NATION

PASSWORD

End the lies: The Confederacy was about slavery

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Maurepas
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36403
Founded: Apr 17, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Maurepas » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:21 pm

Phenia wrote:
Maurepas wrote:
Vervaria wrote:
Bryn Shander wrote:
Vervaria wrote:
Derscon wrote:So?

Basically, what I'm getting is that "People can have self-determination, unless I don't like their opinions." Cool story bro.

Slavery was the straw that broke the camel's back, yes, and the direct cause of secession. However, it is intensely intellectually dishonest to lay everything on the backs of "They just want to whip them negro folk." Did the states secede because of slavery? Yes. Was the War of Northern Aggression fought because of slavery? Not by a long shot.

Funny, I seem to recall reading something about the South firing on Federal property.....

Funny, I seem to recall Yankee troops squatting on Confederate property.

Fort Sumter was Federal, not state property.

And irrelevant, it was in South Carolina, when it seceded, the Federal Government no longer had any authority over it...Anymore than Britain owned its forts in the United States after we declared Independence...


The authority of the USA doesn't just magically evaporate because a bunch of slave-owning yokels decide to take their toys and go home.

It is unreasonable in the extreme to expect a military base held by the US government to leave immediately the moment the local anti-USA crowd decides to call their rebellious treason a "confederacy."

And furthermore it is nothing but an act of war to then fire on that fort. But even IF as you say that Fort Sumter magically transferred authority and ownership to the Confederacy, then pray tell, why was the Confederacy attacking its own fort? Oh, right- just attacking the troops there. Golly, it's almost like they wanted to start a war or something!
:roll:

The Confederacy fanboyism here is nauseating..

For the same reasons the United States had to take forts from Britain, but, the fact that you think that it was just a bunch of "slave owning yokels" prettymuch makes your position clear...

The self-righteous Union fanboyism here is nauseating...

User avatar
Panzerjaeger
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9856
Founded: Sep 15, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Panzerjaeger » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:22 pm

Natapoc wrote:
Maurepas wrote:
Yootopia wrote:
Maurepas wrote:
Yootopia wrote:
Maurepas wrote:From a Military perspective, the war can, and did, continue long after that economic "advantage" is gone...

The US civil war didn't last for a long time.

It lasted as long as WWII for the US at least, ;)

To reiterate, the US civil war didn't last for a long time.

Touché, I suppose, :lol2:

I guess our definitions of long time differ...


From the flags flying in some parts of the south I'm not sure the civil war is over yet (to some people).

It isn't. Which reminds me of the anecdote of General Johnston. He was visiting a War Memorial for Southern soldiers when he overheard a fellow saying the South had been beaten but it would Rise again. Johnston asked the man what unit he had served with and the man said he had not had the pleasure due to some ailment. Johnston then replied, "I have served sir and I can tell you I have been beaten and I shall not rise again." Something to that effect. I found that amusing the men who had served by and large did not want to revolt again been there done that and not worth the loss of life. Yet you always have those chickenhawks itching for a fight...
Friendly Neighborhood Fascist™
ФАШИЗМ БЕЗГРАНИЧНЫЙ И КРАСНЫЙ
Caninope wrote:Toyota: Keep moving forward, even when you don't want to!

Christmahanikwanzikah wrote:Timothy McVeigh casts... Pyrotechnics!

Greater Americania wrote:lol "No Comrade Ivan! Don't stick your head in there! That's the wood chi...!"

New Kereptica wrote:Fascism: because people are too smart nowadays.

User avatar
Maurepas
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36403
Founded: Apr 17, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Maurepas » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:22 pm

Vervaria wrote:
Maurepas wrote:
Vervaria wrote:
Bryn Shander wrote:
Vervaria wrote:
Derscon wrote:So?

Basically, what I'm getting is that "People can have self-determination, unless I don't like their opinions." Cool story bro.

Slavery was the straw that broke the camel's back, yes, and the direct cause of secession. However, it is intensely intellectually dishonest to lay everything on the backs of "They just want to whip them negro folk." Did the states secede because of slavery? Yes. Was the War of Northern Aggression fought because of slavery? Not by a long shot.

Funny, I seem to recall reading something about the South firing on Federal property.....

Funny, I seem to recall Yankee troops squatting on Confederate property.

Fort Sumter was Federal, not state property.

And irrelevant, it was in South Carolina, when it seceded, the Federal Government no longer had any authority over it...Anymore than Britain owned its forts in the United States after we declared Independence...

Not necessarily, the US has military bases in other countries....

You should ask what those other countries think of that sometime...

User avatar
Vervaria
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1803
Founded: Oct 31, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Vervaria » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:22 pm

Maurepas wrote:
Vervaria wrote:
Maurepas wrote:
Vervaria wrote:
Bryn Shander wrote:
Vervaria wrote:
Derscon wrote:So?

