• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

On the nature of the Confederacy, the American Civil War, and Slavery

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
I never said that only Southerners were racist. That is an (invalid) inference on your part.
I said that Southern slaveholders were more racist than Northerners, because they practiced slavery on the basis of race. That racially based slavery was a practice in the South is an undisputed fact.

Please respond to what I actually wrote.


Note how I also did not say that Northerners were not racist.
That is also an invalid inference on your part.

And I very definitely did not say this:


Again, please respond to what I actually wrote.

Furthermore, I never touched upon the question of morality. I am solely interested here in the motivations behind Southern secession and the Confederate fight against the Union. Whether you think of them as heroes or villains is not something I want to discuss.

In fact, let me state for the record that I will at no point in this debate argue for or against the morality of Southern secession. If that is the direction you want to take this debate, then I flat out will not follow you there.

Oh please. You always have presented the South as the white supremacist. That is what I said. Thus it is important to show that Lincoln and the North where equally, white supremacist's. Their 'racism' and 'white supremacy' was the same. Pay attention.

I have responded to what you wrote. But what you wrote, you are learning, is full of holes and misinformation.

Yes you did say that. You asked how could Lincoln be as racist as the Southern slave owner. And I showed you. See (135).

Furthermore, I didn't say you touched on the issue of morality. I compared morality with white supremacy as both are buzz words used to create bias. And you constantly have accused the South as white supremacist in contrast with the North. So, please respond to what I actually wrote.

Now your scared. I am not taking this into the direction of 'morality'. You have taken it in the direction of 'white supremeacy' and have been shown you don't know what you are talking about. If your scared I understand. You should back out now as it is only going to get worse.

Now, you respond to what I wrote in post #(135). Answer the questions. You can't. They will prove you wrong. But, I am waiting.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Well, I never stated in the first place that "the South was racist and fought for slavery and that the North was not racist and fought to free the black man" so I guess your work here is already done?

I didn't say you did. You asked my purpose in the debate and I am giving it to you. You don't like it because it reveals you don't know what you are talking about. As I have said before, if you don't want to know don't ask.

Concerning whether my work is done, that is up to you, not me. You invited this discussion, now you keep trying to crawfish. As I indicated in the previous post, it is probably better that you do back out. It is only going to get worse for you.

But, you know why it is only going to get worse? Because you're not interested in learning anything. You have decided one way and because all the facts are pointing that you are wrong, you have no recourse. And if we continue it will not be good for you. I have studied it. You have not. You simply believe the politically correct and haymaking myths.

Your statement 'my work here is done' is just your effort to crawfish, yet accuse me of the one backing out. And I am not backing out.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
Oh please. You always have presented the South as the white supremacist.
Because slaveholder culture was built on ideas of white supremacism. Now could you please show me where I said that the North wasn't racist?
That is what I said. Thus it is important to show that Lincoln and the North where equally, white supremacist's. Their 'racism' and 'white supremacy' was the same. Pay attention.
Why was it important to show that the North was racist? What does this have to do with the topic under debate, i.e. the question whether the South seceded and fought a war in order to preserve slavery?

I have responded to what you wrote. But what you wrote, you are learning, is full of holes and misinformation.
Such as?

Yes you did say that. You asked how could Lincoln be as racist as the Southern slave owner. And I showed you. See (135).
Are you suggesting that people who hold others in slavery due to racism are just as racist as people who don't?



Furthermore, I didn't say you touched on the issue of morality. I compared morality with white supremacy as both are buzz words used to create bias. And you constantly have accused the South as white supremacist in contrast with the North. So, please respond to what I actually wrote.
There is no bias in stating that white slaveholder culture was built upon the idea of white supremacy, and it is no moralizing. It is also not an accusation. It is a simple fact that slavery in the South was justified by racism. This is evident even in the Confederate constitution.

Whether you consider that moral or not is not my problem.
As I have already mentioned, I am not interested in morality tales here.
Now your scared. I am not taking this into the direction of 'morality'. You have taken it in the direction of 'white supremeacy' and have been shown you don't know what you are talking about.
Would you mind sharing your superior knowledge on the topic of white supremacy in the Antebellum South, then?
Could you perhaps also specify where exactly have I shown my ignorance on this topic, and correct it?
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
I didn't say you did.

You literally said: "I am saying you and others are wrong in trying to brand the South as white racist's but not the North or the rest of the country."

