The Good Ole South
- Thread starter Cancel7
- Start date
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
They didn't. I was speaking of Stephen A. Douglas, Lincoln's presidential opponent in 1858. In the debates, Linclon himself made it clear, he did not think the 'negro' could ever be considered equal in white society. The issue of slavery did not have a thing to do with the issue of racial equality, they were two completely different issues.
uscitizen
Villified User
Yeah my point Alex.....
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Scroll back and read the posts. This whole thing started with AOI claiming the Civil War was the catalyst for the racism stereotype of the South, to which I replied, the Civil War wasn't about racism.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I don't know, I think it was before my time. Why don't you explain it to us?
maineman
Banned
this post, more than anything you have EVER written, shows how much you are blind to your own prejudices. I think this quote shows that she felt she was definitely equal to, IF NOT MORE NOBLE than white people. For you to even THINK otherwise is frightening!
"That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud puddles, or gives me any best place, and ain't I a woman? ... I have plowed, and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me -- and ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man (when I could get it), and bear the lash as well -- and ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children and seen most all sold off to slavery and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me -- and ain't I woman?"
- Sojourner Truth
Dont tell me she did not think a slave was equal to a white person.
Dixie does Sojourner Truth count as a person?
- Sojourner Truth
Dont tell me she did not think a slave was equal to a white person.
Dixie does Sojourner Truth count as a person?
maineman
Banned
excuuuuse me....who first fired on Fort Sumter?????
Yeah, we reread and figured that was probably what you were talking about, that it was just chance that it happened to be right after a Frederick Douglass mention...
You'll see that as you continue reading.
He's talking of blockades. If you were starving what would you do?
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
No one in America, in 1864, believed slaves were equal to white people, not even Abe Lincoln or the slaves themselves.
Earlier in this thread, I made this statement. Since that time, several people have maintained a posting vigil to challenge my remarks, with the position of Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth, as well as the Abolitionists.
Upon further consideration, I withdraw the remark in question and stand corrected, there certainly were people in 1864, who thought slaves were equal to whites. Abe Lincoln wasn't one of them, and neither was any Congressman of the time. No General from either side of the war held this view, and the overwhelming majority of people in America, did not believe that tribal Africans were equivalent to white Europeans. It just wasn't the case.
Now, I wish that I could pretend that America was divided between racists and non-racists, and this was what sparked the Civil War, and I wish I could fantasize, that the issue of importance of the time was racial equality, and Southerners didn't believe in it, while Northerners did. I simply can't accept that, because it's not the truth. By today's standard, most everyone of that time would be considered a racist, because most everyone thought of black slaves as inferior to white non-slaves, and it simply didn't matter if it was a Southerner or Northerner, the viewpoint was fairly universal.
The slavery issue was not about racial equality, it was about morality. Those who opposed slavery, and supported abolition of slavery, were not automatically presumed non-racist in their views. Is it possible that some non-racist people supported abolition? Of course, just like it's possible that some racist people supported abolition. The slavery issue of the era, was the (religiously-based) moral question of whether it was right to own humans. Not whether blacks and whites were equal, that took another century to settle.
This is my point. Had the Civil War been about racism and racial equality, 1964 would have marked the centennial celebration of Civil Rights. Slavery was an entirely different debate from equality, and the major argument from the South, was over economic issues, and whether we were a federal union of states who followed a central government, or whether we were a confederation of conjoined states with our own autonomy. This had nothing to do with racism, or the racial equality views of the time, it had everything to do with business, finance, economics, and federal authority over states.
Earlier in this thread, I made this statement. Since that time, several people have maintained a posting vigil to challenge my remarks, with the position of Frederick Douglass and Sojourner Truth, as well as the Abolitionists.
Upon further consideration, I withdraw the remark in question and stand corrected, there certainly were people in 1864, who thought slaves were equal to whites. Abe Lincoln wasn't one of them, and neither was any Congressman of the time. No General from either side of the war held this view, and the overwhelming majority of people in America, did not believe that tribal Africans were equivalent to white Europeans. It just wasn't the case.
