American History

[Johnny Canuck3]

Maybe they didn't, but if the abolition of slavery was even just a sidelight of the civil war, then that's still a good thing.

[ps. I'm pretty tired right now, so I'm not going to be able to get up a good anti slavery head of steam until tomorrow at the earliest....... you can get your best licks in now if you'd like.]

 

[dilute micro]

But wasn't the retention or abolition of slavery touted as a states' rights issue?

Remember 3 years or so ago when we covered this. I swear I didn't think you were reading my posts. The chief fodder for those that want to believe the South was fighting to keep slavery in tact is that some Southern politicians and non-elected leaders made the case that the US was going to abolish slavery. But the case was an inwardly directed propaganda aimed at appealing to the fear of the average Joe. Afterwards is when the US congress drew up the original 13th amendment to prove that no such plan was in the works. The object of the propaganda was to encourage men to enlist in the army. At the time not many were interested in doing so.

Slavery was technically however a State right meaning it was supposedly a state's power to control slave matter legislature. Nino's not incorrect to identify it as a 'state's right' but not the definition of. State's rights wasn't about "slavery". That's the main argument made by people. It had as much to do with secession, more so actually, and respect by the Federal government. Secession was the hot topic, the real topic at the time, not slavery. If you'll remember the Confederate congress had its own version the US 13th amendment. And someone made the case that somehow since slavery was a Confederate federal law then it could never be overthrown. I pointed out that if the US could dispose of theirs then so could the federal Confederate government. I can only speculate that things could have forced that action either by foreign powers in return for recognition or something else.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Remember 3 years or so ago when we covered this. I swear I didn't think you were reading my posts. .

Funny: I thought the same thing about you.

 

[dilute micro]

Funny: I thought the same thing about you.

But I was citing so much stuff and looking up so many things for your benefit...and not a single 'hey thanks man'.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

But I was citing so much stuff and looking up so many things for your benefit...and not a single 'hey thanks man'.

Three years ago is a long time, but I can't imagine that I didn't respond to all your hard work with lots of research and citations of my own...

 

[dilute micro]

Three years ago is a long time, but I can't imagine that I didn't respond to all your hard work with lots of research and citations of my own...

You're a good man JC, but remember the event before that, the one with Reb? You came at me thinking I was a closet racist. It's what everybody has been conditioned to believe. They think anybody making the case of the CSA is promoting slave days. They think that's what it was about. Then to hear me lessen the importance of slavery as they see it makes them insulted and angry. But history is how it happened and it was continuous. The official version leaves to dead ends and rubber stamped explanations. Why shouldn't any thinking person see the difference and ask questions? No one is more ashamed of slavery than myself but the truth of what happened back then is not what we're told.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You're a good man JC, but remember the event before that, the one with Reb? You came at me thinking I was a closet racist. It's what everybody has been conditioned to believe. They think anybody making the case of the CSA is promoting slave days. They think that's what it was about. Then to hear me lessen the importance of slavery as they see it makes them insulted and angry. But history is how it happened and it was continuous. The official version leaves to dead ends and rubber stamped explanations. Why shouldn't any thinking person see the difference and ask questions? No one is more ashamed of slavery than myself but the truth of what happened back then is not what we're told.

Johnny Reb brought out the worst in me, and to the extent that you appeared to be taking his side, you got some of it on you too.

I've since come to know you better, and I realize you're ok, even though I still think some of your ideas about slavery and the south are a bit dodgy. But that's ok, everyone's allowed a few crazy ideas from time to time.

You're a bit like me around here; seemingly levelheaded, then coming out with something that makes people go: 'Say what??!!' It keeps things interesting.

P.s. by no stretch of the imagination do I think that you're a racist.

But I expect that there will be more spirited discussion about slavery etc in the future.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

p.s. Wanna cigarette?

 

[nino_savatte]

I knew you'd fall for that one.

Slavery was a Federally protected institution.

Of course it seems to you I'm missing something. You don't bother with study on Civil War history.

And I have a whole lot more than a couple books.

