to it.

Re: Sweden; relatively irrelevant; it happened to be in the list I posted. My point was to demonstrate that abolition was an international movement, further supported where it mentions Uncle Tom-Mania and the musicals in Boston, NY, and London.

Not argued. In fact, slavery was outlawed and abolition of slavery was an issue in countries well before it occurred to many people in the United States. This still does not counter the fact that many historians, both liberal and conservative, claim that the sole cause of slavery was not racism and that the sole cause of the Civil War was not slavery. If slavery was an issue of the North during the Civil War, then why was it not the proclaimed reason? Simple, because the only official reason given for the Civil War was the preservation of the Union. Lincoln himself felt a different way (that slavery was morally reprehensible), as do I and I am sure you so as well. This does not change the fact that abolition was only one plank in the Republican party platform and was generally unpopular. To repeat a question: why, if slavery was so unpopular in the North, were most slaves imported through the Northern city of Boston? Once again my answer comes to economics, though not as as you would apparently have it in the politics of N vs.S; I would suggest that it had just as much, at least in the North, with economic control as it did with slavery. The people profiting in the North from textiles didn't care who picked the cotton.

You are correct in that you did not ask a question regarding disingenuous. However, you have failed to consider the fact that there were multiple premises in my original post, and that virtually every statement you take to exemplify this (primarily number 38,as well as 42 and 47) is taken out of context.

I have debunked a couple, in regards to getting soldiers to fight (i.e. what was the alternative; death?) and the suspect evidence on the statement regarding cinque.

No, the alternative was not death, at least not for FREE or FREED men. While many of the black soldiers were indeed former slaves, it goes against all evidence to claim that they were forced into serving. The Louisianna militia, for instance, was made up entirely of previously-free men of African descent, as well as several other black Southern soldiers who served with distinction. Not slaves, but free men. And, while I'm asking questions, how come so many men of African descent owned slaves in the South?

Most of what I know of Joseph Cinque, to be honest, is two recent books on the subjct: one claiming he was a hero (and conveniently stopping after his trial) and one claiming he was a hero who ended up a slave trader. I'm willing to redact my previous question, however, for the sake of argument.

Also, I'd like to once again I'd like to point out that I'm not defending Southern slavery or the Civil War, merely pointing out that while a point of major impetus, slavery was not the sole cause of the Civil War, and thus more "nuanced" than most people think.

(I also belive that reasonable people can differ in opinion :))

[Must_B_Free]

44. "Why did the hero of the movie "Amistad" spend the rest of his life"

Why did the hero of the movie "Amistad" spend the rest of his life collecting money from abolitionists and use the money to import slaves to Cuba?

Cinqué, once returned to Africa, is often said to have set himself up as a slave trader. No surviving documentation supports this claim and opinion among reputable historians seems to range from 'not proven' to 'presumed innocent'. What little evidence we have are oral accounts from Africa and a claim by William A. Owens to have seen letters, written by AMA missionaries, suggesting that Cinqué was a slave trade

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amistad

[really annoyed]

50. Sigh...

Na, never mind...

I'll focus on the present while we waste time arguing about the past and who is the "good" guy.

I'm sick of the North/South argument. We have pressing issues in present-day America to worry about.

Even though I'm a huge history buff, there is no doubt in my mind that some of your statements are off and have more explanation to them. But I'm not getting into that argument here....

But I don't think the understanding of history at DU is "simple" at all. I think the majority of the people at DU are smart and understand the past better than a conservative could.

Even though conservatives would disagree, the people of the left DO believe in black and white morality... Well, some of us anyway.

:rant:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

55. Sorry, you are wrong about the black confederates...what are your sources?

This is an oft heard defense of the Confederacy. Find a source that is not a southern pro-confederacy source or USAToday. Black americans served as...slaves, not soldiers. How do we know? Because the issue over whether blacks should be accepted as soldiers was still being fought by the leaders of the confederacy weeks before the end of the war.


