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.
How am I getting defensive? You are the one defending Confederate pride. You are completely reading something that is not there. You keep on deflecting the evils of the South by pointing to the North. Nowhere have I ever said that the North was completely free of evil. There is wrong and then there is wronger. You misunderstood my statement about abolitionists. My point was that some people don't have a problem with doing bad things as long as they are making money because their judgment is clouded by the love of money. Take away the money and people see things differently.
You are getting defensive because all of your points have been addressed, and then you keep shifting. What your posts are starting to boil down to is scab-picking and a one-person morality play.
And yes, I am going to present the case for the South when someone (as you started and still do) give your own biased version of events. Nothing wrong with that per se. History IS a biased subject on both parts. The thing is, the northern version is usually the accepted one since the winners write the history. Thus, it may appear to be objective but in reality, it is just as slanted as any other version of any other conflict/war in history.
Kinda funny, you attack the Confederate side, then seem suprised when it is defended.
And where did I disagree with the last part? This is part of what I mean. You are arguing points that no one has brought up and/or never said otherwise.
Quote:
What was the motivation of the wealthy up north if they had already made their fortunes?
I am not sure of your point. Which wealthy and what motive? If you are talking about some of the abolitionists, then once their wealth was secure, it is easy to become righteous and morally superior. They paid no price for it.
Quote:
I already know about the Europeans being appalled by the conditions of the workers up north. I also know about the biased accounts given by slave owners such as slaves singing because they were happy. When an actual slave was asked, like Frederick Douglass, that was not the case.
You keep bringing up this happy slave thing. Slave or free, life was hard and harsh during that era and in most cases, blacks and poor whites labored and suffered side by side.
Quote:
The workers up north worked in poor conditions, but they were allowed to have their dignity and earn a living. Blacks were in bondage, had no rights, all of their offspring were doomed to be slaves, their families were split up, they were whipped like children, they were severely punished if they tried to run away, laws were passed to ban teaching them how to read, they were seen by almost everyone as racially inferior, and many of them were forced to be sex slaves.
That was another thing brought out in Time On the Cross, which again is definitely not a defense of slavery. You have got to be kidding though, so far as being allowed their dignity. Another thing mentioned, was that, unlike in the North, slave-owners were obligated to care for the sick, injured, and old. And there were laws against deliberate mistreatment.
On the other hand, when someone got injured on a factory job, or got to old to perform the task, they were simply fired and tossed out in the street. Yes, they were free in a sense, but bound to the company store and in many ways, just as dependent upon their boss as slaves were on their owners. That is why Unions have always been stronger in the North than South, because the life of the average factory worker was NOT one of dignity and freedom. That is as much a canard as the "happy slave" myth you keep bringing up.
BTW -- I am sure you know there were free black slave-owners as well.
Quote:
There is just no comparison between a worker up north and a slave. At least the industrial workers were able to fight for their rights over a period of time; slaves had to depend on whites to give them freedom. One may argue whether or not the living standards were better, but that's all physical. The psychological and sociological conditions were certainly not better.
Let me mention something else. If you want to talk about misery and psychological and social oppresive conditions, then look at that of the "free" black in the North.
And also, over time, blacks in the South fought and struggled (admirably) for their rights as well. And BTW -- ever see the series, Eyes On the Prize? Andrew Young and several others activists of the day said they were NEVER so scared for their safety in the South than they were when the Civil Rights Movement went into the North.
BTW -- how long do you think slavery would have lasted if the Northern slave traders had not carried them to the South to begin with? The slave-trade itself was a purely northern commodity; not a single slave ship was ever chartered out of a Southern port.
My supply and demand response was made because of your attempt to blame the North for slavery as if the South were forced or coerced into buying slaves. It was not a deflection on my part. The people up north have slaves? Yes. Did they once participate in slave trading? Yes. Did the South want slaves? Yes. Would they have gotten slaves without the help of the North. Probably so. So my answer is that the South probably would have had slaves anyway. It has nothing to do with deflecting blame from the Union.
The institution of slavery in the western hemisphere is what's being discussed. European countries started abolishing slavery long before the Civil War also. Most of the people who were involved in slavery were Christians. The Bible condemns kidnapping people and then enslaving them. The institution of slavery in biblical times was different and the type of slavery that went on in the Americas is not justified in the Bible. The first abolitionist society starting in the South is completely irrelevant. The idea obviously didn't catch on with a significant portion of the population. Saying that slavery was a necessary evil that needed to die a natural death just sounds like a bunch of selfishness.