State's Rights include the right of the individual state (s) to practice slavery (and later segregation). It seems you have trouble reading and comprehending. State's Rights were cited during the 50's and 60's by southern states unwilling to abolish segregation. You seem to forget that slavery had been abolished in the northern states. Only the south was practicing slavery by the time of the Civil War....and you call yourself a historian? ROTFLMAO!!!!

Your history books have probably been written by those with similar ideological dispositions to yourself. Odd how you haven't shared the names of these authors with us.

 

[nino_savatte]

No basis in reality? Then why do so many facts have to be silenced? Why do parts of history have to be excluded to promote the Officially Approved version of the period that says the US acted on high morals and patriotic duty?

Why are so many facts taken out of context to serve a particular ideology? Anyone can do it - even you do it.

I have never once said that the Civil War was fought for any of the reasons you suggest. You appear to have a cognitive disorder.

 

[nino_savatte]

Slavery was technically however a State right meaning it was supposedly a state's power to control slave matter legislature. Nino's not incorrect to identify it as a 'state's right' but not the definition of. State's rights wasn't about "slavery".

This is a semantic soft shoe shuffle. You contradict yourself here: the issue of slavery was part of "State's Rights" and you even admit it.

 

[nino_savatte]

No one is more ashamed of slavery than myself but the truth of what happened back then is not what we're told.

Really? Then it is odd that you should chuck out some odd 'facts' without any particular reason for doing so. I also find it odd, how you deliberately ignored my comment about black overseers in order to further advance your thesis. The fact that there were black overseers doesn't detract from the reality of the nature of slavery in the US. You have consistently avoided this.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Sorry, I can't be arsed to read the back-and-forth abuse, so this may already have been mentioned, but can those who say that slavery wasn't central to 19th-century power struggles in the US please explain away the Missouri Compromise.

The Missouri Compromise was worked out between slave and non-slave states precisely to maintain a power balance between them. Of course the Civil War was fought over power and money (what war isn't?), but that doesn't preculde the centrality of slavery as a point of demarcation.

 

[nino_savatte]

Sorry, I can't be arsed to read the back-and-forth abuse, so this may already have been mentioned, but can those who say that slavery wasn't central to 19th-century power struggles in the US please explain away the Missouri Compromise.

The Missouri Compromise was worked out between slave and non-slave states precisely to maintain a power balance between them. Of course the Civil War was fought over power and money (what war isn't?), but that doesn't preculde the centrality of slavery as a point of demarcation.

This is something that dilute micro refuses to accept. He's trying to claim that everyone except him, has a better knowledge of the Civil War and, because of that, the issue of slavery and the nature of the institution is irrelevant to this discourse.

 

[nino_savatte]

Some more little known facts:

The New England states were against the War of 1812. The southern states, on the other hand, were very keen to go to war with Britain.

The US overreached itself in the 1812 war and thought that it could take on Britain and win, as it had during the War of Independence. The early years of the war went very badly for the US, as the army was led by incompetents.

 

[Andy the Don]

Excellent riposte against Reagan "trickle down" economics, recently updated.

 

[dilute micro]

State's Rights include the right of the individual state (s) to practice slavery (and later segregation). It seems you have trouble reading and comprehending. State's Rights were cited during the 50's and 60's by southern states unwilling to abolish segregation. You seem to forget that slavery had been abolished in the northern states. Only the south was practicing slavery by the time of the Civil War....and you call yourself a historian? ROTFLMAO!!!!

Your history books have probably been written by those with similar ideological dispositions to yourself. Odd how you haven't shared the names of these authors with us.

Do more reading on state's rights nino.

New Jersey had slaves. So no it wasn't just the South.

The only reason slavery was abolished in the northern states was to make jobs for white men. In some northern State's constitutions it's actually worded into the law. Slavery was banned in the territories for the same reason.

 

[dilute micro]

Sorry, I can't be arsed to read the back-and-forth abuse, so this may already have been mentioned, but can those who say that slavery wasn't central to 19th-century power struggles in the US please explain away the Missouri Compromise.

The Missouri Compromise was worked out between slave and non-slave states precisely to maintain a power balance between them. Of course the Civil War was fought over power and money (what war isn't?), but that doesn't preculde the centrality of slavery as a point of demarcation.

