End the lies: The Confederacy was about slavery

[Sdaeriji]

I addressed all the points that you presented. Just because you didn't make any isn't my problem.

Oh man, you got me.

Your post attempted to portray slavery as widespread outside the Confederacy. I demonstrated how that was a blatant falsehood. You replied to my points with sarcasm and non-points.

[Maxen von Bismarck]

I addressed all the points that you presented. Just because you didn't make any isn't my problem.

Oh man, you got me.

Your post attempted to portray slavery as widespread outside the Confederacy. I demonstrated how that was a blatant falsehood. You replied to my points with sarcasm and non-points.

I say 25% is, by any standard, widespread enough to threaten the foundation of the OP (or at least, brook conversation). You say it isn't. How am I supposed to debate that? You say two occupied states had the freedom to make their own choices. I say that's naive. You say Kentucky was actually a part of the Confederacy, I say it wasn't.

There weren't any points. Just some of your personal opinions that I don't agree with. Are you expecting, what, something different?

[Sdaeriji]

I addressed all the points that you presented. Just because you didn't make any isn't my problem.

Oh man, you got me.

Your post attempted to portray slavery as widespread outside the Confederacy. I demonstrated how that was a blatant falsehood. You replied to my points with sarcasm and non-points.

I say 25% is, by any standard, widespread enough to threaten the foundation of the OP (or at least, brook conversation). You say it isn't. How am I supposed to debate that? You say two occupied states had the freedom to make their own choices. I say that's naive. You say Kentucky was actually a part of the Confederacy, I say it wasn't.

There weren't any points. Just some of your personal opinions that I don't agree with. Are you expecting, what, something different?

I say, if you can demonstrate that Maryland and Missouri's decisions to outlaw slavery were made by the federal government instead of the state government, then prove it. I might even concede Maryland, as they outlawed slavery after a very narrow vote that, had Confederate sympathizers from Maryland who left to fight for the Confederacy been allowed to vote, it would have failed. If you have proof that Kentucky was not accepted to the Confederacy, then prove it.

I didn't offer opinions. I offered facts. Missouri and Maryland outlawed slavery before the federal government. Fact. A majority of the government of Kentucky voted to secede and join the Confederacy. Fact. If you disagree with these facts, demonstrate their inaccuracy or their inapplicability.

[Maxen von Bismarck]

I say, if you can demonstrate that Maryland and Missouri's decisions to outlaw slavery were made by the federal government instead of the state government, then prove it. I might even concede Maryland, as they outlawed slavery after a very narrow vote that, had Confederate sympathizers from Maryland who left to fight for the Confederacy been allowed to vote, it would have failed. If you have proof that Kentucky was not accepted to the Confederacy, then prove it.

Let's take some emotion of this subject, and apply our argument to another RL nation. If only for irony, let us use a country within Africa (no, not Niger) like the Congo.

Within the Congo, there is a civil war. Two particular regions are voting on whether or not to [insert referendum here]. Now, one side of the civil war has control over both regions. They haven't promised to hold free or open elections; indeed, the Federal government's president has already shown that he has no compunctions about suspending integral civil rights. There is not objective authority (such as the UN) to decide whether or not this election is, by any standard, accurate. Finally, the two regions are voting on the issue with large (use whatever figure you want) amounts of Federal government troops (ironically, they are ensuring it to be "safe").

Now, we have two parties debating it some time later. The first maintains that this Federal government did sponsor fair and free elections. A second party contends that the large amount of troops, the dubious civil rights record of the then current government and lack of an objective third party make the results nearly void.

The facts seem simple to me, and I presented them. However, you point to a date, a promise and your opinions; nothing more.

[Tmutarakhan]

The slave states who were closest to the North were principally concerned about one thing: if there was going to be a war (and war had been widely threatened and talked about since the Kansas crisis broke out; it was not a sudden surprise), they knew very well that their land would be where most of the bloodshed happened. The "Constitutional Union" party of John Bell, which did not have more than vague platitudes to offer as a solution, but stood for the "can't we all just get along?" position, carried Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia, and did well enough in Missouri, Arkansas, Maryland, and North Carolina to deny any candidate a majority (Breckenridge by plurality, except in Missouri where Douglas edged out his only statewide win despite finishing second in most states). These were precisely the slave states that did not secede before Fort Sumter but mostly did afterward (Missouri, Kentucky, and Virginia ending up with two rival "governments"; Maryland of course not daring to try anything under massive occupation)-- but I omit Delaware, about which you asked: they had an outright majority for Breckenridge but were too small and cut off from the others to even consider such a thing as secession.