How else was I supposed to read that statement? Can you explain that to me?

You asked my purpose in the debate and I am giving it to you. You don't like it because it reveals you don't know what you are talking about. As I have said before, if you don't want to know don't ask.

Concerning whether my work is done, that is up to you, not me. You invited this discussion, now you keep trying to crawfish. As I indicated in the previous post, it is probably better that you do back out. It is only going to get worse for you.

But, you know why it is only going to get worse? Because you're not interested in learning anything. You have decided one way and because all the facts are pointing that you are wrong, you have no recourse. And if we continue it will not be good for you. I have studied it. You have not. You simply believe the politically correct and haymaking myths.

Your statement 'my work here is done' is just your effort to crawfish, yet accuse me of the one backing out. And I am not backing out.

Good-Ole-Rebel
Are you hoping that your insults will make me abandon this debate, or is there another reason why you have chosen to insult me from here on out?
 
Last edited:

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
Also, could you please respond to my questions from the previous pages?
I try to address your arguments as best as I can, please show me the same courtesy.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
The issue issue of "slavery" was the tip of the iceberg, whereas the main part of the iceberg had a much wider scope, namely significant cultural issues that differed significantly between North and South, which also led to many fights over which side would more control the country through greater representation.
None of these cultural issues were cited by the Southern states as a reason for secession. Slavery, on the other hand, comes up multiple times.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
Well, it means the South didn't have to fight or secede to preserve slavery. It was protected under the Constitution. Correct? Gameover. Right? That should have been the end to it. Correct?
Of course not. The Declarations of Secession make it very clear that the protections under the Consitution were not enough for the South. They made it very clear that they considered abolitionism a threat in and of itself, independently of any constitutional protections, and in fact a threat to these protections themselves.

And given that Lincoln did in fact remove all constitutional protections of slavery, their fear was not unfounded.
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Because slaveholder culture was built on ideas of white supremacism. Now could you please show me where I said that the North wasn't racist?

Why was it important to show that the North was racist? What does this have to do with the topic under debate, i.e. the question whether the South seceded and fought a war in order to preserve slavery?


Such as?


Are you suggesting that people who hold others in slavery due to racism are just as racist as people who don't?




There is no bias in stating that white slaveholder culture was built upon the idea of white supremacy, and it is no moralizing. It is also not an accusation. It is a simple fact that slavery in the South was justified by racism. This is evident even in the Confederate constitution.

Whether you consider that moral or not is not my problem.
As I have already mentioned, I am not interested in morality tales here.

Would you mind sharing your superior knowledge on the topic of white supremacy in the Antebellum South, then?
Could you perhaps also specify where exactly have I shown my ignorance on this topic, and correct it?

No, no. You're just avoiding post #(135) where I answered your questions. And there I presented in the first sentence and last sentence, questions for you to answer. But you have not.

Instead you are trying to divert attention away from those 'glaring questions' you refuse to answer.

So, go back and answer those and quit blowing smoke.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
You literally said: "I am saying you and others are wrong in trying to brand the South as white racist's but not the North or the rest of the country."

How else was I supposed to read that statement? Can you explain that to me?


Are you hoping that your insults will make me abandon this debate, or is there another reason why you have chosen to insult me from here on out?
You literally said: "I am saying you and others are wrong in trying to brand the South as white racist's but not the North or the rest of the country."

How else was I supposed to read that statement? Can you explain that to me?


Are you hoping that your insults will make me abandon this debate, or is there another reason why you have chosen to insult me from here on out?

You read the statement as an answer to the question you asked in (136).

Your attempt to label the South as white supremacist and racist, as though the North was not, has failed, as I have shown you that the North was just as racist and white supremacist as the South was.

Your attempt to make the South guilty of 'slavery' the sole reason for secession has failed. Up to this point anyway. If you have anything else to offer, please do. You can start by responding to my questions you ignored in (135).

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Of course not. The Declarations of Secession make it very clear that the protections under the Consitution were not enough for the South. They made it very clear that they considered abolitionism a threat in and of itself, independently of any constitutional protections, and in fact a threat to these protections themselves.

And given that Lincoln did in fact remove all constitutional protections of slavery, their fear was not unfounded.

My question was 'That should have been the end to it'. Of course it wasn't the end, but it should have been if slavery was the reason the South seceded. Isn't that correct?

