Deanimator
Regular Member
White "slavery" WASN'T.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Black college student hangs Confederate Flag in his dorm room
- Thread starter MilProGuy
- Start date
KBCraig
Regular Member
What was the proportion of southern slavery to northern slavery?
How many slaves were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation? Hint: zero.
Slavery was evil. We all know that, yet you continue to harp as if anyone here is defending the practice. Assume for the sake of argument that you're 100% correct: slavery was the only issue that drove the war. Which side initiated the hostilities? It was the north, invading an unmanned island in Charleston Harbor, and continuing to invade until the first Confederate counter-attack into the north some 18 months later.
Q-Tip
Regular Member
White slavery wasn't what? Do you have a source that proves otherwise?
What is your definition of slavery? Mine is being buying and selling human beings for the purpose of working or serving the buyer in some manner. That is what happened to whites, blacks, native Americans, Asians, the Irish, and others before the Civil War. Yes, some whites were "indentured servants", and freed after however many years, but often were treated badly during those years like slaves of any other color.
Deanimator
Regular Member
Not only do "we" all NOT know that, I've had people defend it to me on the basis of religion.
Don't tell me things I know NOT to be true.
Deanimator
Regular Member
KBCraig
Regular Member
Then please go argue with those people.
ManInBlack
Regular Member
I don't understand why this matters...people have held slaves all over the world, all through time. It is simply one facet of the human experience. Yes, the vast majority of the slaves in the United States came from Africa, for a variety of reasons, not the least of which was the fact that African coastal tribes had no problem trading their interior brethren to Europeans for beads, trinkets, baubles, alcohol, and guns.
Yes, slavery happened. GET OVER IT. It was not the primary reason for the war, as any intelligent scholar will tell you. It would have died out eventually (Brazil outlawed slavery in the 1890s, peacefully).
Whether you want to admit it or not, the War Between the States was a war of independence, no different than the American revolution or the various independence movements that swept Latin America in the 1820s and 1830s. I understand why you will not and can not believe this, due to ethnic/historical antagonisms, but I encourage you to rise above the herd and do some independent thinking for a change.
Tawnos
Regular Member
No true Scotsman fallacy - you include the modifier "intelligent" such that any scholar who says "slavery was most certainly the primary reason for the war" will be inherently derided as not being intelligent. Even if they are a leader in their field, you say "well, any intelligent scholar should see this, so clearly they are not intelligent" which is fallacious reasoning. I've seen quite a bit of evidence to demonstrate that the CSA's primary motivation was slavery and the economics associated with it.
Their own constitution supports that belief, and puts to rest the lie that it was about abuse of overarching federal power. For example, one of the common complaints of the federal system of government is that the federal government may suspend the right to habeus corpus, and that Lincoln did so, a terrible overreach of federal power.... Yet the CSA left that same clause in their constitution. Additionally, they gave their federal president line-item veto power, oh, and significantly limited state's rights in determining who may vote, to trade freely, and most importantly... The CSA made it illegal at the federal level for any state to decide that it no longer wanted slavery.
You're going to have to do a lot better than simply make assertions that slavery wasn't the primary issue at stake, when the whole of the separatist government was formed around the maintenance of that institution.
Have you ever considered that it could be YOU who have bought into the lie that the civil war wasn't about slavery?
Last edited:
georg jetson
Regular Member
If I may interject... and assuming that the Constitution of the CSA at this link is correct;
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_csa.asp
Notice Article 1 Sec. 9. (1). They DID agree to prevent further importation of slaves.
Look at Article 1 Sec. 9. (2). It it allows congress to prevent "acquiring" new slaves through the acquisition of territory or addition of new states.
The other constitutional provisions seemed to be concerned with protecting property rights. It's my opinion after reading this that the CSA's constitution, though still plagued by the reprehensible wrong of legalized slavery, appears to be MORE concerned with federal interference than the insistence of unchecked slavery. Just my opinion of course
...Here are the applicable sections relating to slavery...
ARTICLE I
Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding 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.
(2) Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
ARTICLE IV
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.
Sec. 3. (3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States.
Last edited:
Tawnos
Regular Member
Can't believe I'm bothering to reply to you...
Most important, though, is number 4, which made slavery imbued in the highest law of the land: "(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed. ". Slavery was institutionalized to the fullest degree.
You claim that it's about protecting property rights, but the only property being protected was that of an owned human being. No other property is given greater protection in the CSA's constitution. The claim that they're concerned with federal interference is not only unsupported by facts, but is found to be false by just reading the facts:
Also from Art 1 Sec 9: "(6) No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State, except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses." Suddenly, the federal government can interfere with trade between the states.
From Art 1 Sec 2: "(1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States; and the electors in each State shall be citizens of the Confederate States, and have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature; but no person of foreign birth, not a citizen of the Confederate States, shall be allowed to vote for any officer, civil or political, State or Federal." States are no longer allowed to determine who may vote in their own elections.
