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

[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.

I wonder why they hung all those blacks in New York City draft riots?

I wonder why Lincoln didn't free the slaves in the Northern held states of the Confederacy, in 1863, with the Emancipation Proclamation?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[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!

I have said before that you need to understand that I did not see the white supremacy of the North or South as wrong. It is you trying to make only the South white supremacist and not the North, that I disagree with.

I have also said the economy of the South was based upon slavery. And to attack slavery and remove it, the North would destroy the South.

I am not offended.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

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?

I showed you what was the reason in the Jefferson Davis quote I gave you earlier. The one you considered irrelevant.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[metis]

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.

But slavery was very much a cultural issue, but it simply was not the only one. Also, the fact that North and South fought over which new states were to allow slavery was an on-going issue that strongly related to cultural differences fueled by economic differences. The South had a higher percent rural and agricultural bent that was much more conducive to having slaves versus the North, especially because of the hand-labor needed for the cotton crop up until the invention of the cotton gin.

On top of that, even though the cotton gin reduced the need for slave labor, what to do with such large numbers of slaves being released in the South created other issues. Can't ship them back. Give them equal rights with whites? Not gonna happen, and it didn't.

IOW, it wasn't just the issue of slavery that was involved, thus also culture and politics also were very much involved as well.

 

[Tambourine]

I have said before that you need to understand that I did not see the white supremacy of the North or South as wrong. It is you trying to make only the South white supremacist and not the North, that I disagree with.

I have also said the economy of the South was based upon slavery. And to attack slavery and remove it, the North would destroy the South.

I am not offended.

Good-Ole-Rebel

As I've already stated before, neither your morals nor the morality of the American Civil War are of concern to me in this discussion.

And I am not going to discuss whether slavery or white supremacy are moral wrongs.

 

[Tambourine]

I showed you what was the reason in the Jefferson Davis quote I gave you earlier. The one you considered irrelevant.

Good-Ole-Rebel

You mean this one:

"It was not the passage of the 'personal liberty laws,' it was not the circulation of incendiary documents, it was not the raid of John Brown, it was not the operation of unjust and unequal tariff laws, nor all combined, that constituted the intolerable grievance, but it was the systematic and persistent struggle to deprive the Southern states of equality in the Union--generally to discriminate in legislation against the interests of their people; culminating in their exclusion from the territories, the common property of the states, as well as by the infraction of their compact to promote domestic tranquillity."

It's not clear to me what exactly he is referring to here, or what you think he means by these words.
Could you explain it in plain English?

 

[Prim969]

But slavery was very much a cultural issue, but it simply was not the only one. Also, the fact that North and South fought over which new states were to allow slavery was an on-going issue that strongly related to cultural differences fueled by economic differences. The South had a higher percent rural and agricultural bent that was much more conducive to having slaves versus the North, especially because of the hand-labor needed for the cotton crop up until the invention of the cotton gin.

On top of that, even though the cotton gin reduced the need for slave labor, what to do with such large numbers of slaves being released in the South created other issues. Can't ship them back. Give them equal rights with whites? Not gonna happen, and it didn't.

IOW, it wasn't just the issue of slavery that was involved, thus also culture and politics also were very much involved as well.

Métis what was the slave population in America at the time. I do know that Her majesty’s government certainly had no problems carting slaves, convicts and free settlers alike all over the world. Perhaps the logistics of America choosing the same path was too large by than? But I do know that the idea was on Abraham Lincolns mind as with many others as well what to with the slaves at wars end. I guess we must consider also what repatriation the slaves would receive and of what guarantee that they would not be made to walk the plank by certain ruthless merchants on passage back to Africa. But with that being said it seems like most of us that they were most happy to call their new surroundings home. Though I’m not sure how the African people thought apon that in that period of what they wanted to do or even if they got a choice on the matter.

 

[Shad]

Clemancy to both sides is not a pardon for murder.

When clemancy results in no charges that is a pardon

Brown was wanted by the Federal government for murder. Yet everyone in the North turned and looked the other way. Brown met during that time with political leaders in the North East who knew of his murders. No one turned him in. They even supported him.

Sure

Again, my point is that this reveals the attitude of the North in that time. They could care less that Brown hacked up 5 unarmed men in front of their wives and children. Those were just 'southern slavery sympathizers'. Who cares?

Sure

Roaming free, Brown was able to get financial support form the money men in the north at this time. The 'Secret Six'. They were well known in society. They would have been the Bill Gates, Donald Trump, Michael Dell, of the day. They were funding the attack on Harpers Ferry. That was a terrorist attack upon the South.

Good-Ole-Rebel

I never disagreed with any of those points about the North. I was just talking about specific actions about Kansas

 

[Tambourine]

But slavery was very much a cultural issue, but it simply was not the only one. Also, the fact that North and South fought over which new states were to allow slavery was an on-going issue that strongly related to cultural differences fueled by economic differences. The South had a higher percent rural and agricultural bent that was much more conducive to having slaves versus the North, especially because of the hand-labor needed for the cotton crop up until the invention of the cotton gin.

On top of that, even though the cotton gin reduced the need for slave labor, what to do with such large numbers of slaves being released in the South created other issues. Can't ship them back. Give them equal rights with whites? Not gonna happen, and it didn't.

IOW, it wasn't just the issue of slavery that was involved, thus also culture and politics also were very much involved as well.

This is the first time I read that the cotton gin reduced the need for slave labor. Everything I've read on the topic suggests that it greatly increased the profitability of growing cotton as a cash crop, therefore contributing to a growth of the Southern slave economy. Slavery was massively profitable, therefore it was important to the slaveholders to perpetuate a system of white supremacy.

