The truth about slavery

[Minas Moth]

Guys I warned you two times already... But you just drift away from the topic and you are dangerously threading towards flame war... This is more and more looking like an opening of a 150 year old war and history revision all over again...

I hate to do this, but this thread is getting closed... Later on, when your tempers cool down a little I will reopen it. We don't want you to make a mistake and post something that will force us to contact Forum Moderators and Administrators...

THREAD CLOSED

[Minas Moth]

Thread re-opened... hopefully a week was enough for everybody to cool down...

regards,

Minas Moth

[AndariusHaliusScipio]

The truth is, Slavery is very very hard. I especially dislike the part about being a slave where you have to work a lot for no money.

[nce_wht_guy]

To quote Confederate 'vice president' Alexander Stephens: "(Jefferson's) ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error.... 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." Straight from the horses mouth.

[AndariusHaliusScipio]

To quote Confederate 'vice president' Alexander Stephens: "(Jefferson's) ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error.... 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." Straight from the horses mouth.

Something kind of blatantly obvious, something SO obvious that me and virtually every Lost Cause-r missed/misses, is that there is a very clear difference in the things Confederates said BEFORE the war and AFTER the war. So you shouldn't be surprised to hear things like what Stephens said above to be repeated by many Confederates before and during the war... and then hear the Romance of the Old South featuring happy slaves and honorable men come about after the war.

[Post Hoc]

If you want to know everything about the civil war i recommend reading the Civil War: A Narrative, by Shelby Foote. its about 132 hours long if you get the audio book. No interpretations, but it uses letters, newspapers, diaries, telegrams, etc. The most epic piece of work ever created about the civil war. Read or listen to this book. Once you start reading/listening, you wont want to stop.

One thing you can not argue is that the civil war was about many issues. The main issue however, was popular sovereignty for the south, and preserving the "union" for the north. Slavery was a huge part of the civil war there is no doubt about that. It was one of the reasons why there was no European intervention.

The declaration of Independence states, "...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

That is why the civil war was fought.

[AndariusHaliusScipio]

If you want to know everything about the civil war i recommend reading the Civil War: A Narrative, by Shelby Foote. its about 132 hours long if you get the audio book. No interpretations, but it uses letters, newspapers, diaries, telegrams, etc. The most epic piece of work ever created about the civil war. Read or listen to this book. Once you start reading/listening, you wont want to stop.

One thing you can not argue is that the civil war was about many issues. The main issue however, was popular sovereignty for the south, and preserving the "union" for the north. Slavery was a huge part of the civil war there is no doubt about that. It was one of the reasons why there was no European intervention.

The declaration of Independence states, "...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

That is why the civil war was fought.

Cool story from the states that passed the Fugitive Slave Act through the FEDERAL government.

So how exactly did this government become destructive to them? Oh that's right, it didn't; they didn't even bother to wait until Lincoln had made a single executive decision before calling for secession.

[sinnerman]

War was over money. Lincoln primarily represented the northern industrialists, and indulged in "public works" programs dripping with patronage for his buddies, and to fund these public works program they required a source of income, back in those days it was tariffs. Southerners held the vast majority of the nations wealth in cash crops of cotton and to a lesser extent tobacco which they swapped for cheaper, better European manufactured goods. The smaller southern population paid 12/13 share of the tariffs which were the basic source of income for the government. Tax New Yorkers 13x the federal rate tomorrow, and then wonder if they'll want to stay in the Union. Slavery was a feature of the war, not the cause.

For Northerners, they need a noble cause to explain the rape and pillage of the south, when in reality it was all about transferring Southern wealth to the North. You may not want to believe that was the reason, but if you study the result of the war (ie. reconstruction AKA mass plunder, non representation of Southern states in congress, not even allowing white southerners to vote), that is exactly what happened. How noble to fight to preserve the Union then prevent the very people you want back to participate democratically, and commence to steal their property. It wasn't until the 1900's that the South's economy regained the strength it had in 1860. Plunder pure and simple.

Keep in mind Lincoln promised to raise import tariffs even higher when elected, and already the south was paying 12/13 of this tax. And yet people say it was about slavery. I don't even know why I'm posting this, most of you ignorant parrots who just mouth off what your 6th grade marxist teacher told you won't even try to understand or look into it. Also realize, Lincoln's plan was to ship all the Africans back to Africa... but their votes were too important to the Republican party's control of the South after the war... given ex Confederates were not allowed to vote. The radical reconstruction period proved that the South's suspicions about Lincoln's republican, federal government were 100% correct, and thus I quote many a persons hero;

"Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit."