Specifically, Maj. Gen. Patrick Cleburne suggested that african americans be allowed to fight in exchange for their freedom. Not only was he shot down by Davis, but he was told never to even bring up the subject again. This was 1864. The order for african american soldiers ended up being passed in March 1865 after heavy southern losses. Even so, by this point they didn't even raise that many black troops.

[theHandpuppet]

57. Confederate revisionsists, no doubt

I think you might find this site interesting. There are several articles there debunking the myth of the black Confederate army.

http://www.coax.net/people/lwf/data.htm

[SemiCharmedQuark]

60. Something is up when 99% of the sources promoting "black confederates"

are also promoting the confederate cause. Hell, if you type it into google, you can see that no DU articles come up but you get several FR threads.

[Brewman_Jax]

61. Same with the black slave owners thread

I found an article, that is quite referenced by the revisionists/racists sites. The "disproportionate" number of black owners is referenced to a local area, not region or country wide.

I also found that blacks could NOT own white slaves. By legal definition, whites couldn't be slaves; they were indentured servants who would gain their freedom when the time of service expired.

[Yupster]

75. The best book I ever read on

the subject of African-Americans during the Civil War was this one I linked from Amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0813915457/qid=1122663636/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-3113659-9314544?v=glance&s=books

It is very scholarly in style (boring to read), but is just chock full of statistics and factual information.

It details the lives of A-A's in only Virginia which was the state with the most slaves and the second most freed A-A's. Maryland had the most free A-A's.

It is a very complicated story. You will not find that A-A's in Virginia did this or did that.

Some were loyal Virginians and therefore loyal Confederates. Some ran away to the federal lines as soon as they could, and most kept their heads down and hoped the war would pass them by uninvolved.

It's a very good read (well no it's not but it has lots of good info in it) and will make anyone much more informed than the typical is to/ is not discussion that we usually have on this subject.

[Uncle Joe]

72. P.B.S. telecast a special a few months ago

on the life of Martin Luther King, he had one of his roughest times in Chicago and said point blank that it was the worst place as far as racism was concerned, later in the same show he ranked it together with Mississippi. I believe that no region has a monopoly on racism.

[Uncle Joe]

73. Another good question you might ask is why

did Robert E. Lee who freed the slaves that he inherited years before the war turn down the command of the entire Union Army and fight for the Confederacy? He apparently did not believe in slavery.

[fishwax]

106. Robert E. Lee thought abolition activity was evil

There's an oft-quoted letter of lee's in which he states "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil."

What is rarely noted is that he goes on to say that slaves are better off here than in Africa, that slavery is worse for whites than it is for blacks, and that "The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race." So his condemnation of slavery isn't complete.

And while he may not have liked slavery, he adamantly opposed Abolition, and referred (in the same letter which so often yields the quote above) to their work as an "evil course."

To say he apparently did not believe in slavery is a bit of a simplification.

[fishwax]

107. Also, Lee released freed those slaves b/c he HAD to

It was part of the will that the slaves be freed "in such a manner as to my executors may seem most expedient and proper", with a maximum time of five years. So the fact that he freed those slaves he inherited hardly means that he didn't believe in slavery.

He took the full five years, by the way ...

[fishwax]

110. More from robert e lee ...

"Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, as the best that can exist between the white and black races while intermingled as at present in this country, I would deprecate any sudden disturbance of that relation unless it be necessary to avert a greater calamity to both."

Sounds like he believed in slavery under the "right" conditions, and in fact found it superior to emancipation.

[Yupster]

117. Lee was certainly an interesting character in US history

Very complex.

My read on him is that his main goal in life was order. He was in many ways the ultimate conservative.

Just to be a psychologist for a minute, I think it goes back to his background. His father was a close confidant of George Washington's and was Governor of Virginia. But, he was a very dysfunctional man, eventually running out on the family and ending up in the Caribbean

This left the Lee family with the name and trappings of American-royalty, yet without the money or power of it. I think this could lead to a kind of "more Catholic than the pope attitude," where the family would have so much more pressure to act "proper" to protect their family name and honor which was being sullied by their father.

