Change???

I saw myself founding a new Religion, Marching into Asia, Riding an Elephant, a Turban on my head and in my hand, the new Qu'ran.
 
Here, check out this exchange between Lincoln and CSA vice-president Alexander Stephens:

The Cause’ of the American Civil War , By: Spicer, John, History Review, 09629610, Sep2004, Issue 49

The causes of the American Civil War can perhaps be linked to one particular issue - that of slavery, in December 1860 Lincoln had written to the future vice-president of the Confederate states, Alexander Stephens, and reiterated his pubic pledge not to interfere with slavery where it already existed, but he also added: ‘I suppose, however, this does not meet the case. You think slavery is right and ought to be extended, while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us.’ Later Stephens himself seemed to confirm the significance of the issue by saying that ‘African slavery … was the immediate cause of the late rupture’, and stating that the Confederate government was based upon ‘the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery … is his natural and normal condition.’ South Carolina’s declaration of their reasons for secession cited ‘an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery.’
 
Dixie said:
Lincoln wanted to ship ALL AFRICANS to another country, not live here in freedom and liberty with Americans. That's my evidence. As I said before, freedom without equality is no freedom at all. ....Actually, I think it was someone famous who said it first, but the point is relevant here. Lincoln did not favor equal rights for black people, he wanted to "contain" slavery, not "abolish" slavery, but when he was about to lose the war, and was feeling political pressure from "radical" abolitionists of the time, he endorsed abolition. This was well AFTER the start of the Civil War. Before the Civil War, he was offering every possible concession to the South, in order to keep the Union together. In his own words... "If I can save the union by freeing no slaves, I will do it..." In other words, he didn't give one shit about freeing blacks.

Regardless of what you believe in your warped and bigoted mind, bombing the South into the stone age would not have prevented the long history of racial turmoil in NORTHERN states following the Civil War. They would have still been shooting blacks and burning their neighborhoods... so, would you have advocated "bombing to the stone ages" for them as well? Or how about the MAJORITY of the American public in 1860, which prohibited any US politician in their "right mind" from running on the issue of abolition? What about the US Supreme Court and Congress, would you carpet bomb them too? My goodness, you need a fucking hell of a lot of bombs to rid the US of racist prejudiced people who didn't favor abolition without condition.
Click to expand...

So, btw, did a black man named Marcus Garvey. It was viewed as a safer, and freer outcome for people who had been enslaved.
 
in December 1860 Lincoln had written to the future vice-president of the Confederate states, Alexander Stephens, and reiterated his pubic pledge not to interfere with slavery where it already existed....
Click to expand...

I really don't know how much fucking clearer it needs to be, that Lincoln didn't really care about FREEING slaves! I have never argued that the South didn't favor slavery, or wanted to continue the practice of slavery, as they had a vital economic interest to do so, but this was not the fundamental reason for the Civil War. It was part of a bigger fundamental question of state rights, and federalist intervention into state affairs, which was viewed as an affront to the Constitution. We've been through this already, and I honestly don't see the point in continuing to simply repost the same arguments over and over. You are obviously not going to have any kind of open mind or try to comprehend any other viewpoint, because you are bigoted toward the South and have made your mind up.

In your thinking, America was sharply divided between civilized people of the North who didn't want slavery, and racist uncivilized hicks in the South, who wanted to hold on to slavery against the will of the people. That is a false analysis of 1860 America. At that time, virtually no one in America felt that blacks were equal to whites. Save for Fredrick Douglas, no one even dared to make that argument! Of the small minority of radical abolitionists, very few of them favored just releasing the slaves into society and letting them have true freedoms. Most of them, in fact, favored sending them to another country to live, away from Americans. This is why it took another 100 years for Civil Rights to happen... and had the people and government of the Northern states shared the sentiments you wish to attribute to them at that time, they would have given blacks what they gave them in 1964!
 
Threedee said:
So, btw, did a black man named Marcus Garvey. It was viewed as a safer, and freer outcome for people who had been enslaved.
Click to expand...

No it wasn't, it was viewed as a way to get black people out of white society without having to deal with the inherent problems they feared. They were RACIST, you fuckwit!
 
Oh, and here's the numbers on black lynchings for you (1882-1944):

South: 3281
Civilization: 93

Honorable Mentions
Mississippi: 532

Arizona, Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington DC, Wisconsin: 0

Source: Contempt of Court by Mark Curriden & Leroy Phillips Jr., Appendix 1.
 