[Jocabia]

I addressed all the points that you presented. Just because you didn't make any isn't my problem.

Oh man, you got me.

Your post attempted to portray slavery as widespread outside the Confederacy. I demonstrated how that was a blatant falsehood. You replied to my points with sarcasm and non-points.

I say 25% is, by any standard, widespread enough to threaten the foundation of the OP (or at least, brook conversation). You say it isn't. How am I supposed to debate that? You say two occupied states had the freedom to make their own choices. I say that's naive. You say Kentucky was actually a part of the Confederacy, I say it wasn't.

There weren't any points. Just some of your personal opinions that I don't agree with. Are you expecting, what, something different?

But the problem with your assumption is that the OP didn't claim that slavery didn't exist outside of the Confederacy. He didn't claim that the Union was motivated by stopping slavery. He said that the CSA was motivated by protecting slavery. And he proved it. The CSA was worried that their influence was strong enough. They were worried that they couldn't force the Federal government to push their rules on other states. They left and founded a nation that enforced those rules as part of their Constitution. They weren't for states' rights. They wanted the federal government to be more active in protecting their interests in states that disagreed with them. And they gave power to the federal government that the US refused to give. They enshrined the first "right" that actually denied freedom to a group of people.

Whether slavery existed in EVERY single state in the Union wouldn't change those facts because they aren't about the Union. They are about the Confederacy and their motivations. And they were very well demonstrated in the OP and in the discussion of the history throughout this thread. No one has been able to show one bit of documentation or governmental action that demonstrates that any state was primarily motivated by anything but slavery and its protection. Call it 'lifestyle" or "rights" or whatever you want to call it, but it was about slavery.

[Kalibarr]

Here's what I mean when I said it's not about slavery:

The Union did not invade/go to war with the south because they had slaves, they went to war because they tried to secede and attacked some federal outposts. The south did leave because they thought slavery was going to be banned, but the union mainly wanted to keep it's self together and the freeing of the slaves came about to keep the british from getting involved.

So yes it was about slavery, but wasn't some moral crusade by the north, in fact many of them although against slavery didn't see blacks as equal.

[Jocabia]

This thread certainly (attempts to) explain why the Confederacy was about slavery, but seems to miss why slavery in the United States wasn't confined to the CSA.

I'm sorry, but that seems like a fairly big hole to ignore. If the Confederacy and slavery are, more or less, interchangeable entities; being the political head to the latter's economic system. Why, then, did so many slave states not participate in the Confederacy?

Not everyone who supported slavery was willing to commit treason. What's that got to do with the ones that did?

[Kiryu-shi]

Is there a way to bookmark threads? This would be a good one to do.

I want to bookmark this one in real life and show it to certain frustrating people I know.

[WorldofWilly]

This thread certainly (attempts to) explain why the Confederacy was about slavery, but seems to miss why slavery in the United States wasn't confined to the CSA.

I'm sorry, but that seems like a fairly big hole to ignore. If the Confederacy and slavery are, more or less, interchangeable entities; being the political head to the latter's economic system. Why, then, did so many slave states not participate in the Confederacy?

Maybe not all of the slave states were headed up and/or largely populated by the kinds of "what about mine?!" self-centered whiners I and Jocabia and some other have been complaining about. Maybe some of them thought they could still participate in their nation in order to get their way.



Oh, and Jocabia: I agree entirely.

Around 25% of southerners had slaves 75% did not have slaves. I resent the fact that you assume all southerners were fighting for slavery. You have to remember that in the civil war those who did not fight were dealt with harshly. The North was more lenient on conscientious objectors because they had more money and manpower. The south on the other hand was far more brutal on pacifists the South's first Conscription act, 16 April 1862 made no provisions for conscientious objectors. Some states made provision for pacifists to work in salt mines or hospitals but not fighting in the war was treason and the punishment for treason was death.

[WorldofWilly]

You are right. The confederacy was made because they felt that the federal government was not excepting their states, or their own "right" to allow them to own slaves. Which is really ridiculous considering the the Declaration of Independence says that all men are created equal. Slavery is wrong, unconstitutional, and disgusting, and that is why the union won!