The same thing when Lee married. He married into George Washington's family. That made him even more "royal," but he didn't serve as lord of his manor or Governor. He was in the military, so he moved from place to place, sometimes designing the port defenses of New Jersey and sometimes living in dusty border towns of Texas. Certainly places where his demeaner would stand out starkly.

The fact that his wife was in poor and degenerating health for most of their marriage was to be just another test of Lee's character as he was apparantly flirtatious with the ladies, but never went beyond that.

I think that's where you find Lee. As the ultimate preserver of the current order. I don't think you'd see any bold initiatives by Lee against the current order in any field. Where his dad rejected the norms of elite society, the son embraced them as part of himself to prove he wasn't like his dad.

If Virginia stayed in the union, he would have stayed too. When Virginia left, there was no doubt he would leave too. As far as social order was concerned, he would support the current system which I believed he so hard wanted to prove he belonged to.

So here's the interesting part.

As a general, Lee was hardly the lordly conservative. Instead what made him dangerous was his aggression and unpredictability. At Second Manassas, he sent half his army behind the larger federal army, and allowed it to fight on its own a force much larger until the rest of the army would hopefully catch up.

At Chancellorsville, he divided his much smaller army in thirds
and attacked a much, much larger army in a better location and won through complete shock and surprise.

There isn't any other part of Lee's life that would make you think he would be such a bold commander, but it's an interesting part of Lee.

The Confederate Army and government was just full of grievences, rivalries and back-biting. Lee's demeanor and lineage kept him above that. He amazingly got along with the President above him and the generals below him which was almost unique in the CSA.

Anyway, back to point, I don't think Lee would recommend abolition, or anything else that would upset the social order. He was the ultimate conservative.

You could get a guy like Lincoln talking about sending the slaves back to Africa. I think Lee would see that more as an upset to the order of society. He would be more prone to go along with the prevailing order.

But then there's Chancellorsville? So you never know I guess.

[northzax]

77. true, there were confeerates

fighting for something besides slavery, fighting 'for the south' and there were nazis who were fighting for Germany. But they still, by their actions, supported the institutions.

few southerners owned slaves, fewer germans actually killed a Jew. does my wearing a swastika, to represent my proud german heritage offend you? actually, I'm going to fly a swastika from my flagpole, right below Old Glory. After all, my ancestors weren't the BAD Nazis, they were just fighting to defend their homeland from foreign invasion. that cool with you?

You cannot separate the war from the conditions at the time. I am sure that there were honorable, decent men who fought for the confederacy. No doubt. But you cannot separate that from the fact that they were fighting for the wrong side they may have fought honorably, but they fought for the right to own another human being. That fucking sucks, don't you think? It is honorable to do your job, say you're a security guard, you guard the door against unauthorised entry. Good. But beyond that door, someone is raping your sister. And you know it, but your job is to stop people from coming in. Do your job honorably, or do the right thing? sometimes decisions suck. get used to it.

[Yupster]

88. When General Beauregard fired

at Fort Sumpter, there were seven slave states in the Confederacy and eight slave states in the Union.

And President lincoln had guaranteed the southerners that he had no intention of taking a single one of their slaves away from them.

So I don't think anyone could fairly say the war started because of slavery. That it later became a fight over slavery is evident.

For the average southerner though, that switch was not something that could be readily thought about.

By the time of the Emancipation Proclamation, there was a draft in the Confederacy, and the country had been invaded and was trying to repel very large armies from at least four diferent directions. It was hardly the time for analysis of changing war goals.

In fact, even southerners who were anti slavery and even anti-secession largely bound themselves together for their country's sake.

One interesting character was General Jubal Early of Virginia. He was a lawyer before the war and was elected as a delegate to the Virginia secession convention. He was a forceful speaker against secession. However, once the vote was taken and Lincoln started raising an army to invade, then he fought as a division commander and later corps commander in Lee's army as hard and as long as any secessionist. The fact for most southerners was that once the north invaded, their state and/or nation had to be defended.