Blacks were actually a majority in Mississippi. The whites were extremely violent.

The north just didn't have many black people. But everywhere there was a large collection of them (like NY) there were lynchings, but they preferred straight killing in the north.
 
Threedee said:
Makes my point even better, thanks.
Click to expand...


LOL... It makes your point about what, exactly?

You claimed he was in support of Lincoln's idea to deport all Africans to Central America, and he hadn't even been born. How did you make a point? Oh.... I bet I know, you wanted to make a point that bigots will tell any sort of lie to prop up their bigotry, right? Congrats! You finally made one point!
 
Threedee said:
Oh, and here's the numbers on black lynchings for you (1882-1944):

South: 3281
Civilization: 93

Honorable Mentions
Mississippi: 532

Arizona, Connecticut, Idaho, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, Washington DC, Wisconsin: 0

Source: Contempt of Court by Mark Curriden & Leroy Phillips Jr., Appendix 1.
Click to expand...


Oh, and here's a clue for you moron, the debate is not about whether the South had more lynchings, it is not about whether there was more racism, it is not about whether the South was right, it is not about the morality of slavery. You continue to let your bigotry get in the way of your comprehension because you are a fuckwit with no life. I have clarified this for the last fucking time, and if you attempt to turn the debate into something it never has been intended to be again, we are done, for good.

Your glorious position was that of Northern morality against slavery, and you haven't proven your argument. You maintained the North was "opposed to slavery" and the record is clear, they certainly were not. They advocated for "containment" of slavery, which is a far fucking cry from emancipation. I don't want to hear your lame excuses for that, because they are wholly irrelevant, the North took NO actions to abolish slavery before the Civil War.

You have constantly tried to divert this debate, and avoid this fact. You even went so far as to try and adopt my position in the argument and make it your own! You've lied, misled, and told outright falsehoods full of wild speculative opinions and assumptions, mixed in with your generous helping of snipes at the South, but you have not prevailed in proving your point.
 
Dixie said:
LOL... It makes your point about what, exactly?

You claimed he was in support of Lincoln's idea to deport all Africans to Central America, and he hadn't even been born. How did you make a point? Oh.... I bet I know, you wanted to make a point that bigots will tell any sort of lie to prop up their bigotry, right? Congrats! You finally made one point!
Click to expand...
That's because you are unable to thing logically. 20+ years after the civil war, a black leader still favored the back to Africa movement. Telling?
 
Watermark said:
Blacks were actually a majority in Mississippi. The whites were extremely violent.

The north just didn't have many black people. But everywhere there was a large collection of them (like NY) there were lynchings, but they preferred straight killing in the north.
Click to expand...
Only one reported lynching from my source in NY...
 
Watermark said:
Blacks were actually a majority in Mississippi. The whites were extremely violent.

The north just didn't have many black people. But everywhere there was a large collection of them (like NY) there were lynchings, but they preferred straight killing in the north.
Click to expand...

Yes, one of the reasons The Bigot's numbers reflect such a low number for "civilization" is because it wasn't "lynching" when they had mass killings and riots for weeks, burning out entire neighborhoods where hundreds of blacks were slaughtered.
 
Dixie said:
Oh, and here's a clue for you moron, the debate is not about whether the South had more lynchings, it is not about whether there was more racism, it is not about whether the South was right, it is not about the morality of slavery. You continue to let your bigotry get in the way of your comprehension because you are a fuckwit with no life. I have clarified this for the last fucking time, and if you attempt to turn the debate into something it never has been intended to be again, we are done, for good.

Your glorious position was that of Northern morality against slavery, and you haven't proven your argument. You maintained the North was "opposed to slavery" and the record is clear, they certainly were not. They advocated for "containment" of slavery, which is a far fucking cry from emancipation. I don't want to hear your lame excuses for that, because they are wholly irrelevant, the North took NO actions to abolish slavery before the Civil War.

You have constantly tried to divert this debate, and avoid this fact. You even went so far as to try and adopt my position in the argument and make it your own! You've lied, misled, and told outright falsehoods full of wild speculative opinions and assumptions, mixed in with your generous helping of snipes at the South, but you have not prevailed in proving your point.
Click to expand...
When you oppose slavery (North), your potential neighbors oppose slavery (West), and the South supports slavery, what do you do? I mean, logically, not the way an uneducated Southerner such as you wreesons. Obviously, you get your neighbor to abolish it, and then you see what can be done next... The thinking person can see how "containment of slavery" would have led to emancipation. The vegitative person, such as your common Southerner, cannot string these obvious realities together, and demand that the North have magically forced abolition upon the South...
 