Abraham Lincoln, January 12, 1848

[AndariusHaliusScipio]

War was over money. Lincoln primarily represented the northern industrialists, and indulged in "public works" programs dripping with patronage for his buddies, and to fund these public works program they required a source of income, back in those days it was tariffs. Southerners held the vast majority of the nations wealth in cash crops of cotton and to a lesser extent tobacco which they swapped for cheaper, better European manufactured goods. The smaller southern population paid 12/13 share of the tariffs which were the basic source of income for the government. Tax New Yorkers 13x the federal rate tomorrow, and then wonder if they'll want to stay in the Union. Slavery was a feature of the war, not the cause.

For Northerners, they need a noble cause to explain the rape and pillage of the south, when in reality it was all about transferring Southern wealth to the North. You may not want to believe that was the reason, but if you study the result of the war (ie. reconstruction AKA mass plunder, non representation of Southern states in congress, not even allowing white southerners to vote), that is exactly what happened. How noble to fight to preserve the Union then prevent the very people you want back to participate democratically, and commence to steal their property. It wasn't until the 1900's that the South's economy regained the strength it had in 1860. Plunder pure and simple.

Keep in mind Lincoln promised to raise import tariffs even higher when elected, and already the south was paying 12/13 of this tax. And yet people say it was about slavery. I don't even know why I'm posting this, most of you ignorant parrots who just mouth off what your 6th grade marxist teacher told you won't even try to understand or look into it. Also realize, Lincoln's plan was to ship all the Africans back to Africa... but their votes were too important to the Republican party's control of the South after the war... given ex Confederates were not allowed to vote. The radical reconstruction period proved that the South's suspicions about Lincoln's republican, federal government were 100% correct, and thus I quote many a persons hero;

"Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit."

Abraham Lincoln, January 12, 1848

Cool story bro. You almost had me until you accused me of being an ignorant avian capable of speech who learned only from Marxist literature.


If you stand by that, then I accept your surrender. If that was just to gain attention to your pretty paragraphs, I will ignore it and address your claims like so:


Lincoln did not secede. The Northern states did not secede.


The Southern states seceded, beginning with South Carolina. Their motivation was to preserve their racial hierarchy by which blacks were kept oppressed and perpetually beneath whites, with the system of slavery merely the means of the day by which to keep them down.


The Southern States opened fire first. They declared war on their own country, and other states followed suit when Lincoln chose to respond to force with force.


You sir, are wrong. Simple as that.




Another cool story: you say if you study the results of the war, you see mass plunder and oppression of Southerners. You know what you don't see if you study the results of the war? LINCOLN.


In case you forgot, big time smart guy John Wilkes Booth murdered Lincoln because he was butthurt over the South losing a fair fight. And in case you didn't bother to study the motivations and politics of Reconstruction, let me sum it up: Lincoln's plans for a generous amnesty and reintegration where literally only 10% of a states' populace needed to pledge loyalty to the Union for the ENTIRE STATE to be re-accepted were abandoned, and the radical abolitionists took over the process. A much harsher policy was VETOED by Lincoln in 1864.


Really sucks that I learned all this from those 6th grade Marxist history books, what with their facts and evidence and support. Where did you learn your history where Lincoln imposed all those heavy-handed measures of rape, loot, and plunder on the South and went on to win a second and third term from the southern-hating Irish and Croatian and European refugees who were totally in total political power up North?

[Minas Moth]

From what I came to study from various sources (both pro-Southern and pro-Union) it isn't true that Southern states didn't have representatives in the Congress after the War. in fact it isn't mentioned anywhere and I think that info like that would surely come up somewhere. Also, president after Lincoln was extremely pro-Southern to a degree where he really hampered Federal institutions to conduct their rebuild policy in the South. Southern states continued to shun black people and passed black codes which put blacks in no better state than they were before the War.

Also, I don't understand your reasons why the War was fought over money? with that kind of logic every war ever fought was fought over money (that is true ofc, but to make it a sole reason and declare slavery as a feature is a little too much). The USA trade exchange before the War (including the south ofc) was greatest with Britain. Britain imported most of the food and cotton from the States. now you could say that this were all produced in the South. vastly they were, but South and its slaves devoured most of the food produced there. Also, US exported iron, coal, wood and other raw materials and imported manufactured goods.

You say that Lincoln wanted to forbade import of foreign goods so that US manufacturers could expand and make more profit? I see it more as an attempt to get US production on the way, and to allow it more independence on economical plan. Who is to blame that Southern states didn't care to build cotton processing plants? who is to blame that southern states used different gauges of railroads? who is to blame that southern states showed no interest in the evolving technologies of manufacture and mass production. If South had invested money it had spend on the War it could easily match North in both industrial and other potentials. If South was such a great place to live and North was a slave to capitalism, why was there 22,000,000 people in the North and only 9,500,000 in the South (3,800,000 of whom were slaves)? don't you think that it would be reverse if South was such a prosperous and great place to live? especially if you consider that it had almost double the territory than Union.