Which states declarations of secession? As I said, before the upper Southern states did not secede for any other reason than Lincoln's call to arms against the lower Southern states. Do you agree?

Indeed, there was a real threat of abolitionist's waging terror against the South as was proved with John Brown. All in disregard of the Constitution. Do you agree?

And, what was the North's response to the Dred Scott decision? Please answer?

Your statement that abolitionism independent of constitutional protections yet a threat to constitutional protections doesn't make sense.

Lincoln didn't 'remove' any constitutional protections of slavery. Where do you get that?

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
No, no. You're just avoiding post #(135) where I answered your questions. And there I presented in the first sentence and last sentence, questions for you to answer. But you have not.

Instead you are trying to divert attention away from those 'glaring questions' you refuse to answer.

So, go back and answer those and quit blowing smoke.

Good-Ole-Rebel
I did not find your answers sufficient. In fact, I did not feel that your answers addressed my point in the first place. You still haven't shown why the question of Northern racism are important to the question whether the South fought to preserve slavery.

I responded to your questions in post #146, which you have already responded to yourself, so I consider that objection to be addressed.

Are you going to answer any of the questions in the post you responded to, by the way?
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
I did not find your answers sufficient. In fact, I did not feel that your answers addressed my point in the first place. You still haven't shown why the question of Northern racism are important to the question whether the South fought to preserve slavery.

I responded to your questions in post #146, which you have already responded to yourself, so I consider that objection to be addressed.

Are you going to answer any of the questions in the post you responded to, by the way?


Northern racism and white supremacy is important to prove as you only presented the South as white supremacist's because we owned slaves.

So, do you agree that the North was just as racist and white supremacist as the South was, as was shown you in the Lincoln?Douglas debates?

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
You read the statement as an answer to the question you asked in (136).

Your attempt to label the South as white supremacist and racist, as though the North was not, has failed, as I have shown you that the North was just as racist and white supremacist as the South was.

Your attempt to make the South guilty of 'slavery' the sole reason for secession has failed. Up to this point anyway. If you have anything else to offer, please do. You can start by responding to my questions you ignored in (135).

Good-Ole-Rebel
I have never stated that the North was not racist, so I don't know why you felt you needed to "show" anything there. Do you think that the North being racist somehow proves that Southern slaveholder culture was not based on a white supremacist ideology?

And again, I have answered your questions in a post you already responded to.

Are you going to answer my questions from the previous pages at some point? You don't have to do it right away if you need more time. I just don't want these to drop under the table and be forgotten in our exchanges. I can repost them if you want.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
My question was 'That should have been the end to it'. Of course it wasn't the end, but it should have been if slavery was the reason the South seceded. Isn't that correct?
No, why would it be? The US Constitution could have been amended at any point to restrict or outlaw slavery - as happened historically in April 1864.

The more abolitionism gained ground in the North as a political force, the more likely this would become over time. In fact, as long as abolitionism had any chance at all to gain political traction among Northerners, it would remain a threat to slavery regardless of slavery's constitutional status.

The fact that the first slaveholding states seceded in January 1860, right after Lincoln's election, is significant in this regard. Lincoln was a known opponent of Dred Scott v. Sanford, and he was known to have ties to the abolitionist movement.

In spite of Dred Scott, in spite of the constitutional protections to slavery that effectively had turned all of the Union members into slave states, some of the Southern states considered the very fact of a Northern President with known abolitionist sympathies enough of an immediate threat to slavery that they declared Secession.



Which states declarations of secession? As I said, before the upper Southern states did not secede for any other reason than Lincoln's call to arms against the lower Southern states. Do you agree?
No, I do not agree. But I was talking about the states whose declarations I cited in my opening post, and specifically Georgia and South Carolina.

Indeed, there was a real threat of abolitionist's waging terror against the South as was proved with John Brown. All in disregard of the Constitution. Do you agree?
Have John Brown's actions been shown to be in disregard of the Constitution, or is that simply your personal opinion?

And, what was the North's response to the Dred Scott decision? Please answer?
Here are three descriptions I found, the first from Wikipedia:
Perhaps the most immediate business consequence of the decision was to help trigger the Panic of 1857. Economist Charles Calomiris and historian Larry Schweikart discovered that uncertainty about whether the entire West would suddenly become either slave territory or engulfed in combat like "Bleeding Kansas" gripped the markets immediately. The east–west railroads collapsed immediately (although north–south-running lines were unaffected), causing, in turn, the near-collapse of several large banks and the runs that ensued. What followed these runs has been called the Panic of 1857.