LMAO And who do you think kidnapped and enslaved Africans to begin with? It was other Africans. And if slavery was wrong, then it was always wrong and it wasn't much different in the Biblical days. Your trying to blame the South because it didn't follow a time-frame that you might like (or I might have either, for that matter) is just a dodge.
And it has already been addressed as to why attitudes changed in the South.
Quote:
Tocqueville wasn't around to see how blacks were treated in the South compared to the North after the war.
Do you think they were treated any better in the North? DeTocqueville is not the only observer to comment of this topic. The biggest difference in Southern and Northern segregation is that the former was just less hypocritical about it. The worst race riots in history have been in northern cities.
You are getting defensive because all of your points have been addressed, and then you keep shifting. What your posts are starting to boil down to is scab-picking and a one-person morality play.
And yes, I am going to present the case for the South when someone (as you started and still do) give your own biased version of events. Nothing wrong with that per se. History IS a biased subject on both parts. The thing is, the northern version is usually the accepted one since the winners write the history. Thus, it may appear to be objective but in reality, it is just as slanted as any other version of any other conflict/war in history.
Kinda funny, you attack the Confederate side, then seem suprised when it is defended.
And where did I disagree with the last part? This is part of what I mean. You are arguing points that no one has brought up and/or never said otherwise.
I am not sure of your point. Which wealthy and what motive? If you are talking about some of the abolitionists, then once their wealth was secure, it is easy to become righteous and morally superior. They paid no price for it.
You keep bringing up this happy slave thing. Slave or free, life was hard and harsh during that era and
That was another thing brought out in Time On the Cross, which again is definitely not a defense of slavery. You have got to be kidding though, so far as being allowed their dignity. Another thing mentioned, was that, unlike in the North, slave-owners were obligated to care for the sick, injured, and old. And there were laws against deliberate mistreatment.
On the other hand, when someone got injured on the job, or got to old to perform the task, they were tossed out in the street. Yes, they were free in a sense, but bound to the company store and in many ways, just as dependent upon their boss as slaves were. That is why Unions have always been stronger in the North than South, because the life of the average factory worker was NOT one of dignity and freedom. That is as much a canard as the "happy slave" myth you keep bringing up.
BTW -- I am sure you know there were free black slave-owners as well.
Let me mention something else. If you want to talk about misery and psychological and social oppresive conditions, then look at that of the "free" black in the North.
And also, over time, blacks in the South fought and struggled (admirably) for their rights as well. And BTW -- ever see the series, Eyes On the Prize? Andrew Young and several others activists of the day said they were NEVER so scared for their safety in the South than they were when the Civil Rights Movement went into the North.
Gathering an understanding requires two-way dialog. If I disagree with the justification, I will continue to express that. I have not shifted points. Every change in topic happened because of something you mentioned such as Texas seceding for other reasons. Those other reasons involved attacks from Native Americans.
The people who probably have the least amount of say in the history are the former slaves.
I am not surprised at all that it's being defended. I don't know why you're making that assumption. I asked a question expecting an answer.
Of course the slave owners had to take care of their slaves. They were worth money and it's not like they could walk to the hospital. My employer today is not responsible for caring for me when I get sick. I don't even have health insurance, but I am free to go to the hospital and have money to make monthly payments on the bill.
There is dignity in freedom and having the ability to form unions and strike.
I know there were blacks who owned slaves. It doesn't change anything or make it anymore just. They were just a minority who turned their backs on their own people and wanted to become more like whites like the Cherokees.
The Civil Rights Movement is not slavery. Slaves did not have the ability to fight for their rights. The people who participated in the Civil Rights Movement were oppressed, but they were not slaves. So that point is moot.
Several activists said that racism was at its worst in places like Mississippi. My grandmother is from Maryland and was surprised by the number of racists who were still around in San Antonio in the 70s.
My supply and demand response was made because of your attempt to blame the North for slavery as if the South were forced or coerced into buying slaves. It was not a deflection on my part. The people up north have slaves? Yes. Did they once participate in slave trading? Yes. Did the South want slaves? Yes. Would they have gotten slaves without the help of the North. Probably so. So my answer is that the South probably would have had slaves anyway. It has nothing to do with deflecting blame from the Union.
No, lets really be honest here. You only addressed slavery and the slave trade in the North because you couldn't avoid doing so. You never would have mentioned it at all if it had not been brought to your attention, would you? BTW -- again, the CSA constitution specifically outlawed the slave trade, so the only way they would have been brought here is BY the northern shipping merchants.