[misanthrope]

101. Ahem...

..."So I don't think anyone could fairly say the war started because of slavery."

[fishwax]

108. Oh please

"And President lincoln had guaranteed the southerners that he had no intention of taking a single one of their slaves away from them."

Yes, the southern leaders must have trusted Lincoln and taken him at his word. That's why so many mention the threats on the institution in their articles of secession. :eyes:

[Yupster]

116. Well ending slavery legally would require

a Constitutional Amendment which would need the support of 3/4ths of the state legislatures.

So if it was just about preserving slavery, they could have just stayed in the union and vote down any proposed amendment.

It was more than that.

Because of population, the House of Representatives had a northern majority from the beginning.

The Senate had been kept in balance through allowing states in two at a time one slave/one free. This ended in 1848 though when California came in without a corresponding slave state. So from tat point on the north had a majority in the senate which got bigger as more states were added.

However, both parties were very careful how they treated the presidency. In the 30 years of elections running up to the Civil War both the Whig and Democratic Parties were careful to always have a northerner and a southerner on their ticket. The cabinets were also closely divied up.

The Republicans changed that balance. Lincoln disposed of all the careful tradition and ran as a completely regional candidate with a vice-presidential candidate who was an abolitionist from Maine.

To the south this was the end of a long slide from power as they lost the House, then the Senate, then the presidency. And in a divided nation, if the Republican Party ran as a northern regional party, they'd win as the north had the electoral votes.

That left the south with just the power to say no to changing the Constitution as its only power left, and since that didn't happen much that wasn't much.

They decided they'd be better off governing themselves.

So, when a southerner said the south was leaving to protect their rights, they might probably list the right to slavery first, but it was much more than that. It was a realization that they were in a divided country, and the other side had the numbers and now had the will to use those numbers.

In that situation, since they believed they had the right to legally leave, why shouldn't they?

[fishwax]

119. What was there more than slavery?

Even the language of your post reveals how thoroughly slavery was embedded in the state's rights issue ("The Senate had been kept in balance through allowing states in two at a time one slave/one free"). Without slavery there was no dispute over state's rights. Without slavery, there was little dispute at all.

You say: "they might probably list the right to slavery first, but it was much more than that. It was a realization that they were in a divided country" ... but what was the country divided over? Slavery. So I don't see anything "more" there ...

The articles of secession and the rhetoric of the leaders of the time speak of threats and injustices against their peace, prosperity, and protection, and in every instance I can find they are referring to slavery as the lynchpin of that peace, prosperity, and protection.

[Yupster]

124. Enjoyed the talk, but

wife and kids are bugging for lunch.

There are always day to day issues of governance.

One big deal was the government had no income tax, so it raised its money through taxing imports. That was a tax the southerners wanted low, both because they would import machinery fromEurope and also because the other countries would retaliate by taxing their cotton exports higher. The northerners wanted the taxes hisgh so the southerners would be more likely to buy from their northern factories instead of Europe.

And then when the government turned around and spent the money, it would be on high profile public works which were often canal systems or railroads which were almost always in the north.

Just the dispute over where to put the trans-continental railroad was a big deal for years. When Jefferson Davis was Secretary of war, it looked like the railroad would take a southern route for "security" reasons. Once the southerners were out of the cabinet, the route went to the north.

There's no doubt when the southerners said they had a right and a will to govern themselves they probably all thought of Lincoln and the Republicans trying to find a way to mess with their slaves, but their main point was that they had a right to govern themselves, not be governed by a "foreign" region which they saw as hostile to them.

[coda]

35. With a cursory glance of 4 pages, I didn't see whiskey papa there

That guy would never let a lie go unchallenged.

They used to have some good discussions about the CW.