The North did not win the war because of Morality the north won the war because of superior manpower and superior firepower! I wish the world worked that way but usually the person with the biggest gun wins not the one with the biggest heart.

[Muravyets]

This thread certainly (attempts to) explain why the Confederacy was about slavery, but seems to miss why slavery in the United States wasn't confined to the CSA.

I'm sorry, but that seems like a fairly big hole to ignore. If the Confederacy and slavery are, more or less, interchangeable entities; being the political head to the latter's economic system. Why, then, did so many slave states not participate in the Confederacy?

Maybe not all of the slave states were headed up and/or largely populated by the kinds of "what about mine?!" self-centered whiners I and Jocabia and some other have been complaining about. Maybe some of them thought they could still participate in their nation in order to get their way.



Oh, and Jocabia: I agree entirely.

Around 25% of southerners had slaves 75% did not have slaves. I resent the fact that you assume all southerners were fighting for slavery. You have to remember that in the civil war those who did not fight were dealt with harshly. The North was more lenient on conscientious objectors because they had more money and manpower. The south on the other hand was far more brutal on pacifists the South's first Conscription act, 16 April 1862 made no provisions for conscientious objectors. Some states made provision for pacifists to work in salt mines or hospitals but not fighting in the war was treason and the punishment for treason was death.

I resent the fact that you come into a thread and start criticizing other posters when you clearly have not read the thread and don't know what their arguments are.

[WorldofWilly]

This thread certainly (attempts to) explain why the Confederacy was about slavery, but seems to miss why slavery in the United States wasn't confined to the CSA.

I'm sorry, but that seems like a fairly big hole to ignore. If the Confederacy and slavery are, more or less, interchangeable entities; being the political head to the latter's economic system. Why, then, did so many slave states not participate in the Confederacy?

Maybe not all of the slave states were headed up and/or largely populated by the kinds of "what about mine?!" self-centered whiners I and Jocabia and some other have been complaining about. Maybe some of them thought they could still participate in their nation in order to get their way.



Oh, and Jocabia: I agree entirely.

Around 25% of southerners had slaves 75% did not have slaves. I resent the fact that you assume all southerners were fighting for slavery. You have to remember that in the civil war those who did not fight were dealt with harshly. The North was more lenient on conscientious objectors because they had more money and manpower. The south on the other hand was far more brutal on pacifists the South's first Conscription act, 16 April 1862 made no provisions for conscientious objectors. Some states made provision for pacifists to work in salt mines or hospitals but not fighting in the war was treason and the punishment for treason was death.

I resent the fact that you come into a thread and start criticizing other posters when you clearly have not read the thread and don't know what their arguments are.

Oh I am arguing on that one statement that was quoted am I wrong ?

[Jocabia]

This thread certainly (attempts to) explain why the Confederacy was about slavery, but seems to miss why slavery in the United States wasn't confined to the CSA.

I'm sorry, but that seems like a fairly big hole to ignore. If the Confederacy and slavery are, more or less, interchangeable entities; being the political head to the latter's economic system. Why, then, did so many slave states not participate in the Confederacy?

Maybe not all of the slave states were headed up and/or largely populated by the kinds of "what about mine?!" self-centered whiners I and Jocabia and some other have been complaining about. Maybe some of them thought they could still participate in their nation in order to get their way.



Oh, and Jocabia: I agree entirely.

Around 25% of southerners had slaves 75% did not have slaves. I resent the fact that you assume all southerners were fighting for slavery. You have to remember that in the civil war those who did not fight were dealt with harshly. The North was more lenient on conscientious objectors because they had more money and manpower. The south on the other hand was far more brutal on pacifists the South's first Conscription act, 16 April 1862 made no provisions for conscientious objectors. Some states made provision for pacifists to work in salt mines or hospitals but not fighting in the war was treason and the punishment for treason was death.

Resent anything you like, but we're talking about the actually motivations of the confederacy, a government. The motivations of the confederacy have been lied about for over 100 years. And many, many southerners from then straight through to today supported that confederacy. I could give a shit if they supported the KKK because they like the snazzy outfits, I'm going to condemn anyone who does it.

And not one person in the entire thread is talking about people who were conscripted under threat of death. Put that strawman down now that you've started it on fire. Those things are dangerous.

