Poli-Sci: American Civil War: Slavery or States Rights?

[RJ]

As someone who didn't write the post you're replying to, I'd like to hear which part of it is crap. Can you identify a false statement in there?


Did Lee take blacks from the North to be slaves during his campaign, and beat his slaves that tried to escape? Yes or no?

Did the Confederates enslave or execute all or nearly all their captured black union soldiers (until the last few months of the war when they were clearly losing)? Yes or no?

Does the Confederate Constitution not mention "negro" slavery? Yes or no?

Did the guy promoting the Confederate flag (I assume we're talking about William Tappan Thompson promoting the flag most people know) say it was about white suppremacy? Yes or no?

Is your IP address in the Ukraine, Russia, or an Eastern European country? Yes or no?

https://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Vol.../dp/0394749138

He should have been. He took blacks from Pennsylvania and took them to south to be slaves during his campaign the war. The south refused to allow black Union troops to be part of prisoner exchanges, and they were enslaved or executed.

He often beat his own escaped slaves, and had salt water poured on the wounds.

Not a hero. The Lost Cause of the South was sold to the north after white supremacy regained power. The monuments went up to remind blacks not to do anything stupid after terrorism and other violence ended the idea of any black participation in government.

If the Civil War wasn't fought for white supremacy, why does every Confederate constitution have a statement about the superiority of whites over blacks in the first paragraph? Why did the guy who was promoting the "Stars and Bars" say it represented white superiority from the very beginning?

The "it wasn't about slavery" narrative is what I got in middle school history. It's utter bullshit. The plantation owners knew if new states were "free," their way of life was on the way out.

As a lovely coda, the retaking of the south, and the Jim Crow system was the exact model the Nazis used to formulate their answer to "The Jewish Question." Many Nazis professed public admiration of how the US dealt with it's race problems, and called for similar laws. They just carried it further.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...al-lee/529038/


https://billmoyers.com/story/hitler-...nazi-race-law/

Lol, man what total crap. Not even worth a honest discussion. Tell me what was the last book you read on the Civil war. Other than some garbage from the "Atlantic". Quoting that rag tells me a whole lot of your lack of knowledge about the Civil.
this is exactly the kind of Crap now taught in our Schools. My brother Teaches, Major in American History. The stories he tells me of how the school system is proposely butchering history to serve the Liberal agenda. Nonsense like you just posted. I have asked him to teach the truth. He say's he can't. He would be fired and he is too close to tenor. Honestly discussing the Civil War with some internet guy that quotes the "Atlantic" is beyond the pale. Sorry my friend. Do not bother me again untill you have at least taken a real class. Please start at the beginning with the export tarriffs and we can go from there.

Pray, continue the discussion on the American Civil War here:

https://pistol-forum.com/showthread....-States-Rights

[ranger]

First, it was the War of Northern Aggression, hard to get the conversation started when you start with the wrong description.

[Caballoflaco]

This should be in the romper room.

[TGS]

It's not like pro-confederacy people are all that rare in shooting circles, but the writing style is not quite right, regardless of content. I hope that's within the rules to suggest in this instance.

Exactly. Similar to astroturfers, where it's blatantly obvious because something is just.....off.

[Stephanie B]

The plain wording of several declarations of seccession should answer the question.

[Medusa]

Obviated by thread culling.

[Joe in PNG]

The plain wording of several declarations of seccession should answer the question.

Georgia:

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. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic.

Mississippi:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.

Texas:

She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association.

[BehindBlueI's]

The plain wording of several declarations of seccession should answer the question.

Georgia:

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.

By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution.

While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact.

Mississippi:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun.

South Carolina starts off about state's rights but it's clear which rights they are addressing:

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.

Etc. I'm not sure how revisionist one needs to be to say it wasn't about slavery. You can couch it in terms of 'state's rights' but the right in question was to hold slaves.

Yes, I know, most citizens and soldiers didn't own slaves. Most of our citizens and soldiers don't own oil refineries, either. Yet modern economies require oil so off to war we go to secure supplies for us and our allies and deny it to our enemies.

[Duelist]

Well, the way they phrased it is that they were insisting on a state’s right to be a slave state. Turns out, there was some significant disagreement with that position.

And rightly so.

[Rex G]

The larger, overall issue was state’s rights, but let’s not minimize the HUGENESS of the issue of slavery.

Search for, and read, the various states’ ordinances of secession. Slavery was very important, to the movers and shakers in the states that allowed slavery.

Presumably, I have ancestors on both sides of the slavery issue, for whatever that is worth. My Texas/Louisiana German ancestors would almost certainly have been anti-slavery, and almost certainly pro-Union. My Anglo/Scottish Texian ancestors had migrated to Texas from the Old South, and so some may have been pro-secession. Most of my ancestors, on my father’s side, were probably far too poor to even dream of owning slaves, and the one that brought my quite rare surname to the USA is said to have immigrated more recently than the Civil War, anyway.