LMAO And who do you think kidnapped and enslaved Africans to begin with? It was other Africans. And if slavery was wrong, then it was always wrong and it wasn't much different in the Biblical days. Your trying to blame the South because it didn't follow a time-frame that you might like (or I might have either, for that matter) is just a dodge.
And it has already been addressed as to why attitudes changed in the South.
Do you think they were treated any better in the North? DeTocqueville is not the only observer to comment of this topic. The biggest difference in Southern and Northern segregation is that the former was just less hypocritical about it. The worst race riots in history have been in northern cities.
I don't see what this has to do with anything being discussed here. We are discussing the U.S. The Africans were not Christians or involved in the Civil War, but yes, they did sell their own people to Europeans. This just sounds like more deflection by saying other people did it too. All forms of slavery are wrong in my eyes, but the Bible has been used to justify slavery by Christians. You even pointed out before that the slave owners were bound by Christian ethics which makes no sense to me because their version of slavery did not follow the rules laid out in the Bible.
By the way, that was in response to you asking why about the timetable of slavery in Africa and the Middle East. It should have been abolished everywhere a long time ago, but we are talking about the abolitionist movement amongst Western nations....at least I was. There was a movement happening in the western hemisphere and in Europe before the war, not just the North. How is that a dodge when the South wasn't following the times? Isn't that what you pointed out in the other thread? You have to look at history in the context of that era.
And most of the lynchings happened in the South. The Ku Klux Klan was started in the South.
Gathering an understanding requires two-way dialog. If I disagree with the justification, I will continue to express that. I have not shifted points. Every change in topic happened because of something you mentioned such as Texas seceding for other reasons. Those other reasons involved attacks from Native Americans.
I can't believe this. YOU are the one who brought up Native Americans. You are the one who brought up reasons for secession and the declarations of causes and I gave the full story and reasons which differed and varied from one to the other...not just an abbreviated version.
Quote:
I am not surprised at all that it's being defended. I don't know why you're making that assumption. I asked a question expecting an answer.
And you have been getting answers.
Quote:
Of course the slave owners had to take care of their slaves. They were worth money and it's not like they could walk to the hospital. My employer today is not responsible for caring for me when I get sick. I don't even have health insurance, but I am free to go to the hospital and have money to make monthly payments on the bill.
Ok. Stop for a moment. Yes, slaves were valuable, as you say yourself. Which is the reason deliberate mistreatment was the exception rather than the rule. Sure there were sadistic slaveowners (both black and white) but routine beatings and abuse were not common and, in fact, were against the law. Earlier however, you talked of such as if it were common place...now you seem to say different.
Quote:
There is dignity in freedom and having the ability to form unions and strike.
I agree. What I said was that the average northern factory worker did NOT have much dignity in that day and age. And physical punishment was not unusual in some cases.
Quote:
I know there were blacks who owned slaves. It doesn't change anything or make it anymore just. They were just a minority who turned their backs on their own people and wanted to become more like whites like the Cherokees.
I agree it is wrong. Only a stone-idiot would defend slavery today as an institution. On that we are agreed.
No, they didn't turn their backs on their own people, exactly. Slavery was extensive in Africa (and it still exists there) so it wasn't like it was something unfamiliar to blacks in America. I am sure the slaves didn't like it (who would?), but equally so did many of them who later purchased their freedom (this was fairly common) become slave owners themselves fresh from slavery. And actually, the percentage of black slave owners was comparable to the rate among whites.
The Civil Rights movement is not slavery. Slaves did not have the ability to fight for their rights. The people who participated in the Civil Rights Movement were oppressed, but they were not slaves. So that point is moot.
Where did THAT come from? You talked about how blacks were treated in the South after the War. I brought up several important points showing it wasn't much different than in the North, actually not milder in lots of ways. You asked the question and got an answer.
Quote:
Several activists said that racism was at its worst in places like Mississippi. My grandmother is from Maryland and was surprised by the number of racists who were still around in San Antonio in the 70s.
It was actually Dr. Martin Luther King who, rather astounded, after going into the North, said something like "If you want to teach a white Southerner how to hate, send him to Chicago!"
No, lets really be honest here. You only addressed slavery and the slave trade in the North because you couldn't avoid doing so. You never would have mentioned it at all if it had not been brought to your attention, would you? BTW -- again, the CSA constitution specifically outlawed the slave trade, so the only way they would have been brought here is BY the northern shipping merchants.
Your response doesn't make sense. The slave trade had already ended. There would be no one bringing slaves to the CSA from the North. You pointed to a period when the slave trade was going on and how the South wouldn't have had slaves in the first place if it weren't for the North. This is way before the Civil War.
