Not everyone views the Civil War like FastPat

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Jim Richards

The back should say, "We all lost" You'd be accurate then.

[Jim Richards]

Yep, my bad.

[Rodeo]

Hahahahaha! Nice shirt! I'll take one in XL please

We won!

[JCF]

Originally posted by fastpat
[B]No, in fact exactly the opposite is true. By every academic account with the exception of the Lincoln cultists, the War Against Southern Independence was fought over control of the Southern states and to impose the yankee merchantilist central state.


As a libertarian, I'm opposed to slavery, of every kind. What's your feelings on slavery, including that imposed by government?

Pat, you're wrong - you need to read more contemporaneous accounts of what was happening and less academic fantasy and conspiracy theories.

You are opposed to slavery but not to states that practice it ? Or only opposed to governments you don't like that practice it ?

The more abstract kind of slavery you talk about is awfull hard to eliminate as it exists in infinite forms. Slave to ones Porsche ; slave to ones family...
Me - I'm a slave to Love.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by JCF
Pat, you're wrong - you need to read more contemporaneous accounts of what was happening and less academic fantasy and conspiracy theories.

Those accounts, most of them at least, were written by the victors. They are not reliable, and no historian of any repute, would so state. Excepting the Lincoln cultists of course. Would you accept "The Rise and Fall of the Confederacy" by Jeffeerson Davis. Or the book by Raphael Semmes as contemporaneous enough? No, I thought not.

In fact, the books in the bibliography I posted are well researched, and are virtually unimpeachable in their accuracy. If you haven't read them, it's pretty obvious that you haven't, then you've no basis for criticizing them, do you?

You are opposed to slavery but not to states that practice it ? Or only opposed to governments you don't like that practice it ?

All the states that practice chattel slavery are in Africa today, and I'm opposed to any invasion to stop the practice.

I'm opposed to government slavery, i.e. "Compulsory Volunteerism" and the military draft. Was there something else?

The more abstract kind of slavery you talk about is awfull hard to eliminate as it exists in infinite forms. Slave to ones Porsche ; slave to ones family...
Me - I'm a slave to Love.

Your obfuscations to avoid answering speak loudly. Thank you.

[JCF]

Originally posted by fastpat
[B]Those accounts, most of them at least, were written by the victors. They are not reliable, and no historian of any repute, would so state. Excepting the Lincoln cultists of course. Would you accept "The Rise and Fall of the Confederacy" by Jeffeerson Davis. Or the book by Raphael Semmes as contemporaneous enough? No, I thought not.

In fact, the books in the bibliography I posted are well researched, and are virtually unimpeachable in their accuracy. If you haven't read them, it's pretty obvious that you haven't, then you've no basis for criticizing them, do you?

[b]
All the states that practice chattel slavery are in Africa today, and I'm opposed to any invasion to stop the practice.

I'm opposed to government slavery, i.e. "Compulsory Volunteerism" and the military draft. Was there something else?

I'm not talking about filtered accounts (from either side). Read about what people were saying and doing and arguing over.
I'm sure those books you cite are well researched , not so sure (on your word) that they are unimpeachable in their accuracy.

Good to hear. But what does that have to do with your feelings of the antebellum south ?
...and don't obfuscate please.




Your obfuscations to avoid answering speak loudly. Thank you.

I am against all that stuff. But lets clean up one room at a time - starting with the dirtiest

[JCF]

Some of my reply did not go through,,

I was not refering to filtered accounts ( from either side) but what people were saying and doing and arguing about with increasing intensity begining well before the war began.

I imagine those books were well researched but as for their unimpeachable truth - I can't take your word on that. I can do my own research.

I am also opposed to such invasions. But where do you stand regarding the those practices in the antebellum south ?
Don't obfuscate.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by JCF
[I am also opposed to such invasions. But where do you stand regarding the those practices in the antebellum south ?
Don't obfuscate. [/B]

What "practices"? If you're going to say "slavery", then since it was practiced throughout the whole of the country until the mid-19th century, you'd have no moral basis for your position.

The first colony to legalize slavery was Massachusetts, the first state to pass a law outlawing free blacks residency within it's borders was Massachusetts followed by several of the other New England states, then states in the mid-west and west, and the last state to give up slavery was New Jersey. The state of New York had lawful slavery until 1850.