Basically, what I'm getting is that "People can have self-determination, unless I don't like their opinions." Cool story bro.

Slavery was the straw that broke the camel's back, yes, and the direct cause of secession. However, it is intensely intellectually dishonest to lay everything on the backs of "They just want to whip them negro folk." Did the states secede because of slavery? Yes. Was the War of Northern Aggression fought because of slavery? Not by a long shot.

Funny, I seem to recall reading something about the South firing on Federal property.....

Funny, I seem to recall Yankee troops squatting on Confederate property.

Fort Sumter was Federal, not state property.

And irrelevant, it was in South Carolina, when it seceded, the Federal Government no longer had any authority over it...Anymore than Britain owned its forts in the United States after we declared Independence...

Not necessarily, the US has military bases in other countries....

You should ask what those other countries think of that sometime...

I'm sure if those countries declared war our troops would be expected leave nicely.
Lulz: viewtopic.php?p=2707685#p2707685
Fact book
Robustian wrote:If you disagree with me, you are wrong. Period.

Ashmoria wrote:it worries me more when people who hate the government and dont think it can do a good job at anything get into power and start running things.

Wanderjar wrote:hiding behind this "I WANT SOURCES" wall is very quaint

Self--Esteem wrote:No. I love smearing those people who evidently like their country blown by a nuke and who are too foolish to realise that middle-eastern terrorism is nothing to be fond of.

Novistranaya wrote:After the Civil War, the majority of Southerners were more than happy to accept defeat and acknowledge the fact that (though not immediately) blacks were going to have the same rights as them.

User avatar
Zeppy
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10112
Founded: Oct 30, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Zeppy » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:23 pm

Yehaw, God, Gods or Goddess or god damn Atheists bless the glorious Godland South!
Last edited by Zeppy on Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Maurepas
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36403
Founded: Apr 17, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Maurepas » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:23 pm

Vervaria wrote:
Maurepas wrote:
Vervaria wrote:
Maurepas wrote:
Vervaria wrote:
Bryn Shander wrote:
Vervaria wrote:
Derscon wrote:So?

Basically, what I'm getting is that "People can have self-determination, unless I don't like their opinions." Cool story bro.

Slavery was the straw that broke the camel's back, yes, and the direct cause of secession. However, it is intensely intellectually dishonest to lay everything on the backs of "They just want to whip them negro folk." Did the states secede because of slavery? Yes. Was the War of Northern Aggression fought because of slavery? Not by a long shot.

Funny, I seem to recall reading something about the South firing on Federal property.....

Funny, I seem to recall Yankee troops squatting on Confederate property.

Fort Sumter was Federal, not state property.

And irrelevant, it was in South Carolina, when it seceded, the Federal Government no longer had any authority over it...Anymore than Britain owned its forts in the United States after we declared Independence...

Not necessarily, the US has military bases in other countries....

You should ask what those other countries think of that sometime...

I'm sure if those countries declared war our troops would be expected leave nicely.

And we expected the same from Fort Sumter, Lincoln thought otherwise...If we took Lincoln's position with say, Germany, for example, I would expect them to do the same thing to the forts there...

User avatar
Panzerjaeger
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9856
Founded: Sep 15, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Panzerjaeger » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:24 pm

Zeppy wrote:Yehaw, God, Gods or Goddess or god damn Atheists bless the glorious Godland South!

Zeppy you pinko. :p
Friendly Neighborhood Fascist™
ФАШИЗМ БЕЗГРАНИЧНЫЙ И КРАСНЫЙ
Caninope wrote:Toyota: Keep moving forward, even when you don't want to!

Christmahanikwanzikah wrote:Timothy McVeigh casts... Pyrotechnics!

Greater Americania wrote:lol "No Comrade Ivan! Don't stick your head in there! That's the wood chi...!"

New Kereptica wrote:Fascism: because people are too smart nowadays.

User avatar
Phenia
Senator
 
Posts: 3809
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Phenia » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:24 pm

Melkor Unchained wrote:
Phenia wrote:
Melkor Unchained wrote:But has anyone pointed out yet (especially after all this talk about Britain) that slavery began under European rule, and that the colonies were set up to depend on it? Not that I'm defending the practice, but I can't help but roll my eyes when Europeans wax judgmental on American race relations. Not saying that's happening in this thread, but I find it intensely hypocritical when Euros scold us over slavery when they were still slaughtering Africans well after the US Civil war.


They had however outlawed slavery before the US did.

