Confederacy & Civil War

Discussions on other historical eras.
User avatar
col. klink
Member
Posts: 735
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 05:46
Location: chicago,il. usa

Confederacy and civil war

Post by col. klink » 26 Jun 2003 08:08

Because the US passed constitutional amendments outlawing it. Why did the South fight for it? Who were the pro Confederacy people who fought against slavery? I am assuming by your criteria they're all Black and Liberal. And before you tell me for the umpteenth time the sob story about Jeff Davis and his slave what did Lincoln do with his slaves? But thanks for admitting slavery, the foundation of the South's economy and society, is evil. You dwell on the fact there were slaves and slave states that stayed in the Union. How many of the Confederate states were free states? It seems to me that if all the states that formed the Cofederacy were pro slave states then being pro slavery had some importance to being in the Confederacy. Maybe if we waited, Saddam and the Bathist regime would have withered away and the Iraqi people would no longer be enslaved too. But I didn't here the neoconfederates proposing gradualism for Iraq.

User avatar
ckleisch
Member
Posts: 1546
Joined: 01 Mar 2003 08:03
Location: Elizabeth City, NC USA

Post by ckleisch » 26 Jun 2003 20:11

I see this topic keeps going around in philosophical circles as did the topic in 1861. Nothing, has changed and different ideas prevail whether you are from Noth or South in the United States. Just below the surface it is a realism of everyday life especially in the Southern States involved. The issues involved based on perspective can be argued for hours. In the hindsight of History was Slavery wrong. The answer was and is yes. Slavery should have been abolished and a wage paid for laborers based on ability. However, at the time the US Government condoned slavery at the onset and through trials and tribulations restricted it and hemmed it in. The set up of the United States Constitution then as signed by the original (13) colonies and as it evolved up to 1861, was one where the power of the states was first and the power of the central government secondary. The 60 years between signing and Civil war saw a change in interpretation by the Northern States that the federal government should be be supreme over the state. When the fear of slavery being outlawed became a reality the Southern States choose to succeed from the Union and go there own way. The north said they couldnt do so and the war was a eventuality. As previous documented by historical record the states rights subject was the main war platform for both sides until the North started loosing up until the battle of Antitam in 1862. Radicals within the republican Administration pushed and prodded for a more supportable war platform and that was where the idea of the Emancipation came in. Black sufferage neither North or South cared about. The emancipation didnt effect Union occipied territories Of Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, Western Virginia, DC, Deleware and Maryland
The aims of the South continued throughout the war to be states rights. No southern man would have given up his life and home for maintaining slavery which to them was a side issue. By 1864 slavery was a dead issue in the south anyway as plantations were failing, slaves had run off or so many had tasted freedom that they could never have gone back to the way they were. By 1863 many recognized this and sought arming of the Negro with freedom given to fight the North. This passed the Confederate Congress in March 1865 to late to effect events. But, what if events had moved faster say late 1863? A hundred thousand black soldiers fighting for their freedom. With, their freedom what would a Southern society after victory been like in 1865. Would have been interesting to see the judgement of History then. Any learnered person who wants to see the feelings of the people of the time must read three readily available documents. The georgia document of succession, the Constitution of the confederate states and the inaugural address of Jefferson Davis

User avatar
col. klink
Member
Posts: 735
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 05:46
Location: chicago,il. usa

Confederacy and civil war

Post by col. klink » 27 Jun 2003 07:44

I apologize if I'm repeating myself but the fact is there were no free states in the Confederacy. For all the rhetoric about states rights the slave owners were selective in their interpretation on the issue. They demanded and received the federal enforcement of fugitive slave laws. If a master brought his slave into a state where slavery was not recognized whose states rights are primary? The slave owner would demand his claim to maintain property rights over the law of any free state. I might possibly see an argument for nullification by those states that existed prior to the constitution but states that were admitted later especially those that were created from federal territories are probably another matter.

User avatar
Psycho Mike
Member
Posts: 3243
Joined: 15 Sep 2002 13:18
Location: United States

Post by Psycho Mike » 27 Jun 2003 13:43

The Supreme Court enforced the slave return issue. I believe the Supreme Court staid with the North.

You still have not explained why Northern states treated their slaves better during the war than southern.

Nor have you explained why Lincoln shutting down newspapers and arresting reporters without charges, and troops being ordered to fire on unarmed peace demonstrators is worse than Bush or Ashcroft and the war on terror.

User avatar
col. klink
Member
Posts: 735
Joined: 28 Aug 2002 05:46
Location: chicago,il. usa

confederacy and civil war

Post by col. klink » 27 Jun 2003 18:41

Someone in an earlier posting had mentioned Karl Marx and his reporting on the Civil War. I find a difference in what Marx wrote and what the earlier poster said he wrote. In case any one is interested;
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/wo ... /10/25.htm
This article from October, 1861 is the earliest I've noticed in this archive on the Civil War. Contrary to the poster's opinion that Marx emphasised the slavery question after Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, this article written almost two years before the battle itself talks of the importance of the issue. Other interesting comments made in this article include that slavery was growing and not withering away immediately prior to the war and the slave owners were quite willing to drag the US into wars to expand slavery and wanted to reintroduce the importation of slaves which had been prohibited earlier in the century.
As Marx mentions the majority on the Supreme Court were Southern. Since justice of the supreme court is a life long appointment and I don't know what vacancies appeared on the bench during the war should Lincoln have removed the pro southern justices who stayed on the court? Maybe they should have been considered traitors. I don't know.
For one thing, Marx in this aricle points out that in some regions of the south the important sector of the economy was not farming with slave labor but the actual trading of slaves. Think of what htat all implies. Since importation was illegal, where did the new slaves come from? There was an economy, an industry based on breeding and selling slaves. That's people not cattle we're talking about. I'd say that is one difference in the treatment.
Don't you mean I should explain why Bush and Ashcroft is worse than Lincoln arresting reporters and unarmed peace demonstrtors being fired upon? To do what you're asking is for me to explain your view and I don't think I'm capable of doing that.
Now be a nice guy. Go to the beach and bury your head in the sand.