[bluestateguy]

41. I say we should have let the south be their own nation

Because the rest of this country would have had a far more progressive history without the south. Think of all the progressive legislation that would have passed were it not for the obstructionism of southern politicians.

Oh, and with the south as its own nation, the United States would no longer be bound by the provisions of the Fugitive Slave Law, which did not apply to foreign countries.

[WeirdHoward]

51. Lincoln F'ed up

You are so right! Lincoln would have done better to let the South go it's own way.

I have thought about this a lot. My worry is, what would have happened during World War I or II? I think the South might have sided with the Axis, so we would have had a bloody war on our doorsteps.
So, perhaps, with the Civil War, we prevented an even worse conflict.

I have ancestors who fought on both sides of the Civil War (and both sides of the American Revolution). War sucks. As many have pointed out, the reasons are not "black and white." States Rights doesn't answer everything.... nor does abolution... for the troops on the ground, it was just about surviving.

[Yupster]

89. Just speculating of course, but

I wouldn't think the CSA and USA would fight on different sides of a foreign war any more than the USA and Canada would.

In fact I think there's a good chance the counties would have reunited in less than 50 years, but who knows.

I've read Turtledove's Civil War series, but find it his weakest work in my opinion. I like the lizards much better.

[Spock_is_Skeptical]

48. ick, ick, ick. Defending slavery at FR, whatta shocker.

ugh.

[rasputin1952]

52. LOL...so we refight the CW here...sheesh. The CW is a fascinating

time in out history. The underlying causes of the CW were many, with the issue of slavery being in the first five reasons, but not, depending on the source, #1 or #2.

The prime motivation for the CW was "States Rights", (which included slavery for some), but was more economic in nature than anything else.

The secondary motivation for the CW was the preservation of power for an English based form of aristocracy. Plantation owners held the power in the South those days, but I find it difficult to see how the average Southern citizen would have fought for those that were bound to oppress him/her. This is where the self-proscribed 'state patriots' found themselves dying and being maimed for something that inevitably not benefit them...in essence, the majority of Southerners refused to march forward, but remained in a continuing state of deterioration because the agricultural base was declining through poor farming practices.

It is important to understand that the Reconstruction period, became overly harsh because of the Lincoln assassination as well. It took 75 years for the South to recover in population and and economic stature after the war. It may have been difficult to raise the population quicker, but Lincoln viewed the Reconstruction of the South in far different ways than those that occurred. "With malice toward none, and charity for all" was discarded in a split second with a shot from Booth' derringer.

[More Than A Feeling]

54. Here's a right winger who knows what is right...

http://beliefnet.com/story/171/story_17164_1.html

Rabbi Schmuley Boteach is very conservative, and even he understands that to worship the confederacy and its leaders is wrong.

[theHandpuppet]

56. Ah yes, Lincoln-hating -- the hobby of American terrorists everywhere

See:

http://www.fair.org/sp-shirt.html

and

http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=752

[geek tragedy]

59. Racism is the foundation of the Republican party.

Party of Lincoln my ass.

[DS1]

65. Great, let them all kill each other

We'll mop up the survivors.

[CatWoman]

67. Why not see what the slaves had to say about it?

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~HYPER/wpa/wpahome.html

[brooklynite]

74. Talk about fancy footwork with statistics!

It should also be pointed out that, in our history as an independent nation, slavery existed for 89 years under the U.S. flag (1776-1865) and for only four years under the Confederate flag (1861-1865).
- - -
Sort of like saying it took us a century to develop into a representative democracy, and Nazi Germany only took ten years...

[northzax]

78. I prefer percentages in this case

Slavery under Old Glory: 89 years out of 231, or a shameful 39% of the current lifespan of the US.

Slavery under the Confederacy 4 years out of 4. or 100% of the time.

idiots. (not you, them)

[Uncle Joe]

134. This math only works because the Confederacy

only lasted four years. At the end of the War Between The States, 1865 it was 100% for both. Had the Confederacy survived, I believe they would have eventually evolved out of it, just like most of the rest of the world has, although sad to say it still exists today on a more underground level through out the planet.