Really, JCF, you've got a lot of learning to do, I'd suggest you acquire the books I've mentioned, and get back to me when you've finished.

[JCF]

Gee teach, thanks.
Behind your obfuscations it is clear that the slave trade as practiced by the south as an institution is ok by you and your crackpot academics.
So Pat, you are against all forms of government and slavery but not against a gov that wanted to spread slavery.
Obviously you are against all evils but those commited by your neighbors.
You need to read LESS and think MORE.

[ben parrish]

.Well, well, well. What a topic. While I do not agree with a lot of the things Pat believes, he is informed on the reasons for the War Between the States. It did not happen for the reasons we were taught in history class. Just as the history of American Indian treatment was seriously misrepresented to many of us.
The main issue of the war was to be able to control trade and thus taxes in the Southern states while delivering sparse services and support. The Southern States were tired of “Taxation without Representation” …sound familiar?????
There were more slaves in the Northern states than were ever in the Southern states. The fact is, most Southern farmers were simply too poor to afford to pay for slaves. It was far more cost effective to have many children to help tend to the fields. Now, prosperous Northern business men did have the money to purchase slaves to work in the factories. As a matter of fact, many "Southern Plantations" were owned or financed by Northern business men. The South had no way to consume all that cotton but the Northern textile mills could not produce products without it….follow the money.
Also, the abuse of slaves by owners was not a common practice; why would you beat, starve and torture your source of labor? This would be like a modern farmer neglecting their tractors, trucks, and combines...doesn't happen very often. The beatings and torture tactics were used by the slave traders and fellow African tribes that supplied the slaves to the world. To be exact, after the war was over, MOST former slaves CHOSE to stay with their former owners as employees. They would not have chosen this option if they were being mistreated.
Slavery was definitely a “hot” topic in the days leading up to the Civil War. All across the world, in most civilized nations, people started to realize that the practice of slavery was morally wrong. Let us not forget, slavery has been going on for thousands of years. All “great” societies from the beginning of time utilized slaves; Egyptians, Romans, Chinese, etc., etc. Somehow, United States citizens, have been brainwashed into believing that this was a travesty created by the Southern states… it is simply not true.

Slavery was wrong but the war was not about this..."spin doctors" of the time used this to stir emotions from a captive audience in the North. Slavery was on it's was out regardless of the Civil War.

[Rodeo]

This seems a balanced analysis:

Slavery proved unprofitable in the Northern states and by the early 19th cent. had disappeared. Its abolition had been hastened by the work of the Quakers, who, as in Great Britain, were staunchly opposed to the institution. In the South, however, where African slaves arrived in the tens of thousands from the late 17th through the early 18th cent., slavery came to be an integral part of the plantation system (especially after the introduction of the cotton gin in 1793). From the late 18th cent. to the eve of the Civil War, more than a million slaves were moved from the Eastern Seaboard to the Deep South, where many labored in the sugar and cotton fields. This vast internal slave trade, which often tore slave families apart, was the South's second largest enterprise; only the plantation system itself surpassed it in size.

In the Northern United States, humanitarian principles led to the appearance of the abolitionists. They knew little of the actual conditions in the South and were fighting not for economic reform but for idealistic principles. The abolitionists in general tended to regard slavery as an unmitigated evil. The small Northern farmer also feared slavery as a system of cheap labor against which it was difficult to compete.

The South, eager to conserve the status quo, developed a bellicose defense of the system, which was hardened by such factors as the slave uprising led by Nat Turner, the troubles over fugitive slaves, and the very active propaganda against the South. The question, involving the very existence of Southern society as then organized, was the dominant one in U.S. history from 1830 to 1860. The political expression of the struggle was largely an attempt on the part of the South to maintain legislative guarantees of the system against the efforts of the abolitionists.

The chief question concerned the right of extension of slavery in the Western territories. This first became important in 1820 with the Missouri Compromise. Many leading statesmen of the time sought an answer: Henry Clay, the great compromiser; Daniel Webster; John C. Calhoun; Stephen A. Douglas, who proposed popular sovereignty as means to decide the free or slave status of territories; and the uncompromising antislavery men, such as Charles Sumner and William H. Seward. The great compromises—the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act—were ultimately ineffective.