From Art 1 Sec 4: "(1) The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof, subject to the provisions of this Constitution; but the Congress may, at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the times and places of choosing Senators." States may no longer set their own election policies.
Where is the supposed reduction in federal interference? Seriously, cite somewhere that the federal power became less in a meaningful way!
Further importation from outside of the country. It did not address those already existing, nor those who would be born into slavery. Number 2 is a clever dodge, allowing the CSA to selectively allow importation of slaves from the USA.
Most important, though, is number 4, which made slavery imbued in the highest law of the land: "(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed. ". Slavery was institutionalized to the fullest degree.
An opinion not borne out by the facts. It's more than merely legalized slavery; as I quoted above, no law ever limiting slavery could be passed. It was a constitutional right under the CSA to own slaves. All of the parts you posted show just how firmly the right to own slaves was imbued in the CSA.The other constitutional provisions seemed to be concerned with protecting property rights. It's my opinion after reading this that the CSA's constitution, though still plagued by the reprehensible wrong of legalized slavery, appears to be MORE concerned with federal interference than the insistence of unchecked slavery. Just my opinion of course
You claim that it's about protecting property rights, but the only property being protected was that of an owned human being. No other property is given greater protection in the CSA's constitution. The claim that they're concerned with federal interference is not only unsupported by facts, but is found to be false by just reading the facts:
Also from Art 1 Sec 9: "(6) No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State, except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses." Suddenly, the federal government can interfere with trade between the states.
From Art 1 Sec 2: "(1) The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States; and the electors in each State shall be citizens of the Confederate States, and have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature; but no person of foreign birth, not a citizen of the Confederate States, shall be allowed to vote for any officer, civil or political, State or Federal." States are no longer allowed to determine who may vote in their own elections.
From Art 1 Sec 4: "(1) The times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof, subject to the provisions of this Constitution; but the Congress may, at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the times and places of choosing Senators." States may no longer set their own election policies.
Where is the supposed reduction in federal interference? Seriously, cite somewhere that the federal power became less in a meaningful way!
georg jetson
Regular Member
BUT it DID address further importation... why make such a limitation if slavery was the main issue? There was at least a small acknowledgment that things had to move in a direction away from slavery... I admit it was a very small acknowledgment indeed.
This is also where a LIMITATION was placed on the central government.
Not so... Article 1 Sec. 9. (2) EXPRESSLY gives power to LIMIT slavery. Also Article IV Sec. 3. (3) does not require other newly added states to require legalized slavery, but requires that the CSA government MUST protect the property rights of those existing states to travel with their property to states which may not allow it. This allows new states to limit slavery as they see fit without violating residents of slave states right to travel with their property anywhere within the CSA.
It appears that the CSA modeled their constitution off of the one ratified by our founders. I agree that the property right of "an owned human being" was the center of much of the apparent differences between the two. However, because a slave was consider "property", then indeed it was all about property rights.
Though this may be seen as the opposite of federal interference, I don't see it as significant enough to argue the point that the general consensus of the CSA was not fed interference, but slavery alone.
As already mentioned... here's somewhere... (4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
I'll take some time to re-read the document and find others...
Last edited:
Deanimator
Regular Member
Deanimator
Regular Member
"Everybody does it!"
NAMBLA says the same thing about child molestation.
Slavery was virtually the SOLE reason for the war.
And if a child molester kidnaps your child, the solution is not to use violence to rescue him or her, but instead to patiently wait until the kid grows up and is no longer sexually attractive to the molester, right?
"Independence" to what END?
The preservation of SLAVERY.
It's not the dishonesty of neo-Confederates which astonishes me, but the childishly stupid dishonesty. It's like an endless "Family Guy" skit.
ManInBlack
Regular Member
Yes, because that's equivalent. [/sarcasm]
Nope, the sole reason for the war is that the North would not allow the South to peacefully secede after declaring its independence...the exact same reason we had to fight a war with Britain...
Again, apples and oranges. Besides, it is very clear that freeing the slaves was not one of the North's war aims.
Constitutional government as envisioned by the Founding Fathers, but it really doesn't matter. The principle of self-determination requires that people in a distinct area be allowed to decide their own form of government, period.
Again, no, but your hysterics are funny.
You can sling all the insults you want, even if they are incorrect. It just further identifies you as ignorant. Typical.
SFCRetired
Regular Member
What is most interesting to me in this entire exchange is the attempt by revisionist historians to pinpoint the entire reason for the War Between the States on slavery. The vast majority of the men who fought for the South did not own slaves but fought, instead, for the idea that the federal government did not have the right to intrude into the various states' business.