And simply because slavery was a hot topic of the time doesn't make it the cause of the war or the reason for the power struggle. Slavery expanded into new territories would only have given power to Southern interests had the immigration of slaveholders into those areas been significant enough. Territorial fights were symbolistic on the part of the slave states. The real conflict was between two ideologies opposite the centralization issue. There was nothing gained with the Missouri Compromise. Maine was created to make things even. The lack of power for the Southern states was due to lack of population. It was the ever increasing populations of the North that gave them reason to abolish slavery. Had they never done so the struggle for power would still have played out and most likely with a civil war.

 

[nino_savatte]

Do more reading on state's rights nino.

New Jersey had slaves. So no it wasn't just the South.

The only reason slavery was abolished in the northern states was to make jobs for white men. In some northern State's constitutions it's actually worded into the law. Slavery was banned in the territories for the same reason.

Aye, NJ did have slaves but they abolished slavery well before the South was forced to. Do try and be a little more honest.

 

[nino_savatte]

And simply because slavery was a hot topic of the time doesn't make it the cause of the war or the reason for the power struggle. Slavery expanded into new territories would only have given power to Southern interests had the immigration of slaveholders into those areas been significant enough. Territorial fights were symbolistic on the part of the slave states. The real conflict was between two ideologies opposite the centralization issue. There was nothing gained with the Missouri Compromise. Maine was created to make things even. The lack of power for the Southern states was due to lack of population. It was the ever increasing populations of the North that gave them reason to abolish slavery. Had they never done so the struggle for power would still have played out and most likely with a civil war.

The right of states to practice slavery was the main reason for the Civil War. The Southern states seceded for this very reason.

Next you'll be portraying the Civil War as a struggle between 'Celts' and 'Anglo-Saxons'.

 

[dilute micro]

The right of states to practice slavery was the main reason for the Civil War. The Southern states seceded for this very reason.

Next you'll be portraying the Civil War as a struggle between 'Celts' and 'Anglo-Saxons'.

No it wasn't. It's merely what popular history has led people to believe. That's the intent of disinformation. That the war ended up mainly slave states vs. free states was just how it fell. Remember, no one was challenging the right to slavery. Slavery was not at issue.

After South Carolina's firing on Ft Sumter Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina each voted to remain in the US. This had the pro-slavery Confederacy against the pro-slavery United States.

What turned those 4 states from US to CS was Lincoln's intent to attack SC et al. with 75,000 volunteers. Lincoln requested that Virginia supply the army with 8 regiments, NC 2, TN 2 and Arkansas 1. The idea that the US would attack, and such a thing being unconstitutional, put the vote up again and this time they each joined the Confederacy.

That's real history. That's how it happened.

Still....people believe what they want to believe regardless.

 

[dilute micro]

Nino as your hero I politely demand that you get this book.

Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery

If you don't I won't be your friend anymore.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

No it wasn't. It's merely what popular history has led people to believe. .

Just one question, then. Why did slavery exist in the Confederacy before the war, but not after?

 

[nino_savatte]

No it wasn't. It's merely what popular history has led people to believe. That's the intent of disinformation. That the war ended up mainly slave states vs. free states was just how it fell. Remember, no one was challenging the right to slavery. Slavery was not at issue.

After South Carolina's firing on Ft Sumter Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee and North Carolina each voted to remain in the US. This had the pro-slavery Confederacy against the pro-slavery United States.

What turned those 4 states from US to CS was Lincoln's intent to attack SC et al. with 75,000 volunteers. Lincoln requested that Virginia supply the army with 8 regiments, NC 2, TN 2 and Arkansas 1. The idea that the US would attack, and such a thing being unconstitutional, put the vote up again and this time they each joined the Confederacy.

That's real history. That's how it happened.

Still....people believe what they want to believe regardless.

Semantics and codswallop. It's state's rights pure and simple. Why else would the southern states secede? The sttes that you've listed here became part of the Confederacy and also practiced slavery.

Slavery was not at issue.

Only in your mind and the minds of southern revisionists perhaps but the main cause of the Civil War was slavery.