It differed sharply from the Panic of 1837, in that its effects were almost exclusively confined to the North. Calomiris and Schweikart found this resulted from the South's superior system of branch banking (as opposed to the North's unit banking system), in which the transmission of the panic was minor due to the diversification of the southern branch banking systems. Information moved reliably among the branch banks, whereas in the North, the unit banks (competitors) seldom shared such vital information.

A different article:
In March of 1857, Scott lost the decision as seven out of nine Justices on the Supreme Court declared no slave or descendant of a slave could be a U.S. citizen, or ever had been a U.S. citizen. As a non-citizen, the court stated, Scott had no rights and could not sue in a Federal Court and must remain a slave.

At that time there were nearly 4 million slaves in America. The court's ruling affected the status of every enslaved and free African-American in the United States. The ruling served to turn back the clock concerning the rights of African-Americans, ignoring the fact that black men in five of the original States had been full voting citizens dating back to the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

The Supreme Court also ruled that Congress could not stop slavery in the newly emerging territories and declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820 to be unconstitutional. The Missouri Compromise prohibited slavery north of the parallel 36°30´ in the Louisiana Purchase. The Court declared it violated the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution which prohibits Congress from depriving persons of their property without due process of law.

Anti-slavery leaders in the North cited the controversial Supreme Court decision as evidence that Southerners wanted to extend slavery throughout the nation and ultimately rule the nation itself. Southerners approved the Dred Scott decision believing Congress had no right to prohibit slavery in the territories. Abraham Lincoln reacted with disgust to the ruling and was spurred into political action, publicly speaking out against it.
(Source, my bolded parts)

A third article:
Chief Justice Roger Taney, writing for a 7-2 majority, articulated three major conclusions: 1) the decision held that free blacks in the North could never be considered citizens of the United States, and thus were barred from the federal courts; 2) the decision declared that the ban in slavery in territories considered part of the Louisiana Purchase was unconstitutional; and 3) the decision held that neither the Congress nor territorial governments had the power to ban slavery. Thus, the concept of popular sovereignty, that is, the right of the citizens of the territory to decide whether to be a free or slave territory, was rendered inoperative.

The decision further polarized the American public on the question of slavery. Northern reaction accelerated the rise of the Republican Party and the nomination of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. Southern secession and the Civil War followed. The Dred Scott decision, intended to settle the questions of slavery, instead played a role in accelerating the Civil War and events to come, and had the ironic effect of accelerating the emancipation of all blacks.
(Source, my bolded parts)

Now please explain to me why that is important to the question whether the South seceded and fought a war in order to preserve slavery.

Your statement that abolitionism independent of constitutional protections yet a threat to constitutional protections doesn't make sense.

Lincoln didn't 'remove' any constitutional protections of slavery. Where do you get that?

Good-Ole-Rebel
The 13th constitutional amendment. It overturned Dred Scott v. Sanford and effectively outlawed slavery.

This was a result of abolitionist political activity in the North, and exactly what the South feared would come to pass eventually, if they did not secede from the Union.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
Northern racism and white supremacy is important to prove as you only presented the South as white supremacist's because we owned slaves.

So, do you agree that the North was just as racist and white supremacist as the South was, as was shown you in the Lincoln?Douglas debates?

Good-Ole-Rebel
No, I do not agree, because the North clearly did not support racist slavery to the same extent that the South did, and the presence of the abolitionist movement suggests that even Northern racists didn't want to go as far as to openly enslave races they considered inferior - unlike the slaveholders in the South.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
The 'we' identifies me with the South. I have no problem with that identification.

Good-Ole-Rebel
If you have no "no problem with that identification" then why do you act offended by my description of the Antebellum South as a society whose economy was based on slavery, and whose slavery was based on ideas of white supremacism?

Just take a look at the Confederate constitution: Article IV Section 3.3 specifically talks about "negro" slaves, and the word "negro" is mentioned at several other points in the constitution. If Southern slavery was not based on racism, then they sure did a really bad job at conveying that!
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
One thing that still stands out to me in this debate is that so far, you haven't presented an alternate explanation to slavery as to why Southern slaveholders would secede and go to war.