Your post offered interesting reading in the beginning but it just turned into a text full of bitterness about something that happened 150 years ago. are you serious? I have lived through the war in which my country fought for its independence. I saw what a human hate can do to another being. that War was over 17 years ago. when we say we were wronged by our enemies and demand some form of satisfaction, you (Americans and other "high democracies") call us savages and "Balkanians" and lecture us about democracy... really? you fight over something that happened 150 years ago... am I the only one that sees no point in it? do you consider millions of slaves that were wronged by a simple fact they were enslaved in the South? who payed anything for their suffering? were they better after the War? no, Southern states remained as racist and as homophobic as they were before. it took them 100 years after the Civil War to finally accept blacks as equals. and you say that South was plundered under excuse of "reconstruction"? frankly, to me it seems South didn't want help, and chose to remain bitter and full of anger instead of receiving a helping hand...

that said, it is time to get official:

IF THIS THREAD AGAIN LEADS TO THE "ACW HISTORY WAR" I AM GOING TO CLOSE IT AND CLOSE IT FOR GOOD.

[Post Hoc]

Whats fair game?

[Crawdad21B2O]

IF THIS THREAD AGAIN LEADS TO THE "ACW HISTORY WAR" I AM GOING TO CLOSE IT AND CLOSE IT FOR GOOD.[/QUOTE]

Then you may wish to go ahead and close it, Mr. Moth. Because, right or wrong, or whether or not you understand it, the War stirs the passions of folks on both sides of the Mason Dixon to this day. As you are a moderator on the forum, you should realize that this thread's very existence on the forum is destined to create controversy so long as it remains up.

I do not, however, mean to suggest that I, or those of a likewise political bent, cannot discuss aspects of the Mod such as gameplay, music, what units to include or not include, or whether or not it is ahistorical to have Gregg's Brigade decked out in Columbus Depot Jackets, with the likes of, say, Andarius or other Union sympathizers. Indeed, I find his commentary insightful. Most of the people who play this mod are passionate (and thus knowledgeable) about the War itself. Unfortunately, this also means that they have, for the most part, chosen sides, so to speak. It is simply human nature; the more knowledgeable you are on a subject, the stronger your opinions become.

Which is what brings us to inevitable conflict. It would be like having Manchester United fans discuss football with fans of Chelsea FC. Or, for Americans, to have Alabama fans do the same with fans of LSU. We can discuss the sport with civility, right up until we start talking about our favorite teams.

So in closing, it puzzles me that you would really, really not want us to argue, and yet the thread topic "The Truth About Slavery" didn't set alarm bells to screaming in your head. Want my advice? Delete the thread, and screw the politics. It should be about the all game, anyway.

[AndariusHaliusScipio]

I was gonna say the same thing; an acw history war is the only thing you'd get from an open discussion. A professor of mine once said that the internet is the absolute worst possible place to discuss these sorts of things, and that the issue of slavery isn't even an issue amongst academia, save for the nutbags and political types like Newt Gingrich

[nce_wht_guy]

[B][COLOR=darkgreen]IF THIS THREAD AGAIN LEADS TO THE "ACW HISTORY WAR" I AM GOING TO CLOSE IT AND CLOSE IT FOR GOOD.

Then you may wish to go ahead and close it, Mr. Moth. Because, right or wrong, or whether or not you understand it, the War stirs the passions of folks on both sides of the Mason Dixon to this day. As you are a moderator on the forum, you should realize that this thread's very existence on the forum is destined to create controversy so long as it remains up.

I do not, however, mean to suggest that I, or those of a likewise political bent, cannot discuss aspects of the Mod such as gameplay, music, what units to include or not include, or whether or not it is ahistorical to have Gregg's Brigade decked out in Columbus Depot Jackets, with the likes of, say, Andarius or other Union sympathizers not traitorous racists . Indeed, I find his commentary insightful. Most of the people who play this mod are passionate (and thus knowledgeable) about the War itself. Unfortunately, this also means that they have, for the most part, chosen sides, so to speak. It is simply human nature; the more knowledgeable you are on a subject, the stronger your opinions become.

Which is what brings us to inevitable conflict. It would be like having Manchester United fans discuss football with fans of Chelsea FC. Or, for Americans, to have Alabama fans do the same with fans of LSU. We can discuss the sport with civility, right up until we start talking about our favorite teams.

