Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-03-2011, 01:18 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 24,104,856 times
Reputation: 21239

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nighteyes View Post
The North wanted to abolish slavery; the South would have gone along had they been compensated for the financial loss this would have caused.

.


Do you have any evidence, as in expressions of slave owners that they would accept compensation rather than continue to be slave owners?

I find it difficult to reconcile your assertion with what was the foundational theory and ongoing justification of slavery, that the negro race was an inferior one, that the Africans caught a break when they were abducted from their homes in primitive places and brought to where a superior race could care for them and introduce them to Christinaity and morality.

That was how slavery was promoted ...as an absolute good, from planatation owners, from politicians and from their priests and pastors.

That doesn't sound to me like a people anxious to see their slaves liberated. The idea of free blacks in the South was a terrifying one for most Southern whites. They feared retribution from former slaves, they feared the loss of their 3/5ths additional representation in Congress.

If slaves were liberated but not made citizens, that would terminate that 3/5ths bonus representation in Congress. If the freed slaves were made citizens, the South would receive the full 5/5ths representation in Congress, but of course there would now be a black bloc of voters to turn that representation against the Southern political power structure.

Finally, in 1862, President Lincoln presented the slave states not in rebellion (Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri and Deleware), with a proposal for exactly what you are suggesting...compensated, gradual emancipation. LIncoln got a resounding "No" by way of response. So if they slave owners in the upper South were so strongly against it, what would make anyone think that the deep South would be for it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-03-2011, 01:52 PM
 
2,991 posts, read 4,286,480 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post

I find it difficult to reconcile your assertion with what was the foundational theory and ongoing justification of slavery, that the negro race was an inferior one, that the Africans caught a break when they were abducted from their homes in primitive places and brought to where a superior race could care for them and introduce them to Christinaity and morality.

That was how slavery was promoted ...as an absolute good, from planatation owners, from politicians and from their priests and pastors.
You (Grandstander) very likely know the following already; nevertheless, I would like to add "for the record" that this kind of interpretation of slavery did not originate with Antebellum Southern Americans. It appears a lot earlier in, for example, Aristotle's Politics and in his Nicomachean Ethics.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2011, 02:07 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 24,104,856 times
Reputation: 21239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamish Forbes View Post
You (Grandstander) very likely know the following already; nevertheless, I would like to add "for the record" that this kind of interpretation of slavery did not originate with Antebellum Southern Americans. It appears a lot earlier in, for example, Aristotle's Politics and in his Nicomachean Ethics.
Oh, it definitely enjoyed a very wide application. It was also the justification theory for most colonial ventures, as well as the justification used by the Manifest Destiny crowd to terminate the lifestyle of the native Americans.

Bringing Christianity to any booga booga types was considered such an immense virtue that it made acceptable homicide, property theft and the extinction of many cultures.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2011, 02:17 PM
 
2,991 posts, read 4,286,480 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Oh, it definitely enjoyed a very wide application. It was also the justification theory for most colonial ventures, as well as the justification used by the Manifest Destiny crowd to terminate the lifestyle of the native Americans.

Bringing Christianity to any booga booga types was considered such an immense virtue that it made acceptable homicide, property theft and the extinction of many cultures.
Aristotle was, of course, pre-Christian. But c'mon, there is no need to slander Christians (unless it makes you feel better to do so), whose behavior as conquerers was generally enlightened compared with historical standards.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2011, 02:36 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 24,104,856 times
Reputation: 21239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamish Forbes View Post
Aristotle was, of course, pre-Christian. But c'mon, there is no need to slander Christians (unless it makes you feel better to do so), whose behavior as conquerers was generally enlightened compared with historical standards.
Huh? Enlightened? The Crusaders were enlightened? The Conqustadors were enlightened? The Thirty Years War was the product of Christian enlightenment?

Perhaps you have not read the history of Christianity. It began as a cult and for the first couple of hundred years, it actually was fairly congruent with the teachings of Jesus, the early Christians behaved quite well within the Roman empire. But that was the time period when Christianity was a religion which came up from the lower classes and was spread slowly among the aristocrats.

After Constantine, Christianity changed to a religion imposed by the aristocrats upon everyone, including swordpoint conversions. Most of middle Europe was converted in this manner by Charlemagne, defeated enemies were given a choice of conversion, enslavement or execution.

Then through the early middle ages period, Christianity was mainly a relic happy pile of superstions, hardly distinguised in practice from the booga booga stuff which it replaced. Nearly all tourism in this period was related to journeys to visit some bogus shrine. There was hardly a town in Europe back then that didn't offer some miraculous attraction...This town had the "Three True Nails" used to fix Jesus to the cross, that town had the veil used by Mary Mags to wipe the face of Jesus, this town had The True Crown of Thorns and a few miles up the road was another town with the straw from the manger where Jesus was born....and if you collected all the pieces of the True Cross which villages were promoting across the continent, you could have built a cathedral with them.