[Jocabia]

This thread certainly (attempts to) explain why the Confederacy was about slavery, but seems to miss why slavery in the United States wasn't confined to the CSA.

I'm sorry, but that seems like a fairly big hole to ignore. If the Confederacy and slavery are, more or less, interchangeable entities; being the political head to the latter's economic system. Why, then, did so many slave states not participate in the Confederacy?

Maybe not all of the slave states were headed up and/or largely populated by the kinds of "what about mine?!" self-centered whiners I and Jocabia and some other have been complaining about. Maybe some of them thought they could still participate in their nation in order to get their way.



Oh, and Jocabia: I agree entirely.

Around 25% of southerners had slaves 75% did not have slaves. I resent the fact that you assume all southerners were fighting for slavery. You have to remember that in the civil war those who did not fight were dealt with harshly. The North was more lenient on conscientious objectors because they had more money and manpower. The south on the other hand was far more brutal on pacifists the South's first Conscription act, 16 April 1862 made no provisions for conscientious objectors. Some states made provision for pacifists to work in salt mines or hospitals but not fighting in the war was treason and the punishment for treason was death.

I resent the fact that you come into a thread and start criticizing other posters when you clearly have not read the thread and don't know what their arguments are.

Oh I am arguing on that one statement that was quoted am I wrong ?

You are. No one said "every single confederate soldier", did they? They were talking about the Confederacy. The CSA was a government, not a collection of people. Those people may have voted for and created that government, but that doesn't mean every single one supported it. Just like if GA seceded today, I wouldn't blame Dempublicents and Grave_n_idle who can't vote after his Prostititution conviction.

[Rolamec]

It wasn't about slavery, at least it's formation, but very much about state rights. That being said, it still wasn't right for the governor of VA to praise the confederacy, all a while not even addressing slavery. He could have praised state rights, while condemning slavery.

[Jocabia]

It wasn't about slavery, at least it's formation, but very much about state rights. That being said, it still wasn't right for the governor of VA to praise the confederacy, all a while not even addressing slavery. He could have praised state rights, while condemning slavery.

That has been thoroughly disproved throughout the thread. The Confederate states were pissed at the Federal government because they weren't willing to enforce the will of slave states on the other states in the Union. The Confederate states outline their reasons shown throughout the number of declarations and the laws they changed.

Slavery was their primary motivation. That was the "states' rights" they were fighting for. And, amusingly, they weren't taking that right from the Federal government. They were taking it from the people. That's the amusing bit of every states' rights argument that comes up because in nearly every case the right the state wants is the right to abridge the rights of others. Segregation. Slavery. Interracial marriage. Abortion. Gay marriage. Getting the state to endorse a particular religion.

They don't want to take power from the feds. They like the feds to have power when they support their views. They want to take power from the people. Because the people do all kinds of unpredictable things like act like worship other gods, say things that the ruling class doesn't like, marry people the ruling class didn't approve of, dare to eat at the same tables as the ruling class, etc.

The Confederacy was anti-freedom not anti-federal. And every Southern attempt or threat of secession has been to continue that time honored tradition of denying rights to certain groups and claiming it's "states' rights".

[Mediterreania]

This thread certainly (attempts to) explain why the Confederacy was about slavery, but seems to miss why slavery in the United States wasn't confined to the CSA.

I'm sorry, but that seems like a fairly big hole to ignore. If the Confederacy and slavery are, more or less, interchangeable entities; being the political head to the latter's economic system. Why, then, did so many slave states not participate in the Confederacy?

Maybe not all of the slave states were headed up and/or largely populated by the kinds of "what about mine?!" self-centered whiners I and Jocabia and some other have been complaining about. Maybe some of them thought they could still participate in their nation in order to get their way.



Oh, and Jocabia: I agree entirely.

Around 25% of southerners had slaves 75% did not have slaves. I resent the fact that you assume all southerners were fighting for slavery. You have to remember that in the civil war those who did not fight were dealt with harshly. The North was more lenient on conscientious objectors because they had more money and manpower. The south on the other hand was far more brutal on pacifists the South's first Conscription act, 16 April 1862 made no provisions for conscientious objectors. Some states made provision for pacifists to work in salt mines or hospitals but not fighting in the war was treason and the punishment for treason was death.