End the lies: The Confederacy was about slavery

[Maurepas]

I've heard your agruments before, and they still rely on trying to paint everyone involved with the brush of the Elites in the South....

Unfortunately, alot more people were involved than the ones that wrote those documents, just as there were alot more people involved in the Revolution than just religious puritans...In effect it is the same fallacy that is used when they call all Communists, Stalinists, and it is just as much a fallacy here at is it is there...

Still, glad to see you're still around at least, you've been missed,

[Melkor Unchained]

I'm not sure I would say slavery was the direct cause of the war (by itself) but it was the issue that made all the other differences between the north and south irreconcilable.

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.

It is not hypocritical so long as the "European" in question also scolded involved nations of europe for the same.

True, but in my experience many of them don't.

[Natapoc]

This was considered a basic human right. I realize rights have gone out of style lately in favor of nihilism but taxation without representation was seen as a fundamental violation of natural rights.

What are the narural right and from where do they get their authority?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

[United Southernours]

Morrill Tariff. I'd do you Libs some good to learn about it.

[North Suran]

I'm not sure I would say slavery was the direct cause of the war (by itself) but it was the issue that made all the other differences between the north and south irreconcilable.

True. While slavery may have been at the heart of the Confederate Government, it was not the sole factor which motivated the Southern population to seceede.

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.

The problem is, not only did Europe take the lead in the abolition movement, it was also the most active in abolishing the slave trade itself. Furthermore, while racism was still high in the 20th century, it was not institutionalised as in the USA. Furthermore, while the US Government had seen fit to condemn European imperialism pre-WWII, it immediately reversed on this position when it became convienent for the USA due to the threat of the USSR.

[Maurepas]

I'm not sure I would say slavery was the direct cause of the war (by itself) but it was the issue that made all the other differences between the north and south irreconcilable.

True. While slavery may have been at the heart of the Confederate Government, it was not the sole factor which motivated the Southern population to seceede.

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.

The problem is, not only did Europe take the lead in the abolition movement, it was also the most active in abolishing the slave trade itself. Furthermore, while racism was still high in the 20th century, it was not institutionalised as in the USA. Furthermore, while the US Government had seen fit to condemn European imperialism pre-WWII, it immediately reversed on this position when it became convienent for the USA due to the threat of the USSR.

Yeah, but, I've always felt Europe to be a bit Hypocritical in that endeavour, Portugal may have made slavery illegal in Portugal, but, A) there's really no use for slaves in Portugal, and B) It continued to profit from it through its holdings in Brazil...

The same can be said of Britain in India and Asia, and France in Southeast Asia and Africa, etc....

[Yootopia]

You mean an economy and way of life built on slave ownership?

-ish. Slavery was a large part of it, but the two blocs had fundamentally different economies (structurally) and wanted fundamentally different things from the federal government. That would have been the case whether there had been slavery or not.

*winces*

A better response would have been: "... as established by the British."

A bit of a Super Bold Claim right there, since real economic base of the CSA was of course in Narlins, which was French, and Alabama, which was also French. Texas was also not a British territory, and was kind of important for the Confederacy.

[North Suran]

You mean an economy and way of life built on slave ownership?

-ish. Slavery was a large part of it, but the two blocs had fundamentally different economies (structurally) and wanted fundamentally different things from the federal government. That would have been the case whether there had been slavery or not.

*winces*

A better response would have been: "... as established by the British."

Just because the previous regime established something doesn't mean that their successors are exempt from guilt if they decide to continue it. For example, Uzbekistan.

[Lacadaemon]

But it couldn't have "take[n] off" without the framework put in place by European colonists.

I'm not convinced about that. There's always a surplus of poor people. And so, if you look at 1816, and the great migration from the North East to west, had there not been entrenched slavery, those chaps could very easily ended up sharecropping in the south instead. Done and done. The only reason why they didn't go south was because nobody wanted them in the south owing to the slaves.

Anyway, the south was never going to be some mercantilist pro tarrif bloc. Though probably without slavery things would not have gotten so out of hand.

[Maurepas]

You mean an economy and way of life built on slave ownership?

-ish. Slavery was a large part of it, but the two blocs had fundamentally different economies (structurally) and wanted fundamentally different things from the federal government. That would have been the case whether there had been slavery or not.