User avatar
fdewaele
Member
Posts: 246
Joined: 30 Jul 2003 14:27
Location: Belgium

Post by fdewaele » 01 Aug 2003 16:47

Psycho Mike wrote:The Supreme Court enforced the slave return issue. I believe the Supreme Court staid with the North.
war on terror.


I believe that the Supreme Court in Dredd Scott agreed with the South...

Also the civil war devided the Supreme Court as much as it devided the antion. Several justices resigned their seat and seceded with their home state...

User avatar
Psycho Mike
Member
Posts: 3243
Joined: 15 Sep 2002 13:18
Location: United States

Post by Psycho Mike » 01 Sep 2003 00:46

Slavery has been used to beat down the south for over 100 years. Who was responsible for slavery in America? Who profited? Who mistreated the slaves? These are questions you will not find in any text book in America.

The north was the cradle of slavery. The forced movement of Africans around the world went on for almost 1000 years. It was legal in Spain, England and most of the civilized world in the first 500 years, places like Portugal started the second wave. Slavery was, after 1000 years of practice before the civil war, a fact of life. When I have told people that Africans owned slaves I have had people walk out of the room.

That is because none of this is taught here.

There were freed Blacks that owned slaves. Now, in 50 years people will look at the ghettos of Watts (which are behind a large wall!) and the poor of Latin America living in card board boxes and be shocked. But first realize that slavery was legal, worldwide, practiced by free Blacks and Africans! Was it right? By today's standards of course not. Which is the trick Northerners use that have not studied history. The Arab Moslems in the 9th century made it popular! In 1637 Massachusetts began bringing the slaves into- the North. And would do so for - 200 years!New England based its entire economy on rum, slavery and molasses! Try finding that out from a Yankee!

The first public whipping I know of was in 1658 when in Salem a group of Quakers were found reading the Bible to black children. All, including the white Quaker women, were whipped in public. Try to find that scene in ROOTS.

When the government banned the importation of slaves the ships were rerouted to places like the Caribbean, and the money continued flowing into the north. In 1847 the President of Brazil urged President Taylor to stop the slave trade ---- but the northern companies involved --- paid taxes! None were shut down!

The Yankees talk over and over about the mistreatment of slaves in the south. But when you bring up the middle passage, well,they excuse themselves and leave the room! More slaves died in route on these Yankee slave ships (some estimates are as high as 30%) than were ever killed in the south. By the 1600's Yankees had begun enslaving Native Americans! Then the Yankees got an idea. They began offering amnesty to Native Americans who had fought to keep their lands. As they showed up for the amnesty, the military arrested them and made them slaves. Some amnesty!

There is a reason the Native Americans supported the south in the war. And the last general to surrender- was a Native American. But I doubt the north will ever admit this occurred. The treatment of the Native Americans, was just a mistake!

This is why you find people in the Caribbean who claim to be related to Indian tribes. The odds are they are! Unlike the Yankees who claim to be part Cherokee (never Apache!) , they actually did mix with the populace there.

Now- who tried to stop the North from its slave trade? Patrick Henry in Virginia in the late 1700's! NOT JOHN BROWN. No country on earthhad ever tried to stop it before! Thomas Jefferson said one of the reasons to break from the British was he no longer wanted to endure the slave trade that England backed up with armed ships. As momentum built throughout the south to end slavery the north IN TOTAL and 2 southern states united to keep it going. The bills never went national. Two southern states. All the others were against it! Don't believe northern liberals and Marxists on these issues folks. They all have a hidden agendas for distorting history.

In other words, Yankee troops were sent to the south to free slaves the north had sold!

No law was passed that freed northern slaves. In the sickest joke of all, the property rights of slaves were always protected by the northern government. After a child became an adult and reached a certain age they were freed. Sorry Col. Klink, this is a bit like retiring someone when their health bills begin to grow, or they get old. Some freedom! Why didn't the north just do away with slavery? Because it was profitable until old age began to come in.

Boy, there's a moral high ground! How was a freed Black treated in Chicago? They were banned from living there! How was a freed Black treated in the south? They could open a bank account, buy land, own their own home.

Those evil southerners!

History is written by the winners, and manipulated by the followers. Slavery was a great evil. It is a great evil. So why did the end of the war not bring about a world wide attack on slavery, which still exists?

Because they didn't mean a word of it. And they still don't. People were put in jail for the duration of the war without charges, newspapers were shut down, all in the north. All they had to do was say, why can't we settle the slavery issue legally? That was enough to lose your job, sometimes your life, always your freedom. That is why I say the war was not glorious at all. Not one bit. When brute force is used over the law, we are barbarians. And that is what Lincoln was.

Did you know the President of the south, Jefferson Davis, adopted a Black child? A child who was clubbed with rifle butts by the northern troops who arrested him?

User avatar
Andy
Member
Posts: 265
Joined: 04 Aug 2002 18:47
Location: U.S.A

Post by Andy » 01 Sep 2003 06:27

No slavery, NO war.

Return to “Other eras”