Um, I didn't bring up the North owning slaves because it wasn't relevant to anything being discussed. The northern states had already abolished slavery. The border states had slaves and they didn't secede to protect their institutions. I really don't know where you're going here.
I can't believe this. YOU are the one who brought up Native Americans. You are the one who brought up reasons for secession and the declarations of causes and I gave the full story and reasons which differed and varied from one to the other...not just an abbreviated version.
And you have been getting answers.
Ok. Stop for a moment. Yes, slaves were valuable, as you say yourself. Which is the reason deliberate mistreatment was the exception rather than the rule. Sure there were sadistic slaveowners (both black and white) but routine beatings and abuse were not common and, in fact, were against the law. Earlier however, you talked of such as if it were common place...now you seem to say different.
I agree. What I said was that the average northern factory worker did NOT have much dignity in that day and age. And physical punishment was not unusual in some cases.
I agree it is wrong. Only a stone-idiot would defend slavery today as an institution. On that we are agreed.
No, they didn't turn their backs on their own people, exactly. Slavery was extensive in Africa (and it still exists there) so it wasn't like it was something unfamiliar to blacks in America. I am sure the slaves didn't like it (who would?), but equally so did many of them who later purchased their freedom (this was fairly common) become slave owners themselves fresh from slavery. And actually, the percentage of black slave owners was comparable to the rate among whites.
Where did THAT come from? You talked about how blacks were treated in the South after the War. I brought up several important points showing it wasn't much different than in the North, actually not milder in lots of ways. You asked the question and got an answer.
It was actually Dr. Martin Luther King who, rather astounded, after going into the North, said something like "If you want to teach a white Southerner how to hate, send him to Chicago!"
I can't believe this. I brought up Native Americans because you mentioned other reasons for Texas seceding such as the government not protecting the open frontier. Protecting them from what? The Native Americans.
I didn't mention common beatings, I mentioned being whipped like a child and facing harsh punishment after escape attempts.
Blacks owning slaves in America is not the same as Africans owning slaves in Africa. Although it's wrong anywhere, blacks knew that the institution of slavery was based on race in America and that blacks were seen as inferior. It's not like the blacks could own white people.
I have seen numbers different from the article you posted. It was more like 385,000 families owned slaves, not 385,000 individuals which makes the percentage much larger than what's presented in that article. Unless I missed something in that article because I just skimmed over it, the disproportionate number was only in New Orleans. I didn't see a percentage for all of the free blacks in the South.
I don't see what this has to do with anything being discussed here. We are discussing the U.S. The Africans were not Christians or involved in the Civil War, but yes, they did sell their own people to Europeans. This just sounds like more deflection by saying other people did it too. All forms of slavery are wrong in my eyes, but the Bible has been used to justify slavery by Christians. You even pointed out before that the slave owners were bound by Christian ethics which makes no sense to me because their version of slavery did not follow the rules laid out in the Bible.
By the way, that was in response to you asking why about the timetable of slavery in Africa and the Middle East. It should have been abolished everywhere a long time ago, but we are talking about the abolitionist movement amongst Western nations....at least I was. There was a movement happening in the western hemisphere and in Europe before the war, not just the North. How is that a dodge when the South wasn't following the times? Isn't that what you pointed out in the other thread? You have to look at history in the context of that era.
What really seems obvious is that you want to frame the terms of the discussion and I will not go along with that. I am really getting less and less sure what your motive and rationale and points are.
It started with you giving your interpretation of the WBTS and why you think the South was wrong. That is fine. I gave the other side of it, and it started from there. You bring up points and issues, get answers and counter-points... and then say they are not the point.
I am not deflecting anything, because I am not out to pick historical scabs. Yes, when you bring up Southern evils, I am going to make points of comparisson and asked what the South is being compared to? That is, again, if they are the sinners, then where are the saints?
That's right, you have to look at the context of that era. Conditions and historical circumstances were not uniform in the western world, so therefore the American South was more dependent upon large agriculture then it is only natural that it would disappear there later. But still, it WAS being struggled with even there. Also, northern factories and those in Europe seemed to have no problem making money off Southern cotton produced by slave-labor. So I guess while they abolished slavery because there was no direct profit in it, they had no qualms about making a living off of it indirectly.
Quote:
And most of the lynchings happened in the South. The Ku Klux Klan was started in the South.
Yes, the KKK started in the South. However, during its real "heyday" in the 1930's, it was most powerful in the Midwest.
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.
You talked about how blacks were treated in the South after the War. I brought up several important points showing it wasn't much different than in the North, actually not milder in lots of ways. You asked the question and got an answer. 