Yeah, but not that long before. If Europe abolished slavery 100 years earlier and didn't practice violent colonialism, I'd probably respect their criticism a bit more than I presently do. But to say, in effect, that we're morally inferior because we didn't abolish a system that at least half of our country was built to rely on "soon enough" is what really grates me, especially considering many Europeans' blithe ignorance about what their own governments were doing at the exact same time.


What the US government was doing (imperialism) at the same time is just as bad, so to me they cancel out, neither is morally superior. (One could try counting the death tolls suffered by natives at the hands of Western Civilization since the ACW. If one wanted. I don't!)
But on the slavery issue the US did lag, a fact rightfully which the likes of Britain can claim a moral advantage. Not much, but whatever, it's not much of a pissing contest. Seriously, "our country did one thing less wrong than yours once, sorta!"? Who cares!

User avatar
Derscon
Minister
 
Posts: 2994
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Derscon » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:25 pm

Vervaria wrote:
Derscon wrote:So?

Basically, what I'm getting is that "People can have self-determination, unless I don't like their opinions." Cool story bro.

Slavery was the straw that broke the camel's back, yes, and the direct cause of secession. However, it is intensely intellectually dishonest to lay everything on the backs of "They just want to whip them negro folk." Did the states secede because of slavery? Yes. Was the War of Northern Aggression fought because of slavery? Not by a long shot.

Funny, I seem to recall reading something about the South firing on Federal property.....


Not quite.

South Carolina seceded peacefully, but the case of the Fort was still in question. President Buchanan had an agreement with SC that SC would supply the fort so as to keep the men there healthy, and the US would not send supplies to the Fort. This agreement was to last until the dispute over whether the fort was to be considered permanently transferred to the federal government or not could be solved.

However, when Lincoln took office, one of the first things he asked his Cabinet and military officials was how to start a war, and how to provoke the South into firing first.

Lincoln wanted the war, and he would stop at nothing to get it.

Of course, they realized that there was an easy way to do it; go back on the agreement and start supplying the fort. And that's what happened. Lincoln revoked the standing agreement and refused to negotiate, and then started supplying the fort. The South did exactly what Lincoln wanted them to do; they fired on the fort, because the Union broke the agreement.

So while technically, the South fired the first shots, to say it was strictly a southern aggression would be grossly oversimplifying the situation, and actually be factually incorrect.
NationStates remains an excellent educational tool for children. It can teach you exactly just how far people will go to gain extrajudicially what they could never gain legitimately. ~ Questers
And congratulations to Derscon, who has finally codified the exact basis on which NS issues work. ~ Ardchoille

瞞天過海

User avatar
Vervaria
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1803
Founded: Oct 31, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Vervaria » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:25 pm

Maurepas wrote:
Vervaria wrote:
Maurepas wrote:
Vervaria wrote:
Maurepas wrote:
Vervaria wrote:
Bryn Shander wrote:
Vervaria wrote:
Derscon wrote:So?

Basically, what I'm getting is that "People can have self-determination, unless I don't like their opinions." Cool story bro.

Slavery was the straw that broke the camel's back, yes, and the direct cause of secession. However, it is intensely intellectually dishonest to lay everything on the backs of "They just want to whip them negro folk." Did the states secede because of slavery? Yes. Was the War of Northern Aggression fought because of slavery? Not by a long shot.

Funny, I seem to recall reading something about the South firing on Federal property.....

Funny, I seem to recall Yankee troops squatting on Confederate property.

Fort Sumter was Federal, not state property.

And irrelevant, it was in South Carolina, when it seceded, the Federal Government no longer had any authority over it...Anymore than Britain owned its forts in the United States after we declared Independence...

Not necessarily, the US has military bases in other countries....

You should ask what those other countries think of that sometime...

I'm sure if those countries declared war our troops would be expected leave nicely.

And we expected the same from Fort Sumter, Lincoln thought otherwise...If we took Lincoln's position with say, Germany, for example, I would expect them to do the same thing to the forts there...

So essentially, Lincoln was supposed to surrender Federal property because the South revolted over the election of someone they didn't like.
Lulz: viewtopic.php?p=2707685#p2707685
Fact book
Robustian wrote:If you disagree with me, you are wrong. Period.

Ashmoria wrote:it worries me more when people who hate the government and dont think it can do a good job at anything get into power and start running things.

Wanderjar wrote:hiding behind this "I WANT SOURCES" wall is very quaint

Self--Esteem wrote:No. I love smearing those people who evidently like their country blown by a nuke and who are too foolish to realise that middle-eastern terrorism is nothing to be fond of.

Novistranaya wrote:After the Civil War, the majority of Southerners were more than happy to accept defeat and acknowledge the fact that (though not immediately) blacks were going to have the same rights as them.