So in closing, it puzzles me that you would really, really not want us to argue, and yet the thread topic "The Truth About Slavery" didn't set alarm bells to screaming in your head. Want my advice? Delete the thread, and screw the politics. It should be about the all game, anyway.

fixed.

[Crawdad21B2O]

fixed.

I apologize if you found the term "Union Sympathizer" offensive; I for one, would not be offended by being called a "Confederate Sympathizer", and thus did not foresee the term I used ruffling any feathers.

I will point out that the remainder of my post was thoroughly civil, and while I may have unintentionally gave offense with the use of what I thought to be innocuous term, I challenge you to justify your branding us as "Traitorous Racists" as being even plausibly unoffensive. I believe all your ungentlemanly overtures have achieved is to merely demonstrate my original point, and for that, you have my thanks.

[Minas Moth]

I found the thread title as an opportunity to discuss different aspects of the truth about slavery... and I (as a moderator) have nothing against it as long as the debate remains inside ToS.

as you said, yo can be civil when discussing sports, so keep it civil... also for the sake of the debate don't use claims that aren't verified or confirmed. what I mean is, don't take a stance just because you are Union or Confederate sympathizer and dismiss other people just based on your political or personal views...

for politics you have Political Mud Pit, for "Revision" of ACW you can go to Historical Forum of TWC. To me as a history enthusiast, this thread is a good one, as is to other (I think). I embrace all different opinions even though I don't necessarily agree with them (like your statement that South was actually "plundered" under excuse of reconstruction). It was just a warning, nothing more...

[IrishHitman]

Here's a nice catalyst in the works: Consider that slavery wasn't ever really abolished, in the sense that the slaves were not given equal opportunity, and the.

Official slavery to sharecropping to Jim Crow to today's modern privately owned prison system populated in large part by young African American males.

I'll go even further; The American Civil War was futility, even if the North was morally right.
The South still brazenly reject modernity and progressive thinking, the African American population is still largely poorer and criminalised, the North still has a holier-than-thou attitude that fails to help its cause, and the rest of the world watches in horror as the most powerful nation on Earth seems schizophrenic and incapable of just action.

[vf24renegade]

Money: the truth is over 75% of the income to the federal government did come from the south and Lincoln lamented when the southern states seceded about where to find that money.

Consider someother points. We look at events from today's moral standpoint. In the U.S., until 1864, when the Emancipation Declaration was delivered to raise waning support for the war in the north, slavery was legal. Moral it or not, slave owners were breaking no laws. Laws were already in place stopping the importation of slaves which had been done mostly in ships built and owned by northern shipping companies. The English had outlawed slavery in the late 1700's but only in the home islands. The west Indies coloines were allowed to keep the institution of slavery to satisfy the interest of the sugar plantation owners which provided, you guessed it, one of the largest sources of trade income in the empire. It seems, as has been stated that slavery was an issue to justify the various interests of the elites on both sides to further their own ends. Then, there's the question of the greater evil...those who buy or those who supply? Are we condemning the Muslim Africans who captured their countrymen and sold them into slavery? Should we? That's a practice that has been in place for thousands of years...since recorded time. And how do we feel about free blacks in the south who owned slaves? It's a murky issue that can and has been twisted to suit all interests' ends. That's why only pieces of the puzzle are taught in schools, not by marxists, but by the victors.

I submit, that had the south been allowed to or successfully seceded, that due to economic encroachment, industry and machines would've replaced slavery in an agrarian culture just as it has farmhands in the present. So no matter the outcome, slavery would've come to and end shortly thereafter. It's simple economics. Perhaps even faster if the resources of the south had not been so devastated by the war.

Northern factories have been mentioned, but in the industrial revolution, workers labored 12 hours a day, seven days a week and were kept in abject poverty. They didn't even have the luxury of housing and food, meager as it may have been, that slaves had. Not a whole lot of difference there.

Secession legality has been argued and claimed as a cause for the war. New England states threatened to secede in the early 1800's, so the principal is not new in 1860 nor relegated to the southern states. The sovereinty of the individual states has been argued since before the constitution was ratified and still is. Most southerners considered their states as their home and country.

I'll throw another philosophical wrench into the works...morality and legality aside....what conditions would the descendants of slaves be living in, if their ancestors had not been brought here.

[TiFlo]

(...) I'll throw another philosophical wrench into the works...morality and legality aside....what conditions would the descendants of slaves be living in, if their ancestors had not been brought here.

Dude, are you serious?!

[vf24renegade]

Yes Dude. I've been to Kenya. It's elementary if you can think for yourself outside the conditioning we've received. I think I can say with relative certainty that I live better here (assuming my family would've survived otherwise) than if my ancestors had never come here.