Now, I wish that I could pretend that America was divided between racists and non-racists, and this was what sparked the Civil War, and I wish I could fantasize, that the issue of importance of the time was racial equality, and Southerners didn't believe in it, while Northerners did. I simply can't accept that, because it's not the truth. By today's standard, most everyone of that time would be considered a racist, because most everyone thought of black slaves as inferior to white non-slaves, and it simply didn't matter if it was a Southerner or Northerner, the viewpoint was fairly universal.
The slavery issue was not about racial equality, it was about morality. Those who opposed slavery, and supported abolition of slavery, were not automatically presumed non-racist in their views. Is it possible that some non-racist people supported abolition? Of course, just like it's possible that some racist people supported abolition. The slavery issue of the era, was the (religiously-based) moral question of whether it was right to own humans. Not whether blacks and whites were equal, that took another century to settle.
This is my point. Had the Civil War been about racism and racial equality, 1964 would have marked the centennial celebration of Civil Rights. Slavery was an entirely different debate from equality, and the major argument from the South, was over economic issues, and whether we were a federal union of states who followed a central government, or whether we were a confederation of conjoined states with our own autonomy. This had nothing to do with racism, or the racial equality views of the time, it had everything to do with business, finance, economics, and federal authority over states.
I comend you on your admission of your mistake... That takes more than I thought you had.
Now about the rest of your post.
You fail to see that the only reason it would be morally legitatmate to "own" a class of people would be if that Class of people were inferior to you. Now I understand that many, in fact MOST people of the time did not believe black people to be of the same caliber of white people. But there were groups, who fought slavery for that very reason.
The Quakers were one such group! The morality of slavery is helplessly intertwined with the race issue. The only reason Slavery should be legal would be if a group of people were "sub-human" like a dog. The only moral reason to legalize it would be because that in the eyes of the law and our God, all people are created with equality. So while Lincon may not have agreed with the idea, he fought for it!
Again the analogy holds TRUE.
Saying the civil war was not about racial prejudice is like saying Row v. Wade was not about abortion.
The cause of the civil war may not have been the moral issue of slavery, but it turned on that point. The reason behind the R v. W decision may not have been about the right to privacy, it just turned on that point!
Now about the rest of your post.
You fail to see that the only reason it would be morally legitatmate to "own" a class of people would be if that Class of people were inferior to you. Now I understand that many, in fact MOST people of the time did not believe black people to be of the same caliber of white people. But there were groups, who fought slavery for that very reason.
The Quakers were one such group! The morality of slavery is helplessly intertwined with the race issue. The only reason Slavery should be legal would be if a group of people were "sub-human" like a dog. The only moral reason to legalize it would be because that in the eyes of the law and our God, all people are created with equality. So while Lincon may not have agreed with the idea, he fought for it!
Again the analogy holds TRUE.
Saying the civil war was not about racial prejudice is like saying Row v. Wade was not about abortion.
The cause of the civil war may not have been the moral issue of slavery, but it turned on that point. The reason behind the R v. W decision may not have been about the right to privacy, it just turned on that point!
Last edited:
I don't think so. I think the blockades were started after Fort Sumter.
It was an insurrection and a rebellion. The american government had a right to take action, don't you agree? Whether it be blockades or military action. . And, yet in fact the first shots were fired at American troops stationed in fort sumter.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
You fail to see that the only reason it would be morally legitatmate to "own" a class of people would be if that Class of people were inferior to you.
Well, Congress passed the laws and said the slaves were property, were they racists?
Now I understand that many, in fact MOST people of the time did not believe black people to be of the same caliber of white people.
The overwhelming and vast majority felt this way. Keep in mind, the science of the time, still held to the belief that Africans simply had not "evolved" to the level of the white man, and this was often cited as the proof of evolution theory. It would take several more decades for research to reveal there was no difference in race, from mental development standpoints, capacity of intelligence, etc. So, the people of the time were going on the information available and the popular consensus of society, as well as the scientific community.
But there were groups, who fought slavery for that very reason.
The Quakers were one such group! The morality of slavery is helplessly intertwined with the race issue.