User avatar
Maurepas
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36403
Founded: Apr 17, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Maurepas » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:25 pm

Phenia wrote:
Melkor Unchained wrote:
Phenia wrote:
Melkor Unchained wrote:But has anyone pointed out yet (especially after all this talk about Britain) that slavery began under European rule, and that the colonies were set up to depend on it? Not that I'm defending the practice, but I can't help but roll my eyes when Europeans wax judgmental on American race relations. Not saying that's happening in this thread, but I find it intensely hypocritical when Euros scold us over slavery when they were still slaughtering Africans well after the US Civil war.


They had however outlawed slavery before the US did.

Yeah, but not that long before. If Europe abolished slavery 100 years earlier and didn't practice violent colonialism, I'd probably respect their criticism a bit more than I presently do. But to say, in effect, that we're morally inferior because we didn't abolish a system that at least half of our country was built to rely on "soon enough" is what really grates me, especially considering many Europeans' blithe ignorance about what their own governments were doing at the exact same time.


What the US government was doing (imperialism) at the same time is just as bad, so to me they cancel out, neither is morally superior. (One could try counting the death tolls suffered by natives at the hands of Western Civilization since the ACW. If one wanted. I don't!)
But on the slavery issue the US did lag, a fact rightfully which the likes of Britain can claim a moral advantage. Not much, but whatever, it's not much of a pissing contest. Seriously, "our country did one thing less wrong than yours once, sorta!"? Who cares!

Agreed, and it's rather the position I take with the North and the South, tbqh...

User avatar
Melkor Unchained
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 4647
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Melkor Unchained » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:26 pm

Phenia wrote:The Confederacy fanboyism here is nauseating..

Well, I'm not going to get all HURR DURR SLAVERY IZ GUD or anything, but I have a lot of roots in the south. I may be a Northerner in terms of temperament and upbringing, but I'm a Reb by blood: both sides of my family trace themselves back to Virginia, and my some of my ancestors on my father's side arrived here not long after the Mayflower in the mid- or late-1600s.
"I am the Elder King: Melkor, first and mightiest of the Valar, who was before the world, and made it. The shadow of my purpose lies upon Arda, and all that is in it bends slowly and surely to my will. But upon all whom you love my thought shall weigh as a cloud of Doom, and it shall bring them down into darkness and despair."

User avatar
Zeppy
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10112
Founded: Oct 30, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Zeppy » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:26 pm

Techno-Soviet wrote:
Palledonia wrote:Who on here is defending the Confederacy?


I could name a few...

EDIT:

Image


That man is amazing.

HIM?!
From the information I heard, he is hated in the South, especially Atalanta.

User avatar
Yootopia
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 8410
Founded: Dec 28, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Yootopia » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:26 pm

Natapoc wrote:From the flags flying in some parts of the south I'm not sure the civil war is over yet (to some people).

Yes, well, those people are stupid.
End the Modigarchy now.

User avatar
Vervaria
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1803
Founded: Oct 31, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Vervaria » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:26 pm

Derscon wrote:
Vervaria wrote:
Derscon wrote:So?

Basically, what I'm getting is that "People can have self-determination, unless I don't like their opinions." Cool story bro.

Slavery was the straw that broke the camel's back, yes, and the direct cause of secession. However, it is intensely intellectually dishonest to lay everything on the backs of "They just want to whip them negro folk." Did the states secede because of slavery? Yes. Was the War of Northern Aggression fought because of slavery? Not by a long shot.

Funny, I seem to recall reading something about the South firing on Federal property.....


Not quite.

South Carolina seceded peacefully, but the case of the Fort was still in question. President Buchanan had an agreement with SC that SC would supply the fort so as to keep the men there healthy, and the US would not send supplies to the Fort. This agreement was to last until the dispute over whether the fort was to be considered permanently transferred to the federal government or not could be solved.

However, when Lincoln took office, one of the first things he asked his Cabinet and military officials was how to start a war, and how to provoke the South into firing first.

Lincoln wanted the war, and he would stop at nothing to get it.

Of course, they realized that there was an easy way to do it; go back on the agreement and start supplying the fort. And that's what happened. Lincoln revoked the standing agreement and refused to negotiate, and then started supplying the fort. The South did exactly what Lincoln wanted them to do; they fired on the fort, because the Union broke the agreement.

So while technically, the South fired the first shots, to say it was strictly a southern aggression would be grossly oversimplifying the situation, and actually be factually incorrect.

I'm going to have to ask you to source the claim that Lincoln wanted a war.
Lulz: viewtopic.php?p=2707685#p2707685
Fact book
Robustian wrote:If you disagree with me, you are wrong. Period.

Ashmoria wrote:it worries me more when people who hate the government and dont think it can do a good job at anything get into power and start running things.