Sectional opposition, which involved even broader questions than slavery, including the constitutional issue of states' rights, grew more passionate as the two sections became more and more hostile. The Ostend Manifesto and the proposed annexation of Cuba, the fugitive slave laws, the operations of the Underground Railroad, the furor caused by the Dred Scott Case, the Wilmot Proviso—all heightened the tension. Sporadic armed conflict erupted in Kansas and in the Harpers Ferry raid of John Brown. The struggle became more clearly defined as the Republican party was formed with a definite antislavery platform.

In the victory of the Republican presidential candidate, Abraham Lincoln (1860), the South saw a threat to Southern institutions, and the Southern states in an effort to secure those institutions resorted to secession and formed the Confederacy. The Civil War followed, and the victory of the North brought an end to slavery in the United States. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (issued in 1863, it declared all slaves in the Southern secessionist states free) was followed by other legislation, especially the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

The end of the Civil War did not result in the integration of the former slaves into American life. Although there were gains toward this under Reconstruction, these were subsequently reversed by the Jim Crow laws. Generally easily identified by the color of their skin, African Americans were subjected to segregation and other forms of discrimination practiced by most white Americans and legislated in many jurisdictions. This situation did not begin to be ameliorated until the civil-rights struggles of the 20th cent. (see civil rights; integration).

[gaijindabe]

It really goes back to the wounded pride of the Celts as they got beat up on and subjugated by the Anglo-Saxons, Danes and later the Normans back in the old country.

The Scots-Irish had a two thousand year old grudge when they got here. Some still have it.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by JCF
Gee teach, thanks.
Behind your obfuscations it is clear that the slave trade as practiced by the south as an institution is ok by you and your crackpot academics.

No, that's both a lie and the "usual" slur hurled when someone that idolizes the Lincoln Cult. The very idea that anyone inside libertarianism would support slavery is absurd.

So Pat, you are against all forms of government and slavery but not against a gov that wanted to spread slavery.

What government was that? The US government wanted areas of land protected for "free, white labor" and said so many times. Is that your position? Lincoln himself wanted to deport all black people within the US, your position too?

Obviously you are against all evils but those commited by your neighbors.
You need to read LESS and think MORE.

Not one of my neighbors owns slaves, nor have any of them owned slaves. In fact, at the height of chattel slavery, only 20% of the population in the Confederate States owned slaves, among those were quite a few black slave owners.

The whole slavery issue was a club used by the merchantilist north against the agrarian south, and nothing more. That's why most of the black codes originated in the north, not the south.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Rodeo
This seems a balanced analysis:

Slavery proved unprofitable in the Northern states and by the early 19th cent. had disappeared. Its abolition had been hastened by the work of the Quakers, who, as in Great Britain, were staunchly opposed to the institution. In the South, however, where African slaves arrived in the tens of thousands from the late 17th through the early 18th cent., slavery came to be an integral part of the plantation system (especially after the introduction of the cotton gin in 1793). From the late 18th cent. to the eve of the Civil War, more than a million slaves were moved from the Eastern Seaboard to the Deep South, where many labored in the sugar and cotton fields. This vast internal slave trade, which often tore slave families apart, was the South's second largest enterprise; only the plantation system itself surpassed it in size.

In the Northern United States, humanitarian principles led to the appearance of the abolitionists. They knew little of the actual conditions in the South and were fighting not for economic reform but for idealistic principles. The abolitionists in general tended to regard slavery as an unmitigated evil. The small Northern farmer also feared slavery as a system of cheap labor against which it was difficult to compete.

The South, eager to conserve the status quo, developed a bellicose defense of the system, which was hardened by such factors as the slave uprising led by Nat Turner, the troubles over fugitive slaves, and the very active propaganda against the South. The question, involving the very existence of Southern society as then organized, was the dominant one in U.S. history from 1830 to 1860. The political expression of the struggle was largely an attempt on the part of the South to maintain legislative guarantees of the system against the efforts of the abolitionists.

The chief question concerned the right of extension of slavery in the Western territories. This first became important in 1820 with the Missouri Compromise. Many leading statesmen of the time sought an answer: Henry Clay, the great compromiser; Daniel Webster; John C. Calhoun; Stephen A. Douglas, who proposed popular sovereignty as means to decide the free or slave status of territories; and the uncompromising antislavery men, such as Charles Sumner and William H. Seward. The great compromises—the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act—were ultimately ineffective.