The morality WAS the issue! This is what I am trying to get you to understand, it wasn't about whether you believed blacks and whites were equal, it was about whether you thought it was right to own humans. They are two completely different debates in 1864.
The only reason Slavery should be legal would be if a group of people were "sub-human" like a dog.
Slavery was legal because our Founding Fathers allowed for it, and made it legal, as well as every Congress up until emancipation. Slaves were not considered sub-human like a dog, more like horses. They were deemed "property" by the legislators of the United States (aka: The Union).
Saying the civil war was not about racial prejudice is like saying Row v. Wade was not about abortion.
It had nothing to do with racial prejudice, if it had, this issue would have been settled by the war, and we would have enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1865! We didn't do this, did we? No, we didn't! The slavery issue did not deal with racial equality issues at all, they are two completely different arguments in 1864. I realize, in today's world, it is easy to think they were the same thing, but that is simply being ignorant of the time period. Virtually no one in America, really and truly felt, that black slaves were equivalent to white people. This was a very radical view for that time, regardless of which side of the Mason-Dixon you were on. Lincoln once suggested, upon abolition, we could ship all of the slaves back to Africa. He didn't advocate or support the idea of a homogeneous society, where blacks and whites were treated as equals.
The cause of the civil war may not have been the moral issue of slavery, but it turned on that point. The reason behind the R v. W decision may not have been about the right to privacy, it just turned on that point!
I don't get the analogy to Roe, this is entirely different. We fought the most bloody war of our history, and most Americans are clueless about it. The overwhelming issue of the Civil War became about abolition of slavery, frankly, out of political desperation on the part of Lincoln. As much as you ride on Bush, imagine if Bush had caused a Civil War? People were pissed at Lincoln, and as the body counts soared, the got even more pissed at him. This all had started because he was indifferent to the unfair advantages given to Northern industries and labor, while burdening Southern agriculture with tariffs and restrictions.
To give you an idea of where slavery played a role from the South's perspective, I can compare it with those who feel we don't need to deport illegal aliens, because they are doing the jobs no American wants to do. This was the situation in the South, in the lead-up to the Civil War. Their entire agricultural economics, depended on slave labor to produce their product, this had been legal for years, the US government was okay with it, there had been no attempt to change it, until the Abolitionist movement. Suddenly, you had the federal government signaling they may abolish your means of production, and... tough cookies, you are on your own.
Now, think about that for a moment. Is it fair for government to tell the producers of cotton, we are going to ban your method of producing your product, we don't have a solution for you, it's up to you to find a way to survive without this vital element of your operation? This was the issue for the South. There was an old Rebel battle cry, "fight or die" and that was literally what was at stake for the South, their entire economic base was at stake.
Another important thing to remember here, at this point in time, we had already outlawed any slave imports from foreign countries, the only slave trade in America, was internal. Society was changing from the inhumane mindset of the 1600's, and total abolition was inevitable at some point. There were many Southern Abolitionists, and it was a moral issue entirely. Many Southern plantations had already granted freedom to their slaves, and many of those same free slaves, went and fought for the Confederacy.
In summary, it wasn't so much about Slavery, as a racial issue, as it was a moral and economic issue. Racism is believing one race superior or inferior to another, and unfortunately, most of American society in 1864, was racist in their views.
To take the history from 1864, and view it through the prism of 2006, and apply the 1964 "effect" filters... is a little disingenuous. Slavery, as it pertains to the Civil War, has nothing to do with Racism, or racial equality.
Well, Congress passed the laws and said the slaves were property, were they racists?
Now I understand that many, in fact MOST people of the time did not believe black people to be of the same caliber of white people.
The overwhelming and vast majority felt this way. Keep in mind, the science of the time, still held to the belief that Africans simply had not "evolved" to the level of the white man, and this was often cited as the proof of evolution theory. It would take several more decades for research to reveal there was no difference in race, from mental development standpoints, capacity of intelligence, etc. So, the people of the time were going on the information available and the popular consensus of society, as well as the scientific community.