Wanderjar wrote:hiding behind this "I WANT SOURCES" wall is very quaint

Self--Esteem wrote:No. I love smearing those people who evidently like their country blown by a nuke and who are too foolish to realise that middle-eastern terrorism is nothing to be fond of.

Novistranaya wrote:After the Civil War, the majority of Southerners were more than happy to accept defeat and acknowledge the fact that (though not immediately) blacks were going to have the same rights as them.

User avatar
Derscon
Minister
 
Posts: 2994
Founded: Antiquity
Ex-Nation

Postby Derscon » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:26 pm

Phenia wrote:
Melkor Unchained wrote:
Phenia wrote:
Melkor Unchained wrote:But has anyone pointed out yet (especially after all this talk about Britain) that slavery began under European rule, and that the colonies were set up to depend on it? Not that I'm defending the practice, but I can't help but roll my eyes when Europeans wax judgmental on American race relations. Not saying that's happening in this thread, but I find it intensely hypocritical when Euros scold us over slavery when they were still slaughtering Africans well after the US Civil war.


They had however outlawed slavery before the US did.

Yeah, but not that long before. If Europe abolished slavery 100 years earlier and didn't practice violent colonialism, I'd probably respect their criticism a bit more than I presently do. But to say, in effect, that we're morally inferior because we didn't abolish a system that at least half of our country was built to rely on "soon enough" is what really grates me, especially considering many Europeans' blithe ignorance about what their own governments were doing at the exact same time.


Interesting tidbit: With the money spent on the Civil War, each and every slave could have been bought by the government and freed (like the UK did within its own borders), as well as given their own plot of land.

What the US government was doing (imperialism) at the same time is just as bad, so to me they cancel out, neither is morally superior. (One could try counting the death tolls suffered by natives at the hands of Western Civilization since the ACW. If one wanted. I don't!)
But on the slavery issue the US did lag, a fact rightfully which the likes of Britain can claim a moral advantage. Not much, but whatever, it's not much of a pissing contest. Seriously, "our country did one thing less wrong than yours once, sorta!"? Who cares!
NationStates remains an excellent educational tool for children. It can teach you exactly just how far people will go to gain extrajudicially what they could never gain legitimately. ~ Questers
And congratulations to Derscon, who has finally codified the exact basis on which NS issues work. ~ Ardchoille

瞞天過海

User avatar
Kriania
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1122
Founded: Jan 29, 2010
Ex-Nation

Postby Kriania » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:26 pm

It wasnt about slavery until late 1862, when Licoln declared the emancipation proclamation. It originally was for the susppresion of the rebel Confederate states. From late 1862 on it served the duel puropose of slavery and rebellion
Start a embassy in Kriania today: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=38986
Army 2,000,000
Navy 500,000
Airforce, 200,000
Spec Op: 20,000
Kriania is currently in a state of civil war: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=39459
K-S Uranium Sales Store Front Conglomerate: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=39972

User avatar
Zeppy
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10112
Founded: Oct 30, 2008
Ex-Nation

Postby Zeppy » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:27 pm

Panzerjaeger wrote:
Zeppy wrote:Yehaw, God, Gods or Goddess or god damn Atheists bless the glorious Godland South!

Zeppy you pinko. :p

Well, my right beats your left! :p
The Confederacy..is interesting to me to say the least.

User avatar
Phenia
Senator
 
Posts: 3809
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Phenia » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:27 pm

Maurepas wrote:
Phenia wrote:
Maurepas wrote:
Vervaria wrote:
Bryn Shander wrote:
Vervaria wrote:
Derscon wrote:So?

Basically, what I'm getting is that "People can have self-determination, unless I don't like their opinions." Cool story bro.

Slavery was the straw that broke the camel's back, yes, and the direct cause of secession. However, it is intensely intellectually dishonest to lay everything on the backs of "They just want to whip them negro folk." Did the states secede because of slavery? Yes. Was the War of Northern Aggression fought because of slavery? Not by a long shot.

Funny, I seem to recall reading something about the South firing on Federal property.....

Funny, I seem to recall Yankee troops squatting on Confederate property.

Fort Sumter was Federal, not state property.

And irrelevant, it was in South Carolina, when it seceded, the Federal Government no longer had any authority over it...Anymore than Britain owned its forts in the United States after we declared Independence...


The authority of the USA doesn't just magically evaporate because a bunch of slave-owning yokels decide to take their toys and go home.

It is unreasonable in the extreme to expect a military base held by the US government to leave immediately the moment the local anti-USA crowd decides to call their rebellious treason a "confederacy."

And furthermore it is nothing but an act of war to then fire on that fort. But even IF as you say that Fort Sumter magically transferred authority and ownership to the Confederacy, then pray tell, why was the Confederacy attacking its own fort? Oh, right- just attacking the troops there. Golly, it's almost like they wanted to start a war or something!
:roll:

The Confederacy fanboyism here is nauseating..