[XemaSab]

76. Un-fuckin'-real!

Everyone should read this!

This is beyond appalling!

[winston61]

82. those dumb ass red necks

can keep fighting that war over and over and the result is still the same, they fucking lost. The civil war was in my opinion that most disgraceful, ugly period in American history and led to another national disgrace called Jim Crow. I live in the south and I make it a point to either spit or urinate on every civil war memorial on every courthouse square I can find. How can you be proud to believe in the 'Noble Cause' that was built on the backs of and watered by the blood of slaves? Fuck the slavery apologists and fuck the freepers.

[Yupster]

93. The Confederate Army regiments were formed

by county. The Confederacy put about 750,000 men in uniform which was about 75 % of all the adult able-bodied white men in the south. Nothing like that level of commitment was ever called for or achieved in the US before or since (exception Indian tribes?)

Anyway, when a regiment was formed and marched off to war, it was pretty much every man in the county who went with them. They were allowed to elect their leader which was usually the mayor or preacher.

When a charge went wrong, it was a horror unlike other wars we've seen.

The Twenty Sixth North Carolina Regiment was formed in the Crabtree Valley (Wake County) of North Carolina. On July 3, 1863 it was part of Pettigrew's division which participated in Pickett's charge. The regiment lost 72 % of its members that day.

It was probably a week later that the news got back to the Valley that 3/4ths of all the men from the valley were killed or wounded in one day.

I don't know if there's a monument to the dead of the valley near a courthouse in the county or not, but I sure wouldn't think it weird that the families at the end of the war would want to make a memorial to remember the horrible losses suffered by the county.

Urinating on such a monument would seem much weirder to me.

And the 26th North Carolina was far from unusual. There were many, many regiments that lost half their members in one day, and many many towns which erected memorials to them.

[RummyTheDummy]

87. My favorites: Lincoln had it coming

This is the one TRUE face of the Rethug party. Racist. Racist. Racist. But yeah, it's a big tent. This is what they don't want people to see...their seedy underbelly.



To: justshutupandtakeit

What a load of CR*P.
You need to take a history course and learn about the South from a neutral source. Slavery wouldn't have lasted, even if the South had won. It just wasn't economically feasible.

As for Lincoln, well, he got what he had coming.

=====================================================================

To: cyborg

"How many blacks owned white people?"

Probably not too many in those days, but starting with FDR and coming to fruition during the LBJ regime, they have come to own us all.

====================================================================

To: TexConfederate1861
Regardless what the pro-slavery people wanted, slavery wouldn't have lasted.

Tell it to the whip.

[jzodda]

90. My favorite Quote

"For one thing, the vast majority of slave owners were not cruel"


Yeah ok Sure.... go smoke another one pal...

[nadinbrzezinski]

94. Ah yes the symbol of opennes and love for their fellow

human being :sarcasm:

[Yupster]

105. I'm not sure if this is a quote from someone else or not, but

why would someone think the Confederacy would not be economically viable?

It seems to me that they would have started off in much better shape than many other countries which were successful.

While onfederate armies often went hungry and barely shod, and the transportation system eventually ground to a halt, the creation of an ordnance industry was a major success, and out of nothing, a system was created to keep the Confederate armies armed and resupplied with ammunition throughout the war.

It seemed like they showed a pretty good ability to create industry when they needed it.

[Selatius]

91. Slavery still exists. It REALLY EXISTS.

Nowadays, the only way greed-soaked morons can get back to the old days is to try to find the cheapest labor on the planet possible in the 3rd world. It's not exactly true slavery by classic definition, but paying workers 50 cents an hour certainly beats the hell out of paying them, say, $15.00 in the US. You get to keep a greater amount of the money for your private accounts.

