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.
And I'm extremely proud of the 190,000 blacks, who fought for their freedom in the Civil War.
And no one doubts they were brave soldiers and did credit to the Union cause (even if I strongly disagree with the said cause in terms of which side had the best constitutional arguments on its side).
But what about the many blacks who willingly served in the Confederate Army (see another related thread)? Should their contribution be ignored and/or ridiculed/downplayed?
That won't wash, JTG. North or South, slavery was continuation of an institution that had existed from Day One, so to speak. There were both white and free black slave owners. The concept was certainly not foriegn to the latter.
And let's be honest, also. The blunt fact is that, had it not been for the instituion of slavery in the New World, then Africans would not have been here to begin with...and their decendents later becoming full citizens (thru admirable efforts of their own, certainly and no question) and able to be part of the freedom and wealth that still today does not exist in Africa.
And BTW -- the above truth is not of my own coinage...but that of black conservatives such as Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams.
Sorry, but that is/was not the case. This asseration is somewhat reminicent of those New Englanders who later tried to present their own slavery as something benign and paternal. The most appalling and brutal human rights violations (including slavery) exists/existed in in black African nations. It continues today.
I have no doubt that you are going to take this (as you did with Memphis' earlier missive) as some sort of defense of slavery. Well, I can't stop you from doing so...and if that is really what you feel? Then ok, whatever...but it doesn't change facts. ..
As it really was though, not even the severest critic of slavery (ala' as in serious historian) alledges that wanton cruelty was the norm in the American South. Sure, there were sadistic slave-owners (both black and white, as it was), but there were laws on the books which made it criminal to deliberately mistreat and abuse. Hell, in fact, (read the book "Time On The Cross" sometime) the mortality rate among slave children in the South was actually lower than thoe of factory workers in the North. And the living conditions actually -- on average -- was above. BTW --this work is definitely NOT a defense of slavery. On the contrary, it is very critical...but it DOES present some undeniable facts that fly in the face of that slaves were subject to intentional mistreatment.
Again, it was actually milder (in terms of actual conditions and treatment) than anywhere else in the world where it still existed. But as may be, if we trace the blame (if such terms can be used) then it cannot begin or end with the ante-bellum South. That can only stand to historical reason.
We agree on this one, it seems.
You're appeal to "Time on the Cross" and Sowell and Williams doesn't say much for your objectivity. You're pretty slick at putting out your revisionism, I'll admit, but anyone who reads widely sees through it.
And no one doubts they were brave soldiers and did credit to the Union cause (even if I strongly disagree with the said cause in terms of which side had the best constitutional arguments on its side).
But what about the many blacks who willingly served in the Confederate Army (see another related thread)? Should their contribution be ignored and/or ridiculed/downplayed?
So what? They won. What is the point here?
TexasReb, it's pointless getting into an argument with the PC advocates on this forum. Descendants of Confederate soldiers have a right to be proud of their heritage.
You're appeal to "Time on the Cross" and Sowell and Williams doesn't say much for your objectivity. You're pretty slick at putting out your revisionism, I'll admit, but anyone who reads widely sees through it.
There is no appeal to it. Sorry if you can't handle the truth. Better stated, sorry if you can't grasp that reasonable people can take the same historical facts and percieve and interpret them in different ways.
But that is your problem with objectivity, not mine.
TexasReb, it's pointless getting into an argument with the PC advocates on this forum. Descendants of Confederate soldiers have a right to be proud of their heritage.
You are very correct, D-Towner. I oughta know this myself by now.
That is a matter of your personal historical perspective. I could just as easily say (and will), that the Northern military forces were foriegn troops in Confederate territorial waters. They were given every opportunity to honorably withdraw and Confederate commissioners were sent north to negotiate a peaceful settlement to the situation. Instead (and he said as much later), Lincoln chose to provoke the South into making a military move. That way, he could unite northern public opinion to support invading the Lower South on the grounds that U.S. (i.e. northern states who kept the name by default) honor had been insulted. He knew full well that, otherwise, the prevailing consensus in the North was to let the South go in peace (which is all it wanted, anyway).
Did the northern states ever put forth a timetable of the same type and under similar circumstances? Why did the clock start ticking only after the North gradually emancipated (and in a way as to not cause slave-owners any personal inconvenience)? Actually, plantation type slavery had pretty much reached its natural geographic limits in central Texas, and was bound for eventual extinction, and many astute Southerners knew it. BTW -- Jim Crow laws were of northern origins.
Jim Crow laws were definitely NOT of northern origin. The North had also had restrictions but the laws defined as Jim Crow did not start there. The rest of your stuff is Southern spin and not worth responding to.
Jim Crow laws were definitely NOT of northern origin. The North had also had restrictions but the laws defined as Jim Crow did not start there.
Yes, they were/did.
“One of the strangest things about the career of Jim Crow was that the system was born in the North and reached an advanced age before moving South in force.” -- C. Vann Woodward, The Strange Career of Jim Crow
But if the Confederacy won, the hell of Federalism would have been averted, and we would not all be enslaved to the traitorous criminals in Washington. There would be no income tax, we would have protected American businesses with tariffs and trade levies, we would have avoided the Free Trade idiocy that wiped out our Middle Class, and slavery would have ended anyway as the agrarian way of life gave way to industrialization.
Too bad America died because the Federalist North imposed totalitarian government, masquerading as a Democratic Republic.
How well the Gov. forgot the truth until he was reminded of it........
"The Atlantic slave trade was one of the last millennium’s greatest horrors. An estimated 17 million Africans, most of them teenagers, were snatched from their families, stuffed into the holds of ships and brought to the New World. As many as 7 million of them died en route, either on the high seas or at “seasoning” camps in the Caribbean where they were “broken” to the will of their masters."
I notice it was conveniently left out or not noted above, MOST of the people were not snatched from their families by the people on those ships, but by their neighboring tribes to be slaves, and many were sold as slaves, to be shipped out to various places and sold yet again as slaves.
But if the Confederacy won, the hell of Federalism would have been averted, and we would not all be enslaved to the traitorous criminals in Washington. There would be no income tax, we would have protected American businesses with tariffs and trade levies, we would have avoided the Free Trade idiocy that wiped out our Middle Class, and slavery would have ended anyway as the agrarian way of life gave way to industrialization.
Too bad America died because the Federalist North imposed totalitarian government, masquerading as a Democratic Republic.
The Confederacy lost because they never won the ideological battle for their concept of government. The fact of the matter was they could never persuade the majority of Americans to believe in their concept of states’ rights having supremacy over the Federal Government.
It's an argument that states rights advocates have pushed time and time again in American history and each time they have failed. In fact there is no modern developed country where an indvidual province, state or terriotry in a country has supremacy over the national government.
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.
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.
Really?