If slavery was not the South's primary motivation to secede, and was not their reason to go to war, then what was?
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
No, why would it be? The US Constitution could have been amended at any point to restrict or outlaw slavery - as happened historically in April 1864.

The more abolitionism gained ground in the North as a political force, the more likely this would become over time. In fact, as long as abolitionism had any chance at all to gain political traction among Northerners, it would remain a threat to slavery regardless of slavery's constitutional status.

The fact that the first slaveholding states seceded in January 1860, right after Lincoln's election, is significant in this regard. Lincoln was a known opponent of Dred Scott v. Sanford, and he was known to have ties to the abolitionist movement.

In spite of Dred Scott, in spite of the constitutional protections to slavery that effectively had turned all of the Union members into slave states, some of the Southern states considered the very fact of a Northern President with known abolitionist sympathies enough of an immediate threat to slavery that they declared Secession.




No, I do not agree. But I was talking about the states whose declarations I cited in my opening post, and specifically Georgia and South Carolina.


Have John Brown's actions been shown to be in disregard of the Constitution, or is that simply your personal opinion?


Here are three descriptions I found, the first from Wikipedia:


A different article:
(Source, my bolded parts)

A third article:

(Source, my bolded parts)

Now please explain to me why that is important to the question whether the South seceded and fought a war in order to preserve slavery.


The 13th constitutional amendment. It overturned Dred Scott v. Sanford and effectively outlawed slavery.

This was a result of abolitionist political activity in the North, and exactly what the South feared would come to pass eventually, if they did not secede from the Union.

I explained why that should have been the end to any reason for secession. The South had all the protections it could hope for. Game over, if slavery was the reason for secession.

No, under the new 13th amendment that Lincoln was willing to sign, there would be no 'amending' allowed.

Your disagreement of the upper Southern states not seceding because of Lincolns call to arms is based only on your lose thinking. Their secession occurred after Sumter and Lincolns call. Not before. They seceded because Lincoln advocated war against the 7 lower Southern states.

Concerning John Brown, read post #(124).

Concerning the North's reaction to the Dred Scott decision, you presented in your third example, "Northern reaction accelerated the rise of the Republican Party". And it's that reaction that I am asking about. Which you failed to present.

From (America in 1857, Kenneth M. Stampp, Oxford University Press, 1990, p. 104) "Republicans responded with angry defiance....called the decision 'sheer blasphemy'...an infamous libel on our government...a lasting disgrace to the court from which it issued, and deeply humilating to every American citizen. It was, according to the New Yok Tribune, entitled to just so much moral weidght as would be the judgment ...of those congregated in any Washington barroom. A Boston Republican asserted that the opinion of this proslavery Court deserved no more respect than ...any other sectional caucus of partisans. The Chicago Tribune branded Taney's opinion 'shocking to the sensibilities...."

"In Ohio the legislature not only denounced the decision but adopted measures against slaveholding or the kidnapping of free blacks, and the supreme court (state) ruled that any slave brought into Ohio would automatically be emancipated. " (p. 105, parenthesis mine)

"Republicans...attacked the Court for infringing upon the legislative authority of Congress" (p. 107)

"Senator Trumbull of Illinois appealed to a power higher than the Court, 'The People', who would in due time reform this sectional court....." (p. 107)

"One way or another, the Chicago Tribune promised, the people would recover their lawmaking prerogatives---and if the ousting of a Bench full of Pro-Slavery judges is necessary to a resumption of this right, let it be done with as little delay as possible." (p. 107)

It was this response of the North that Jefferson addressed when he said,"Instead of accepting the decision of this then august tribunal--the ultimate authority in the interpretation of constitutional questions--as conclusive....it was flouted, denounced, and utterly disregarded by the Northern agitators, and served only to stimulate the intensity of their sectional hostility." (Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, A DA CAPO Press,1990, p. 71)

So, you see. The North refused the decision by the Supreme Court. The South could expect no protections under the Constitution.


The South wasn't fighting to preserve slavery. They were fighting because the North would not let them secede. The South seceded exactly for the reason given above.

Lincoln did not overturn the Dred Scott decision. The later 13th amendment which did was done after the war and by the Reconstruction Courts.

The abolitionist's were disregarding the Constitution and were a threat to the South as proved with John Brown.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 
Top