But there were groups, who fought slavery for that very reason.
The Quakers were one such group! The morality of slavery is helplessly intertwined with the race issue.
The morality WAS the issue! This is what I am trying to get you to understand, it wasn't about whether you believed blacks and whites were equal, it was about whether you thought it was right to own humans. They are two completely different debates in 1864.
The only reason Slavery should be legal would be if a group of people were "sub-human" like a dog.
Slavery was legal because our Founding Fathers allowed for it, and made it legal, as well as every Congress up until emancipation. Slaves were not considered sub-human like a dog, more like horses. They were deemed "property" by the legislators of the United States (aka: The Union).
Saying the civil war was not about racial prejudice is like saying Row v. Wade was not about abortion.
It had nothing to do with racial prejudice, if it had, this issue would have been settled by the war, and we would have enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1865! We didn't do this, did we? No, we didn't! The slavery issue did not deal with racial equality issues at all, they are two completely different arguments in 1864. I realize, in today's world, it is easy to think they were the same thing, but that is simply being ignorant of the time period. Virtually no one in America, really and truly felt, that black slaves were equivalent to white people. This was a very radical view for that time, regardless of which side of the Mason-Dixon you were on. Lincoln once suggested, upon abolition, we could ship all of the slaves back to Africa. He didn't advocate or support the idea of a homogeneous society, where blacks and whites were treated as equals.
The cause of the civil war may not have been the moral issue of slavery, but it turned on that point. The reason behind the R v. W decision may not have been about the right to privacy, it just turned on that point!
I don't get the analogy to Roe, this is entirely different. We fought the most bloody war of our history, and most Americans are clueless about it. The overwhelming issue of the Civil War became about abolition of slavery, frankly, out of political desperation on the part of Lincoln. As much as you ride on Bush, imagine if Bush had caused a Civil War? People were pissed at Lincoln, and as the body counts soared, the got even more pissed at him. This all had started because he was indifferent to the unfair advantages given to Northern industries and labor, while burdening Southern agriculture with tariffs and restrictions.
To give you an idea of where slavery played a role from the South's perspective, I can compare it with those who feel we don't need to deport illegal aliens, because they are doing the jobs no American wants to do. This was the situation in the South, in the lead-up to the Civil War. Their entire agricultural economics, depended on slave labor to produce their product, this had been legal for years, the US government was okay with it, there had been no attempt to change it, until the Abolitionist movement. Suddenly, you had the federal government signaling they may abolish your means of production, and... tough cookies, you are on your own.
Now, think about that for a moment. Is it fair for government to tell the producers of cotton, we are going to ban your method of producing your product, we don't have a solution for you, it's up to you to find a way to survive without this vital element of your operation? This was the issue for the South. There was an old Rebel battle cry, "fight or die" and that was literally what was at stake for the South, their entire economic base was at stake.
Another important thing to remember here, at this point in time, we had already outlawed any slave imports from foreign countries, the only slave trade in America, was internal. Society was changing from the inhumane mindset of the 1600's, and total abolition was inevitable at some point. There were many Southern Abolitionists, and it was a moral issue entirely. Many Southern plantations had already granted freedom to their slaves, and many of those same free slaves, went and fought for the Confederacy.
In summary, it wasn't so much about Slavery, as a racial issue, as it was a moral and economic issue. Racism is believing one race superior or inferior to another, and unfortunately, most of American society in 1864, was racist in their views.
To take the history from 1864, and view it through the prism of 2006, and apply the 1964 "effect" filters... is a little disingenuous. Slavery, as it pertains to the Civil War, has nothing to do with Racism, or racial equality.
maineman
Banned
well...considering that the blockade of the south was ordered by Lincoln on April 19th and the confederacy fired on Fort Sumter on April 12th, I guess what you would want me to say in answer to your question is ...travel back in time and attack Fort Sumter in RESPONSE to starving from the effects of the blockade a full week before the blockade was in place??????
Nope. But that is what I believe he was speaking of...
Many people don't know when and how the war started. Honestly it began when the South decided to become the Confederate States and selected a President.