 

[Shad]

How could he be as racist as someone who literally keeps a human being in bondage because of their race?

Lincoln thought slavery itself was morally wrong which is different from racism. That does not make him less racist.

 

[Tambourine]

Métis what was the slave population in America at the time. I do know that Her majesty’s government certainly had no problems carting slaves, convicts and free settlers alike all over the world. Perhaps the logistics of America choosing the same path was too large by than? But I do know that the idea was on Abraham Lincolns mind as with many others as well what to with the slaves at wars end. I guess we must consider also what repatriation the slaves would receive and of what guarantee that they would not be made to walk the plank by certain ruthless merchants on passage back to Africa. But with that being said it seems like most of us that they were most happy to call their new surroundings home. Though I’m not sure how the African people thought apon that in that period of what they wanted to do or even if they got a choice on the matter.

The British Empire didn't really ship Black people back to West Africa after granting the slaves of Jamaica freedom, did it?

 

[Tambourine]

Lincoln thought slavery itself was morally wrong which is different from racism. That does not make him less racist.

It makes him less of a racist than someone who keeps people in slavery because of their race.

 

[Shad]

This is the first time I read that the cotton gin reduced the need for slave labor. Everything I've read on the topic suggests that it greatly increased the profitability of growing cotton as a cash crop, therefore contributing to a growth of the Southern slave economy. Slavery was massively profitable, therefore it was important to the slaveholders to perpetuate a system of white supremacy.

Ignore the user as they do not understand production nor agriculture. The labour force that was required to process cotton before the gin was high. The cotton gin enabled redirecting that labour pool to raw material production ergo the cash crop of cotton. More raw production to be turned into material or finished goods. The cotton gin saved slavery in the South.

 

[Shad]

It makes him less of a racist than someone who keeps people in slavery because of their race.

No as being against slavery all together does not make one less racist. It just means they do not enslave anyone for any reason. He still thought blacks were inferior, same as the slave owners.

 

[Tambourine]

No as being against slavery all together does not make one less racist. It just means they do not enslave anyone for any reason. He still thought blacks were inferior, same as the slave owners.

The supposed inferiority of Black people was a common argument among slaveholders to justify keeping these people in bondage. I would argue that racism that does not justify keeping people in bondage is less dehumanizing.

By contrast, they could have gone even further in their racism and advocate genocide, such as what was conducted against the native populations of America.

 

[Shad]

Métis what was the slave population in America at the time. I do know that Her majesty’s government certainly had no problems carting slaves, convicts and free settlers alike all over the world. Perhaps the logistics of America choosing the same path was too large by than? But I do know that the idea was on Abraham Lincolns mind as with many others as well what to with the slaves at wars end. I guess we must consider also what repatriation the slaves would receive and of what guarantee that they would not be made to walk the plank by certain ruthless merchants on passage back to Africa. But with that being said it seems like most of us that they were most happy to call their new surroundings home. Though I’m not sure how the African people thought apon that in that period of what they wanted to do or even if they got a choice on the matter.

There were around 5 million slaves in the South around the time of the Civil War. Cost and logistics would be next to impossible in that era. Caribbean colonies combined didnt have those numbers.

 

[Shad]

The supposed inferiority of Black people was a common argument among slaveholders to justify keeping these people in bondage.

Yes. However they believed in slavery as a valid practice to begin with.

I would argue that racism that does not justify keeping people in bondage is less dehumanizing.

Well racism is a stupid idea in general based on incorrect inferences of regional success/failure is based only on race not factors like geography

By contrast, they could have gone even further in their racism and advocate genocide, such as what was conducted against the native populations of America.

Until the war was settled slaves had value so there was no reason to kill people off. After the war freed slaves were granted citizenship. Indians were never granted citizens in that way. Indians were not consider citizens for decades later. The Fed bound it's own hands.

 

[metis]

Métis what was the slave population in America at the time. I do know that Her majesty’s government certainly had no problems carting slaves, convicts and free settlers alike all over the world. Perhaps the logistics of America choosing the same path was too large by than? But I do know that the idea was on Abraham Lincolns mind as with many others as well what to with the slaves at wars end. I guess we must consider also what repatriation the slaves would receive and of what guarantee that they would not be made to walk the plank by certain ruthless merchants on passage back to Africa. But with that being said it seems like most of us that they were most happy to call their new surroundings home. Though I’m not sure how the African people thought apon that in that period of what they wanted to do or even if they got a choice on the matter.

In 1820, there was roughly 1.5 million. Being a slave was hardly "happy", although treatment of them varied.

After being freed, they then were subject to very oppressive "Jim Crow Laws", with some of these laws lasting past even after WWII.

 

[metis]

This is the first time I read that the cotton gin reduced the need for slave labor. Everything I've read on the topic suggests that it greatly increased the profitability of growing cotton as a cash crop, therefore contributing to a growth of the Southern slave economy. Slavery was massively profitable, therefore it was important to the slaveholders to perpetuate a system of white supremacy.

The most labor-intensive job was pulling the sticky seeds out of the cotton ball, which is why the cotton gin made slaves less necessary.

The gin worked on the basis of "combs" that moved through the ball that the seeds could not pass through, thus one person using the gin could do the same job as several slaves. And then the owner didn't have to feed and house all these slaves, so the owners who had the gin could undercut the cost of processing versus the owners who didn't have these machines.

 

[Prim969]

There were around 5 million slaves in the South around the time of the Civil War. Cost and logistics would be next to impossible in that era. Caribbean colonies combined didnt have those numbers.

5 million. That’s a incredible figure it certainly would make the logIstics of such a venture almost impossible straight away. Shad thank you for the information.