 

[nino_savatte]

Nino as your hero I politely demand that you get this book.

Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and Profited from Slavery

If you don't I won't be your friend anymore.

Whatever. You do realise that even things written in books can be challenged? That arguments can also be challenged? Just because something is written in a book, doesn't necessarily mean it's correct. For example, I think Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness is a pile of dreck. Even books which claim to be histories aren't written in an ideological vacuum. I take great issue with Niall Ferguson's skewed takes on history...he's an academic but he's not above criticism.

Btw, I'm already aware of the existence of slavery in the north. The south was forced to give it up against its wishes.

 

[dilute micro]

Just one question, then. Why did slavery exist in the Confederacy before the war, but not after?

Ending slavery was not mentioned by Lincoln or the US until the war was half over. In fact before then the North did everything they could to prove the opposite, such as the 13th amendment.

In other words, it's poor form to fight a war and then at the midway point pretend your fighting for something you've not only not bothered to mention but in fact worked against up until then.

At the time of Lincoln drawing up the Emancipation Proclamation the North was pretty much losing the war. That's how England and France saw it. That's also how the average northerner saw it. The US had lost battle after battle and opinion of the Northerners was wanting the lines of bodies to end. The politics had it that France and England would mediate a peace settlement. But in order for Lincoln and republican politicians to continue getting Southern tax money there could be no peace settlement. Emancipation was a ploy playing on the no-slavery policies if England and France. This put them in a situation of potentially acting against their own policies after one side was now claiming to want the end of slavery.

 

[nino_savatte]

Ending slavery was not mentioned by Lincoln or the US until the war was half over. In fact before then the North did everything they could to prove the opposite, such as the 13th amendment.

In other words, it's poor form to fight a war and then at the midway point pretend your fighting for something you've not only not bothered to mention but in fact worked against up until then.

At the time of Lincoln drawing up the Emancipation Proclamation the North was pretty much losing the war. That's how England and France saw it. That's also how the average northerner saw it. The US had lost battle after battle and opinion of the Northerners was wanting the lines of bodies to end. The politics had it that France and England would mediate a peace settlement. But in order for Lincoln and republican politicians to continue getting Southern tax money there could be no peace settlement. Emancipation was a ploy playing on the no-slavery policies if England and France. This put them in a situation of potentially acting against their own policies after one side was now claiming to want the end of slavery.

I already know all of this. However, the Republican Party was originally formed as an anti-slavery party. You say the North was "already losing the war" when Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation but the tide was turning in the Union's favour. The Confederates were about to suffer a bloody nose at Gettysburg and Sherman's march to the south was about to begin.

Here's something else that you don't know: The British bourgeoisie were very supportive of the Confederacy, while the workers and the early trades unions were vehemently opposed. Can you guess why?

There is an awful lot of fancy footwork in this post

Ending slavery was not mentioned by Lincoln or the US until the war was half over. In fact before then the North did everything they could to prove the opposite, such as the 13th amendment.

You continue to ignore the fact that the South seceded because it felt that it was its G-d-given right to practice slavery.

Oh and I know why the North went to war: the preserve the union...though you continue to insist that I 'believe' that it was about slavery. Fool.

 

[dilute micro]

Semantics and codswallop. It's state's rights pure and simple. Why else would the southern states secede? The sttes that you've listed here became part of the Confederacy and also practiced slavery.


Only in your mind and the minds of southern revisionists perhaps but the main cause of the Civil War was slavery.

You only keep repeating over and over that it was slavery. Show me how it was slavery.

If you'd bother to learn the politics of the period (or anything else) you'd not sound so stupid.

 

[nino_savatte]

You only keep repeating over and over that it was slavery. Show me how it was slavery.

If you'd bother to learn the politics of the period (or anything else) you'd not sound so stupid.

See the above post. This is the best you can do because you know that you're rearranging facts to suit your argument.

 

[nino_savatte]

Here's a choice quote

(Thomas Jefferson's) ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error ... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery—subordination to the superior race—is his natural and normal condition.

- Alexander Stephen's Cornerstone Speech, Savannah; Georgia, March 21, 1861​

This is the basis on which the institution of slavery rested.