*winces*

A better response would have been: "... as established by the British."

A bit of a Super Bold Claim right there, since real economic base of the CSA was of course in Narlins, which was French, and Alabama, which was also French. Texas was also not a British territory, and was kind of important for the Confederacy.

Nah, the real economic base of the Confederacy was always the Delta in Mississippi, which was the problem of course, Cotton alone isn't much of an economic base...

New Orleans was the most prosperous city, but, it was largely only prosperous for itself, through the port and the various gambling/bars involved, still is to this day really...

More important really was Virginia and Atlanta where the few manufacturing centers were...

[Yootopia]

The same can be said of Britain in India and Asia.

Err how? We might have had poor people with a really crap quality of life in India and Asia, but then we did back in Blighty itself throughout this period.

[Panzerjaeger]

You mean an economy and way of life built on slave ownership?

-ish. Slavery was a large part of it, but the two blocs had fundamentally different economies (structurally) and wanted fundamentally different things from the federal government. That would have been the case whether there had been slavery or not.

*winces*

A better response would have been: "... as established by the British."

A bit of a Super Bold Claim right there, since real economic base of the CSA was of course in Narlins, which was French, and Alabama, which was also French. Texas was also not a British territory, and was kind of important for the Confederacy.

Nah, the real economic base of the Confederacy was always the Delta in Mississippi, which was the problem of course, Cotton alone isn't much of an economic base...

New Orleans was the most prosperous city, but, it was largely only prosperous for itself, through the port and the various gambling/bars involved, still is to this day really...

More important really was Virginia and Atlanta where the few manufacturing centers were...

And when those got razed to the ground Goodbye Confederacy. People seem to assume Sherman's March to the Sea was just to prove a point when in reality it was to destroy a key Confederate Industrial Stronghold.

[Maurepas]

The same can be said of Britain in India and Asia.

Err how? We might have had poor people with a really crap quality of life in India and Asia, but then we did back in Blighty itself throughout this period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in ... bt_bondage

Gyan Prakash, [78] is of the opinion that the abolition of slavery in India in 1843 constructed the British government as a force of reason and progress, while it actually refashioned slavery and turned it into debt-bondage. In form of a detailed case study, he has studied the changing fate of the kamias, a group of agricultural labourers, who were largely members of a larger outcaste Bhuniya community in the Gaya district of south Bihar. These kamias had lohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_ ... ageng-term relations to landlords (maliks), who mostly belonged to upper castes. In fact, this kamia-malik tie was shaped like a patron-client relationship as is evident for example through the institution of kamiauti, a transaction of grain, money and a plot of land given to the kamia by the landlord if the former’s son married -"these relations were structured as dependent ties that represented the landlord as a munificent patron and the labourer as his dependent subject".

It's not traditional slavery of course, but, still is, imo, rather similar to that which was done in the Northeastern United States at the time, and to illegal immigrants in the US today...

[Melkor Unchained]

You mean an economy and way of life built on slave ownership?

-ish. Slavery was a large part of it, but the two blocs had fundamentally different economies (structurally) and wanted fundamentally different things from the federal government. That would have been the case whether there had been slavery or not.

*winces*

A better response would have been: "... as established by the British."

Just because the previous regime established something doesn't mean that their successors are exempt from guilt if they decide to continue it. For example, Uzbekistan.

I understand, but in the grand scheme of things it didn't take all that long for the slavery issue to come to a head. Britain herself only abolished slavery in 1807 or 1833 (depending on which law you think had the greater actual effect on abolition), and America followed suit a couple decades later.

@Yootopia re: the French: yes, but the original colonies were established by the Brits, who were the dominant cultural force in that area for some time. I'm not talking so much about the Confederacy per se as I'm citing the cultural and economic forces that led to its creation. By the time the Civil War rolled around, America had started to develop its own culture anyway; similar to (in some ways) European culture but different in that it was a fusion of French, British, Irish, German, etc.

[Yootopia]

We still have that bond today, Maurepas. That's how a bank can take your house if you don't pay a mortgage.

[North Suran]

The same can be said of Britain in India and Asia.