For the same reasons the United States had to take forts from Britain, but, the fact that you think that it was just a bunch of "slave owning yokels" prettymuch makes your position clear...

The self-righteous Union fanboyism here is nauseating...


Oh dear, I called them slave-owning yokels, how offensive. I guess the slave-owning part doesn't offend you, just the "yokel" part?
And I also showed why your argument is wrong and you didn't respond so I guess you've made your position clear as well. ;)

User avatar
Maurepas
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36403
Founded: Apr 17, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Maurepas » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:28 pm

Vervaria wrote:
Maurepas wrote:
Vervaria wrote:
Maurepas wrote:
Vervaria wrote:
Maurepas wrote:
Vervaria wrote:
Bryn Shander wrote:
Vervaria wrote:
Derscon wrote:So?

Basically, what I'm getting is that "People can have self-determination, unless I don't like their opinions." Cool story bro.

Slavery was the straw that broke the camel's back, yes, and the direct cause of secession. However, it is intensely intellectually dishonest to lay everything on the backs of "They just want to whip them negro folk." Did the states secede because of slavery? Yes. Was the War of Northern Aggression fought because of slavery? Not by a long shot.

Funny, I seem to recall reading something about the South firing on Federal property.....

Funny, I seem to recall Yankee troops squatting on Confederate property.

Fort Sumter was Federal, not state property.

And irrelevant, it was in South Carolina, when it seceded, the Federal Government no longer had any authority over it...Anymore than Britain owned its forts in the United States after we declared Independence...

Not necessarily, the US has military bases in other countries....

You should ask what those other countries think of that sometime...

I'm sure if those countries declared war our troops would be expected leave nicely.

And we expected the same from Fort Sumter, Lincoln thought otherwise...If we took Lincoln's position with say, Germany, for example, I would expect them to do the same thing to the forts there...

So essentially, Lincoln was supposed to surrender Federal property because the South revolted over the election of someone they didn't like.

It was a little more complicated than that, I would recommend seeing the arguments the Continental Congress gave to our ambassadors in Britain during the Revolution, they argued never to take representation in the Parliament because they would be continually outvoted...

It was the same situation in the US Government, and it wasn't truly solved until the Western Territories became states, and voted what today we'd call "Red States", balancing the power...

The South revolted because it lacked equal political representation at the time, and there were various issues with which this played out, Slavery foremost among them, as well as Tariffs, the Presidential elections, etc...

User avatar
Panzerjaeger
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9856
Founded: Sep 15, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Panzerjaeger » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:28 pm

Zeppy wrote:
Panzerjaeger wrote:
Zeppy wrote:Yehaw, God, Gods or Goddess or god damn Atheists bless the glorious Godland South!

Zeppy you pinko. :p

Well, my right beats your left! :p
The Confederacy..is interesting to me to say the least.

The whole Civil War is interesting to me I had family on both sides of the conflict my room easily highlights this. Confederate Battle Flag one side and a Northern Calvary Sabre awarded to a distant uncle. :p
Friendly Neighborhood Fascist™
ФАШИЗМ БЕЗГРАНИЧНЫЙ И КРАСНЫЙ
Caninope wrote:Toyota: Keep moving forward, even when you don't want to!

Christmahanikwanzikah wrote:Timothy McVeigh casts... Pyrotechnics!

Greater Americania wrote:lol "No Comrade Ivan! Don't stick your head in there! That's the wood chi...!"

New Kereptica wrote:Fascism: because people are too smart nowadays.

User avatar
Tekania
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 21378
Founded: May 26, 2004
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Tekania » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:29 pm

Phenia wrote:
It is unreasonable in the extreme to expect a military base held by the US government to leave immediately


As a note, it's wasn't a "Military Base", it was an unfinished fort that had been unauthoritatively (that is. without orders from Washington) manned by troops from another Fort for only 6 days before calls for it to be unmanned. So no, it is not "unreasonable" to expect them to leave immediately... They seemed to be able to man it immediately... Why not expect them to leave immediately?
Such heroic nonsense!

User avatar
Maurepas
Post Czar
 
Posts: 36403
Founded: Apr 17, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Maurepas » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:29 pm

Phenia wrote:
Maurepas wrote:For the same reasons the United States had to take forts from Britain, but, the fact that you think that it was just a bunch of "slave owning yokels" prettymuch makes your position clear...

The self-righteous Union fanboyism here is nauseating...