Threedee said:
That's because you are unable to thing logically. 20+ years after the civil war, a black leader still favored the back to Africa movement. Telling?
Click to expand...

No, it's not telling of anything regarding what the Civil War was fought over. It is telling that you are a moron to try and make some obscure point with this man who was born 23 years after the Civil War. It's telling of how prevalent racism must have been in America, many decades after the war, in both the North and South. Why hadn't your beloved "North" accepted these free people and made them feel welcome by then? You all fought so hard to free them, seems like you wouldn't have any problems being cordial to them DECADES later.
 
Threedee said:
When you oppose slavery (North), your potential neighbors oppose slavery (West), and the South supports slavery, what do you do? I mean, logically, not the way an uneducated Southerner such as you wreesons. Obviously, you get your neighbor to abolish it, and then you see what can be done next... The thinking person can see how "containment of slavery" would have led to emancipation. The vegitative person, such as your common Southerner, cannot string these obvious realities together, and demand that the North have magically forced abolition upon the South...
Click to expand...

The North didn't oppose slavery, they were largely indifferent to it, and if any of them did favor abolition, it was only under the condition we move all blacks out of their society completely. By your own admission, politicians of the day would be committing political suicide to run on the issue of abolition. So, this tells us that the overwhelming public sentiment was either indifferent, or opposed to abolition.

The passive US policy of containment of slavery, is not emancipation. Allowing and accepting some slavery, would never lead to emancipation, it is illogical and foolish to reach such a conclusion. As we've already established, the institution of slavery was in decline, we had stopped importing slaves, Britain had banned slavery. But the US Supreme Court and US Congress, continued to condone and support the institution of human enslavement, right up to the Civil War, during the war, and in some cases, after the war.

What WAS the issue, was Federalist intervention in state affairs, which the Constitution forbids. This was the case regarding the debates over the Western Territories and whether to make them slave states or free states. It wasn't the issue of which one, it was the issue of the US government making that decision. The Confederate viewpoint was, our national government is a confederation of states, and the states hold the power. The individual states should be allowed to decide whether to be free or slave, it was their Constitutional right. Instead, the US Government intervened, and this was the root of the fundamental reason for the Civil War.

Slavery was a lesser issue of property rights and ownership, as previously determined by the SCOTUS. Southerner's didn't determine slaves were their property, the SCOTUS told them they were. Yet, here was the Federal Government threatening to unlawfully seize what the SCOTUS had defined as their property. Again, in contradiction of the Constitution. Had the SCOTUS or US Government, at any point in time before the war, renounced human enslavement and outlawed the practice in the US, and declared Africans to be humans and not property, this would not have been a legitimate issue for the South.
 
Let me reiterate a point here. I am not supporting the South's viewpoint on slavery. I fully realize and understand, the South was responsible for some terrible injustices against blacks through the years, and I am not trying to defend that or justify it in any way. However, the onus of slavery and racism is not going to be pinned solely on The South, in this pathetic attempt to reinterpret history. I have an obligation to speak out against the ignorance, and bigoted stereotypes. We have a tendency to forget the era we are discussing here, to evaluate the actions and deeds based on our current values and viewpoints. In 1860 America, black people had no rights, they had no voice, they had no representation. Society in general, saw them as inferior as a race.

I think that when we debate what the South and North respectively did, we need to remember the context of the times. It is detrimental to intellectual thought, to foster these myths of what others may have taught us about the Civil War, but are just not accurate or true. The US was just as accepting and condoning of slavery as the South, there were just more slaves in the South. Some Northern states abolished slavery, the South didn't secede from the Union over it, because their issue was never slavery. Many enslaved black people lived in the north, and worked as housekeepers, cooks, butlers, chauffeurs, and yardmen. Because of the nature of our climate, the vast majority of the slaves lived in the south, where they helped harvest the southern cotton crops. Had our climate been suitable for cotton in Delaware, we would have had slaves there. The US accepted slavery, our Founding Fathers owned slaves, the US Supreme Court upheld slavery, and it's something we all have to accept responsibility for, not just the South.

This debate began with me defending the display of my avatar with the Confederate battle flag, which I explained, I have two ancestors who died in war under that flag, and it has a place of honor in reverence to them. It also stands for defiant conviction of principles regarding freedom and independence. "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another... " Those who fought and died for the ideals of confederacy, deserve to be remembered with honor and respect, regardless of your opinions of the war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top