Sectional opposition, which involved even broader questions than slavery, including the constitutional issue of states' rights, grew more passionate as the two sections became more and more hostile. The Ostend Manifesto and the proposed annexation of Cuba, the fugitive slave laws, the operations of the Underground Railroad, the furor caused by the Dred Scott Case, the Wilmot Proviso—all heightened the tension. Sporadic armed conflict erupted in Kansas and in the Harpers Ferry raid of John Brown. The struggle became more clearly defined as the Republican party was formed with a definite antislavery platform.

In the victory of the Republican presidential candidate, Abraham Lincoln (1860), the South saw a threat to Southern institutions, and the Southern states in an effort to secure those institutions resorted to secession and formed the Confederacy. The Civil War followed, and the victory of the North brought an end to slavery in the United States. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation (issued in 1863, it declared all slaves in the Southern secessionist states free) was followed by other legislation, especially the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

The end of the Civil War did not result in the integration of the former slaves into American life. Although there were gains toward this under Reconstruction, these were subsequently reversed by the Jim Crow laws. Generally easily identified by the color of their skin, African Americans were subjected to segregation and other forms of discrimination practiced by most white Americans and legislated in many jurisdictions. This situation did not begin to be ameliorated until the civil-rights struggles of the 20th cent. (see civil rights; integration).

The only problem with the above is that it's mostly unsupported by the historical facts.

Incidently, there were more abolitionist groups in the Confederate States than in the northern states, a lot more.

And, slavery was immensely successful in the north. Two major profit centers for slavery were Massachusetts and Rhode Island.

[JCF]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by fastpat
[B]No, that's both a lie and the "usual" slur hurled when someone that idolizes the Lincoln Cult. The very idea that anyone inside libertarianism would support slavery is absurd.

What is the diff between support and defend ?
You seem to be defending the Southern "right" to slavery .

[b]
What government was that? The US government wanted areas of land protected for "free, white labor" and said so many times. Is that your position? Lincoln himself wanted to deport all black people within the US, your position too?

Lincoln himself realized that was not a solution.
The govt I was referring to was that of the south and its interest in preserving and spreading slavery.

[b]
Not one of my neighbors owns slaves, nor have any of them owned slaves. In fact, at the height of chattel slavery, only 20% of the population in the Confederate States owned slaves, among those were quite a few black slave owners.

It's not the percentage of owners that matters but the number of slaves they owned.

I fail to see how you can read any archival material from the era leading up to the war and not see that slavery was the root of it all. Really, there is no escaping it. Not propaganda but historical record.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by JCF
I fail to see how you can read any archival material from the era leading up to the war and not see that slavery was the root of it all. Really, there is no escaping it. Not propaganda but historical record.

The reason that the War Against Southern Independence wasn't about slavery is that neither side in the conflict had any interest in ending it.

As I pointed out to you, but you apparently either can't grasp it or don't believe it, the Union congress passed a Constitutional Amendment in the Spring of 1861 that would have made slavery permanent and removed that legality from the amendment process.

Further, slavery lasted longer in the Union states than in the conquered Confederate States. What is it about that fact that you don't understand?


The southern states withdrew from the Constitutional compact of states lawfully. That's really all you need to know about the Confederate States of America.

Abraham Lincoln was the worst butcher ever to serve as a US president, in any century.

Are you learning anything yet?

[Flatbutt1]

Originally posted by Rodeo
My ancestors were in Italy tending to the vines when Pat's grandfather was all worked up about Southern Independence ... I got no dog in this fight.

+1 except in our case it was Sicily

[Hawktel]

Gee Pat thanks for clearing all that up. I now see the Truth. So exactly why did you southerners fight so hard against civil rights again?

[ben parrish]

Hawktel,
Segregation was practiced all over the country. The majority of the publicized major battles over civil liberties were in the rural south mainly due to demographics, geography, and media coverage. However, don’t forget the riots in Chicago, New York, San Francisco, etc.
Making a statement like “you Southerners were against civil liberties” is like someone saying “you people in Utah are all polygamists”.
The battle over civil liberties was because of the Constitution of the United States not allowing certain rights to individuals because of skin color, age, sex, and religion. Don't blame the problems on one group of people; it was a country wide battle.

[fastpat]

Originally posted by Hawktel
Gee Pat thanks for clearing all that up. I now see the Truth.

Good.

So exactly why did you southerners fight so hard.?

We're talking about 1860-1865.