After the rise of Christian nations, it became an imperial religion, a forced export on those unlucky enough to dwell in lands that the Christians coveted.

I cannot find any reason to hold Christianity up as some enlightened form of cultural hegemony.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2011, 03:02 PM
 
2,991 posts, read 4,286,480 times
Reputation: 4270
You missed the key -- by historical standards. Life was tough in the old days. Read about the (pre-Christian) destruction of the vanquished (every male killed, every woman and child taken into slavery, every structure burned, and salt plowed into the fields, for starters). All said, Christians have been no worse than others, and better than many, by the applicable standards of the time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2011, 05:03 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
48,564 posts, read 24,104,856 times
Reputation: 21239
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamish Forbes View Post
You missed the key -- by historical standards. Life was tough in the old days. Read about the (pre-Christian) destruction of the vanquished (every male killed, every woman and child taken into slavery, every structure burned, and salt plowed into the fields, for starters). All said, Christians have been no worse than others, and better than many, by the applicable standards of the time.
I fail to see how your above description of what sounds like the sacking of Carthage, differs in enlightenment quality from the Crusaders slaughtering all the Jews that they encountered on the way to the Holy Land, taking Jerusalem from the Turks, and then slaughtering all the Muslims and Jews that were inside.

You charged me with "slandering" Christians and the recognized legal defense against slander is proof of the statement. I was providing that proof.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2011, 05:31 PM
 
Location: Willow Spring and Mocksville
275 posts, read 396,646 times
Reputation: 482
Quote:
Originally Posted by thriftylefty View Post
I think the bigger question is how could something exist for 248 years and suddenly in the 249th year the nation goes to war with its self in order to abolish it ? Slavery was always there to fight about but something else occurred in that 249th year that put the union and slavery on the line.
Even during the Revolutionary period, there Slavery was a controversial issue. Our Founding Fathers knew that this would have to be settled eventually. But in the short term, they also knew that the Southern states, which were critical to the Revolution, would never agree to be part of an entity which did not perpetrate Slavery. So in the interest of winning independence, they put off the Slavery issue.
What happened was that due to the expansion of the country, new states would be added which would result in the South losing it's dominance over the government. Before this, anti-slavery legislature had no chance whatsoever of succeeding, because the South dominated national politics. This is why the expansion of slavery into the territories was so important to the Fire-eaters. For every Free State admitted to the Union, the South would lose more clout. Eventually the Slave States would be outnumbered, even with the 3/5 rule, and lose their dominance. This is actually spelled out in one of the Secessionist speeches. (Off hand I can't remember the speaker. I'll look for it when I get home.) Pro-Slavery forces foresaw the day when Slavery would be voted out of existence by an anti-slavery majority. They identified Lincoln with the Abolitionists, figured that this day was fast approaching, and that's why his election resulted in Secession.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2011, 05:32 PM
 
2,991 posts, read 4,286,480 times
Reputation: 4270
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
I fail to see how your above description of what sounds like the sacking of Carthage, differs in enlightenment quality from the Crusaders slaughtering all the Jews that they encountered on the way to the Holy Land, taking Jerusalem from the Turks, and then slaughtering all the Muslims and Jews that were inside.

You charged me with "slandering" Christians and the recognized legal defense against slander is proof of the statement. I was providing that proof.
Yes. Now how does this "prove" that the behavior of Christians during the crusades was worse, in any way, than the sacking of Carthage? You've just said (above) that the behaviors of the conquerers were roughly the same, although this seems to me to be quite inaccurate -- Jerusalem and its environs fared better than Carthage. Moreover, do you not see the irony in "taking Jerusalem from the Turks"? From the Turks, who had exactly what claim to it?

In other words, there is no reason to keep harping on the misbehavior of Christians. Their behavior was generally par for the course, or better, for the times. You clearly don't like Christians (I don't care), but there is no need to keep disparaging them, and rather ill-mannered to do so.

You may have the last word on the subject, if you care to.

Best regards -- HF
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-03-2011, 05:37 PM
 
Location: FROM Dixie, but IN SoCal
3,484 posts, read 6,506,894 times
Reputation: 3793
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
Do you have any evidence, as in expressions of slave owners that they would accept compensation rather than continue to be slave owners?
There I go again, making a simple, absolute statement when a highly complex & conditional one would have been far more accurate. ["Mind like a steel trap," remember?]

Suffice it to say that the issue of slavery was extremely complex. Slave owners were by no means identical, other than for the fact that they all owned slaves. Because of this, the issue of emancipation was also extremely complex.

Some would have gone along if they stood to receive just compensation for the cost of the freed slaves. Others would have gone along if the emancipation were implemented gradually over a period of time (e.g. a decade or so), so as to give them time to figure out other ways of producing cotton, etc.

Of course there were some who wouldn't have gone along with anything other than getting the North permanently out of their business -- so to speak.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:49 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top