Oh dear, I called them slave-owning yokels, how offensive. I guess the slave-owning part doesn't offend you, just the "yokel" part?
And I also showed why your argument is wrong and you didn't respond so I guess you've made your position clear as well. ;)

Where in your post did you address the forts that Britain owned? That was my argument...

Lets dispense with the name-calling, alright?

User avatar
Phenia
Senator
 
Posts: 3809
Founded: May 06, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Phenia » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:30 pm

Melkor Unchained wrote:
Phenia wrote:The Confederacy fanboyism here is nauseating..

Well, I'm not going to get all HURR DURR SLAVERY IZ GUD or anything, but I have a lot of roots in the south. I may be a Northerner in terms of temperament and upbringing, but I'm a Reb by blood: both sides of my family trace themselves back to Virginia, and my some of my ancestors on my father's side arrived here not long after the Mayflower in the mid- or late-1600s.


I don't understand how one could be a Reb... a socio-political orientation "by blood." Shit, I don't even agree with my own parents, let alone all their ancestors! But perhaps I'm speaking as a typical California mutt whose blood is all over the place. :lol:

User avatar
Muravyets
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 12755
Founded: Aug 18, 2005
Ex-Nation

Postby Muravyets » Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:30 pm

The Cat-Tribe wrote:(Before launching into my main tirade I will note that I am not planning on returning to regular posting, although frequent lurking has led me to believe these forums have improved since I last posted here.)

That said, my purpose is to try to put to rest the continual reappearance of revisionist lies about the Confederacy and the Civil War -- i.e., "the war wasn't about slavery," "the issue was state's rights," "the Confederates were fighting for freedom/limited government," etc.

This bullshit is clearly and unequivocally contradicted by the historical record.

1. Declarations of Secession

Just as the Declaration of Independence gave the reasons for the American Revolution, the Southern Declarations of Secession gave the reasons behind the forming of the Confederacy. You will find little in this documents about "state's rights" -- other than those related to slavery -- or individual freedom -- except the right to own slaves. To the contrary, you will find consistent complaints about failures of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to FORCE new states to accept slavery or to REQUIRE free states to return slaves.

But let's let these fine documents speak for themselves:

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery...


Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

...We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

...

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.


Georgia

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. ...


A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* [emphasis in the original]; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.


2. Constitution of the Confederate States of America

The CSA Constitution is nearly identitical to that of the the U.S. Constitution at the time of secession. Curiously, however, you will search in vain for any significant increase in the rights of states or individuals under the CSA Constitution. Four very, very minor differences are made regarding the powers of states -- the power to enter into treaties with other states to regulate waterways, the power to tax foreign and domestic ships that use their waterways, the power to impeach federally-appointed state officials, and the power to distribute "bills of credit." These are hardly major victories for state's rights. Furthermore, nothing in the CSA makes any provision for secession.

On the other hand, sweeping new powers are granted to the CSA federal government. Foremost, is that states are REQUIRED to allow slavery. And any new state joining the Confederacy is to be a SLAVE state. So much for state's rights on that issue. Four different clauses stop just short of making owning slaves mandatory.

3. Confederate Vice-President Alexander Stephen's Cornerstone Speech

...

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other —though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind—from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just—but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

In the conflict thus far, success has been on our side, complete throughout the length and breadth of the Confederate States. It is upon this, as I have stated, our social fabric is firmly planted; and I cannot permit myself to doubt the ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout the civilized and enlightened world.

....
(emphasis added)

I'll note that Stephens is specific that "the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution" was the issue of slavery.

4. Statements by Confederate President Jefferson Davis

Jefferson Davis praised slavery as a worthy institution by which "a superior race" had transformed "brutal savages into docile, intelligent and civilized agricultural laborers." See, e.g., Message of Jefferson Davis to the Provisional Congress of the Confederate States of America, Montgomery, April 29, 1861.;

Jefferson Davis' reply in the Senate to William H. Seward, February 29, 1860

The condition of slavery with us is, in a word, Mr. President, nothing but the form of civil government instituted for a class of people not fit to govern themselves. It is exactly what in every State exists in some form or other. It is just that kind of control which is extended in every northern State over its convicts, its lunatics, its minors, its apprentices. It is but a form of civil government for those who by their nature are not fit to govern themselves. We recognize the fact of the inferiority stamped upon that race of men by the Creator, and from the cradle to the grave, our Government, as a civil institution, marks that inferiority.



5. Apostles of Disunion

I highly recommend reading "Apostles of Disunion: Southern Secession Commissioners and the Causes of the Civil War" by Charles B. Dew. Although the language below is taken from this source and this source, I have read Dr. Dew's remarkable book.