As an aside, look up the ownership of vessels known to be engaged in the slave trade. I believe you will find that the majority were Northern owned, captained, and crewed. Not to mention that many more slaves were traded in the Caribbean basin, Haiti for one place, than were brought into the United States.
Fine. The Northern, large government, total control freaks wore the South down. See where that has gotten us.
Slavery was a sick, if not dying, practice in the United States at that time. Within less than ten years, it would have been dead and it would have died peacefully, without the massive bloodshed occasioned by the North trying to illegally impose its will on the South.
Lincoln was a petty tyrant, but, had he not been assassinated, would have probably prevented a lot of the abuses which followed the war. William Tecumseh Sherman was a butcher who refused to control the excesses of his troops.
In fact, very few of the Northern generals were what I would call honorable men.
Yes, the South lost. But I will still tell you that the army and navy of the Confederacy retained their honor. The North cannot say the same.
For what it is worth, slavery is still very much alive and well in the Middle East and North Africa. It is almost an open secret in Saudi Arabia, but no one dares to say a word or demand an investigation. Where are all the folks who are so quick to condemn the South about slavery that ended over a century ago? Why do they not rise up in righteous anger against modern day slavery and demand its end?
As an aside, look up the ownership of vessels known to be engaged in the slave trade. I believe you will find that the majority were Northern owned, captained, and crewed. Not to mention that many more slaves were traded in the Caribbean basin, Haiti for one place, than were brought into the United States.
Fine. The Northern, large government, total control freaks wore the South down. See where that has gotten us.
Slavery was a sick, if not dying, practice in the United States at that time. Within less than ten years, it would have been dead and it would have died peacefully, without the massive bloodshed occasioned by the North trying to illegally impose its will on the South.
Lincoln was a petty tyrant, but, had he not been assassinated, would have probably prevented a lot of the abuses which followed the war. William Tecumseh Sherman was a butcher who refused to control the excesses of his troops.
In fact, very few of the Northern generals were what I would call honorable men.
Yes, the South lost. But I will still tell you that the army and navy of the Confederacy retained their honor. The North cannot say the same.
For what it is worth, slavery is still very much alive and well in the Middle East and North Africa. It is almost an open secret in Saudi Arabia, but no one dares to say a word or demand an investigation. Where are all the folks who are so quick to condemn the South about slavery that ended over a century ago? Why do they not rise up in righteous anger against modern day slavery and demand its end?
Tawnos
Regular Member
Preserve the economic status quo of existing slaves and their offspring, while simultaneously being able to court the help of foreign governments, for one.
You're not going to get anywhere with me or most people by claiming that a limitation which made it impossible for the government to ban slavery was anything but an institutionalization of slavery. If you're trying to couch this as protecting property rights, you've already lost. Humans are not property, and protecting the right to treat them as property is, indeed, fighting for slavery.
The only meaningful limitations on the federal government were those related to owning slaves, as I've repeatedly said. Other clauses that might be an issue for one concerned with states rights - the supremacy clause, the necessary and proper clause, the ability to suspend habeus corpus, the ability to suppress insurrection - all of those remained in the CSA's constitution.
Tawnos
Regular Member
The lie that it was about state's rights _is_ the revisionist history. If it were about the right of the federal government to intrude into the various states business, then why did the CSA constitution leave that ability intact?
Slavery is wrong, in my country or abroad. However, I would rather not get involved in more foreign entanglements.
SFCRetired
Regular Member
Neither of my two great-grandfathers, of the 32nd Alabama Infantry, owned slaves. From the letters which have been preserved that were written by other men who fought for the Confederacy, a very clear picture emerges that they were both against slavery and even more against an all-powerful federal government.
As I stated before, please tell me who owned, captained, and crewed the majority of the slave ships? A little research will tell you.
Slavery was, when the North started the war, if not dying, very sick. It had become more and more economically impossible to feed and house large numbers of slaves. Again, slavery would have ended without the huge amount of bloodshed that the North unleashed.
I will still say that the war ended with the South's honor intact. The same cannot be said for the North.
Tawnos
Regular Member
Just because your ancestors bought into that lie, doesn't mean that they weren't manipulated by officials who had no intent of reducing federal power. Is it really so hard to believe those with wealth and power in the south, the slave-owning plantation holders, could manipulate the government? The formed government certainly didn't act to fight federal power, even though your ancestors may have bought into that lie from their leaders. You call slavery something that was sick and dying, yet the new government proposed made slavery a critical part of the highest law of the land, protected at the same level as freedom of speech and the right to bear arms.
If, in fact, you're right about people from the north being involved in the foreign slave trade, then georg jetson's comments about banning international slave trade makes even greater sense. Clearly, this was about preserving that economy, entrenching the power of those with wealth. Though they may believe they fought for more noble purposes, your great grandfathers were merely pawns fighting for a government that would maintain the same level of federal control as the one they were fighting against.