What about American workers? The answer? Fuck 'em. I'll end up retiring in my pretty estate with my stack of bills and state-of-the-art security. I got my piece of the cake. I don't care what happens to everyone else. :sarcasm:

If a single widget off the assembly line using American labor costs $2.00, I could turn around and charge $2.25 on the US market. (Let's assume that's a comparable price to other competitors who are doing the same thing) I get 25 cents for each widget sold. If I used Chinese labor or African labor and had to pay 70 cents per widget instead and paid an extra 25 cents per widget to ship it back to the US, then the widget costs 95 cents. Then I sell it on the US market for, get this, not $2.25. No, I'll sell it for $2.00 instead.

Congratulations! I brought you lower prices, and I get to keep a greater share of the money for myself! Everybody wins! (Just ignore the unemployed US workers; they'll go away because they're lazy and deserve it) :sarcasm:

[Yupster]

95. There have been many articles recently about

real slavery still existing in eastern Africa.

On edit, England just had a case where a slave was officially freed since it was on English soil. This just in the last year.

[nadinbrzezinski]

96. not to mentiion one surprsiing one

on 48 hours, about white slavery in the US... care to listen to some stories? The border is full of it

[rfrrfrrfr]

97. I hate posts like these

The civil war came about due to a very complex set of social, economic, and political events. Trying to isolate any one factor and say this here is the root cause of the war is wrong.

For some of the people on both sides the reasons were slavery, for some states right, for some economics, For other a combination of them. The point being saying the civil war was about States rights, or that it was about slavery or that it was about the econmic clash between the North and the South oversimplifies the war and does not do it justice.

We can say that slavery, states rights, politics and economics were all important issues that led us to war.

[Ikonoklast]

98. I always like to use this one on them....

What terrorist was responsible for more American deaths than any other?









Jefferson Davis.

[Sparkman]

126. War is a slave-intensive enterprise.Soldiers follow orders into graves.

[leftofthedial]

121. hell, those subhumans are still fighting the ENGLISH Civil War

Cromwell Lives

[fishwax]

122. haha

that's funny :) (and true :()

[misanthrope]

128. Here in the most southern...

..part of the Heart of Dixie, that war is still being fought everyday. It's common to see letters like this in the paper every week. It's still amazing to me that we have officially declared "Confederate Memorial Month" in several states when the actual denizens can tell you that every month is Confederate Memorial Month down here.

When you're raised in the midst of this, you become familiar with all the arguments and the underlying sentiments. You know about the "knowing glances," the lies and obfuscations, the code words and phrases. I can easily say that, in my opinion, the comparison someone made earlier to Germans flying Nazi flags under the guise of "heritage" is an apt parallel.

We've also become acquainted with the apologists who attempt to spin such a reprehensible culture into something more palatable. While slavery might not have lasted another 150 years, its abolition would have been fought tooth and nail (as it apparently was between 1861-65) by a region that has the most intense resistance to any change whatsoever. Such arguments remind me of the folks who maintain that de jure segregation would have wafted away of its own accord, when many of us are at least honest enough to admit that without federal intervention, Jim Crow would still rule the South. And I'll bet my life on that one.

[mixedview]

131. the Civil War - more about political/economic/cutural power than slavery

The Northern industrialists opposed slavery, not only for humanitarian reasons, but to weaken the South economically and politically. Up to that point, the South - via the culturally hard right/pro-slavery Democratic Party - had built up tremendous political power, and had very little opposition. The Republican Party was formed to be a real opposition.

In many ways it was a culture war - two very different ways of life.

This is not to in any way excuse the South: they were as backward relative to the rest of the country as they are today (things are changing, and there many good Southerners, but their politics are still largely driven by hard right forces). Yes the North was also racist, but at least they aspired to be something more, and didn't try to pretend slaving fellow humans was simply a 'way of life'.

And despite of all of this political/economic subtext, Lincoln will always be remembered as one of freedom's most important fighters.

While Jefferson and the founding fathers believed in liberty and set the groundwork - it was tested under Lincoln and it was largely his intelligence, courage and leadership which brought about the end to slavery and preserved the union.