Dew teaches history at Williams College in Massachusetts. But he is a son of the South with a family tree full of Rebel ancestors. Dew uses the words of real Confederates to rebut the neo-Confederates. The historian explained that after the Rebels lost the Civil War, many of their civilian and military leaders wrote their memoirs, in which they maintained "that slavery had absolutely nothing to do with the South's drive for independence." He added that their whitewash is being applied by white guy "neo-Confederate writers and partisans of the present day.

Dew focused his book on a group of state-appointed commissioners who made the rounds of the slave states in 1860 and early 1861. They preached the same racist line: the only way to keep Lincoln and the Yankee "Black Republicans" from destroying slavery and white supremacy was to start a new Southern nation.

"Our fathers made this a government for the white man, rejecting the negro, as an ignorant, inferior, barbarian race, incapable of self-government, and not, therefore, entitled to be associated with the white man upon terms of civil, political or social equality," a Mississippi commissioner said.

Likewise, a Kentucky-born Alabama commissioner to Kentucky pleaded that secession was the only way the South could sustain "the heaven-ordained superiority of the white over the black race." Another Alabama ambassador said ideas that slavery was immoral and that God created all people the same were rooted in "an infidel theory [that] has corrupted the Northern heart."

Dew concluded, "By illuminating so clearly the racial content of the secession persuasion, the commissioners would seem to have laid to rest, once and for all, any notion that slavery had nothing to do with the coming of the Civil War."

6. Views of "ordinary soldiers"

John S. Mosby, A Confederate Soldier’s Thoughts on the Civil War, 1907:

"The South went to war on account of slavery. South Carolina went to war – as she said in her [2] Secession proclamation – because slavery wd. not be secure under Lincoln. South Carolina ought to know what was the cause for her seceding."


Chandra Manning in her book What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War:

has looked at a remarkable wealth of letters, diaries, and regimental newspapers, assembling data on what 657 Union soldiers and 477 Confederate soldiers thought they were doing over the four years of combat, rather than what some of them wrote in hazy, embittered, or sentimental retrospect. ....

Her conclusion is that the Americans who fought the Civil War overwhelmingly thought they were fighting about slavery, and that we should take their word for it.

It is perhaps not surprising that in 1864 the black men of the Fourteenth Rhode Island Heavy Artillery reminded one another that “upon your prowess, discipline, and character; depend the destinies of four millions of people.” It may be more surprising to find a white Union soldier writing in 1862 that “the fact that slavery is the sole undeniable cause of this infamous rebellion, that it is a war of, by, and for Slavery, is as plain as the noon-day sun.” That same year a soldier on the other side, in Morgan’s Confederate Brigade, wrote that “any man who pretends to believe that this is not a war for the emancipation of the blacks . . . is either a fool or a liar.” Manning can and does multiply these examples, and she finds that they vastly outweigh the evidence for any other dominant motive among the combatants.
[cite]

I could go on and on and on and on, but have already written more than is necessary to prove my point. Can we now here no more disingenious defenses of the Confederacy?

:hug: :kiss: I've missed you!

But I'm afraid I'm going to have to keep on missing you if the responses to your OP are anything to judge by. So far the thread is dominated by:

> People ignoring the entire OP and claiming that the Civil War wasn't all about slavery.

> People shrugging the war off with a "meh, who cares?" as if we don't live in a world of revisionists trying to claim the Confederacy were some kind of libertarian heroes or some such, and a world where the racism of that age is still active in the US, and a world where people are still willing to undermine, even destroy the union of the US so they an retain the power to oppress others.

> People trying to make slavery look like it was someone else's fault, as if the UK somehow foisted it upon us and the poor southern states were helpless to do anything about it for nearly 100 years after the Revolution.

> People even trotting out that whole "the winners write the history" claptrap, as if the slavery issue is somehow a myth, as if the documents the OP quotes were not written by leaders of the Confederacy.

In other words exactly the kind of weaseling refusal to accept the past, own it, and improve from it, that the OP decries.
Last edited by Muravyets on Mon Apr 05, 2010 3:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Kick back at Cafe Muravyets
And check out my other RP, too. (Don't take others' word for it -- see for yourself. ;) )
I agree with Muravyets because she scares me. -- Verdigroth
However, I am still not the topic of this thread.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Antityranicals, Auristania, Cantelo, Crysuko, Fartsniffage, Galloism, Gayda, Greater Miami Shores, Ifreann, Kernen, Kragholm Free States, Mazzogiorno, MSN [Bot], Nakena, Novus America, Ors Might, Rojava Free State, Salandriagado, Samadhi, Samudera Darussalam, Sodoran Alesia, Telconi, The Black Forrest, The Caleshan Valkyrie, The East Marches II, The Greater Ohio Valley, The New California Republic, The Two Jerseys, The Vahkiran, True Refuge, Tybra, Vassenor, VoVoDoCo

Advertisement

Remove ads