Err how? We might have had poor people with a really crap quality of life in India and Asia, but then we did back in Blighty itself throughout this period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in ... bt_bondage

Gyan Prakash, [78] is of the opinion that the abolition of slavery in India in 1843 constructed the British government as a force of reason and progress, while it actually refashioned slavery and turned it into debt-bondage. In form of a detailed case study, he has studied the changing fate of the kamias, a group of agricultural labourers, who were largely members of a larger outcaste Bhuniya community in the Gaya district of south Bihar. These kamias had lohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_ ... ageng-term relations to landlords (maliks), who mostly belonged to upper castes. In fact, this kamia-malik tie was shaped like a patron-client relationship as is evident for example through the institution of kamiauti, a transaction of grain, money and a plot of land given to the kamia by the landlord if the former’s son married -"these relations were structured as dependent ties that represented the landlord as a munificent patron and the labourer as his dependent subject".

It's not traditional slavery of course, but, still is, imo, rather similar to that which was done in the Northeastern United States at the time, and to illegal immigrants in the US today...

So-called 'economic slavery' is a rather controversial subject. At any rate, it is certainly non-comparable to institutionalised slavery.

[Maurepas]

You mean an economy and way of life built on slave ownership?

-ish. Slavery was a large part of it, but the two blocs had fundamentally different economies (structurally) and wanted fundamentally different things from the federal government. That would have been the case whether there had been slavery or not.

*winces*

A better response would have been: "... as established by the British."

A bit of a Super Bold Claim right there, since real economic base of the CSA was of course in Narlins, which was French, and Alabama, which was also French. Texas was also not a British territory, and was kind of important for the Confederacy.

Nah, the real economic base of the Confederacy was always the Delta in Mississippi, which was the problem of course, Cotton alone isn't much of an economic base...

New Orleans was the most prosperous city, but, it was largely only prosperous for itself, through the port and the various gambling/bars involved, still is to this day really...

More important really was Virginia and Atlanta where the few manufacturing centers were...

And when those got razed to the ground Goodbye Confederacy. People seem to assume Sherman's March to the Sea was just to prove a point when in reality it was to destroy a key Confederate Industrial Stronghold.

Yep, the South could survive until the powder mills in Atlanta and Augusta are gone, after that, it's prettymuch the end....

[Phenia]

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. And it's not as if the US wasn't slaughtering people in the name of imperialism after the ACW. Philippine-American War for example. The "pacification campaign."

I don't find it hypocritical to scold anyone over slavery, unless you happen to support slavery or slave ownership yourself.

[Maurepas]

We still have that bond today, Maurepas. That's how a bank can take your house if you don't pay a mortgage.

And I included today, I don't consider it any better, actually, I consider it fairly worse, tbqh...

[Panzerjaeger]

You mean an economy and way of life built on slave ownership?

-ish. Slavery was a large part of it, but the two blocs had fundamentally different economies (structurally) and wanted fundamentally different things from the federal government. That would have been the case whether there had been slavery or not.

*winces*

A better response would have been: "... as established by the British."

A bit of a Super Bold Claim right there, since real economic base of the CSA was of course in Narlins, which was French, and Alabama, which was also French. Texas was also not a British territory, and was kind of important for the Confederacy.

Nah, the real economic base of the Confederacy was always the Delta in Mississippi, which was the problem of course, Cotton alone isn't much of an economic base...

New Orleans was the most prosperous city, but, it was largely only prosperous for itself, through the port and the various gambling/bars involved, still is to this day really...

More important really was Virginia and Atlanta where the few manufacturing centers were...

And when those got razed to the ground Goodbye Confederacy. People seem to assume Sherman's March to the Sea was just to prove a point when in reality it was to destroy a key Confederate Industrial Stronghold.

Yep, the South could survive until the powder mills in Atlanta and Augusta are gone, after that, it's prettymuch the end....

Kind of takes the bluster out of a secessionist movement doesn't it?

[Derscon]

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.

[Yootopia]

New Orleans was the most prosperous city, but, it was largely only prosperous for itself, through the port and the various gambling/bars involved, still is to this day really...

That cotton's worth nothing to the CSA if they can't get it out of the country, and New Orleans was about the best port to sell from. That's why they were absolutely shafted after the situation there fell out of the Confederacy's hands.

[Free and Open States]

Well, we now know the South would have failed, but it is/should be the right of a state in the union to peacefully succeed. We need and amendment to the Constitution to allow for it.

[Vervaria]

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.....

[Free and Open States]

BTW, I'm from the North.