• 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

Prim969

Member
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.
Métis you say 1.5 million. Shad says 5 million. There seems to be quite variation in the count. Though your figures would make a lot more sense with why the possible transportation of the Africans Back to their homeland was discussed and possibly feasible over a period of time. Anyway I shall do a little number checking on that figure myself That’s a long time for such laws to stay in place almost 80yrs after the civil war. Oh I see your going by the 1820 count the reason for the difference with Shads1860 count. I did do the checking on the 1860 figures on 3 sites they are not far off Shads tally around the 4 million mark
 
Last edited:

Prim969

Member
The British Empire didn't really ship Black people back to West Africa after granting the slaves of Jamaica freedom, did it?
The British Empire didn't really ship Black people back to West Africa after granting the slaves of Jamaica freedom, did it?
Tambourine I’m sure that’s correct but still the British Empire was very efficient at shipping people to new destinations around the world to where they wanted them to be. And they could have chosen to ship many more back to their homelands if they had wanted to do so..
 
Last edited:

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
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.

I never said white supremacy was a moral wrong. Quit trying to twist my words. I said that which was wrong was your presenting the South as white supremacist and not the North. And you did it to place the South in a bad light. But I proved you wrong and so you had to back away from it.

You presented white supremacy first in post (101). "the white supremacy ideology that dominated Southern politics" You claim because of this white supremacy the South went to war. (105) I gave you the Lincoln/Douglas debates to prove you wrong. (107) You claim you need verification of that quote. (109) This shows you were unaware of it. You then take one of your breaks. (111) When you come back you ignore it and say nothing but that you can't get your head around some things.

My point is you clearly wanted to paint the South as white supremacist and evil. You were ignorant of the North's white supremacy as well. Once it was shown you, you tried to ignore it. You even denied Lincoln's white supremacy. But I proved you wrong.

Now you try and equate it with the 'morality' discussion as if it was the same. But it is not. You are, as I said, crawfishing.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
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?

That is plain English. Quit trying to use 'English as a second language' excuse. You understand it. You don't want to admit it. How did you understand all those 'declarations of secession' by certain states? See? You 'understand' what you want, and claim ignorance to the rest. Another handy tact.

Why is it not clear what I think he means. Have you not 'understood' what I am saying? Of course you do.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
When clemancy results in no charges that is a pardon



Sure



Sure



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


I understand. But, as I said, clemancy by a Kansas governor does not remove the charge of murder by the state. Clemancy is not a pardon. And it doesn't do anything to the U.S. indictment for those murders. And the U.S. (North) had him and let him go.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
Tambourine I’m sure that’s correct but still the British Empire was very efficient at shipping people to new destinations around the world to where they wanted them to be. And they could have chosen to ship many more back to their homelands if they had wanted to do so..
Americans actually tried to repatriate former slaves in Liberia before the American Civil War, but as far as I can tell that did not go down quite as they had hoped.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
Lincoln did keep them in slavery.

Good-Ole-Rebel
No he didn't. He helped pass the 13th Amendment, remember?

Which is exactly what the Southern slaveholders feared he would do. In the words of David Clopton, a Representative from Alabama:
He may suppose that the people of the slave-holding States will be satisfied with the assurance that he does not intend to interfere with slavery in the States; but, in thus supposing, he supposes further, that they have not the manhood and honor to assert and maintain, or do not possess the intelligence to understand, their rights in the Territories or wherever else the jurisdiction of the Government extends, and that they are willing to surrender all the outposts, and leave the citadel unguarded, liable to first covert then open attacks. Notwithstanding this assurance, common sense and experience, our knowledge of human nature and all history, teach that, believing slavery to be a moral and political evil, a wrong to the Government, and that these States cannot exist half free and half slave, Mr. Lincoln will exert all his powers, influence, and patronage "to place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction."
(Source)
Clearly, the South considered Lincoln an enemy to slavery, and feared that he would try his best to end it.
And eventually, he would do exactly what they went to war to prevent.
 
Last edited:

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
That is plain English. Quit trying to use 'English as a second language' excuse. You understand it. You don't want to admit it. How did you understand all those 'declarations of secession' by certain states? See? You 'understand' what you want, and claim ignorance to the rest. Another handy tact.

Why is it not clear what I think he means. Have you not 'understood' what I am saying? Of course you do.

Good-Ole-Rebel
No, I have not understood what you are saying. That is why I asked you to clarify your statements.

It is common courtesy to elaborate on one's position when asked for clarification. I will gladly do the same for my position if you ask.

Furthermore, we were previously debating our own positions on the subject, not anybody else's.
So, could you please explain, or summarize, your own position in your own words?
 
Last edited:

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
I never said white supremacy was a moral wrong. Quit trying to twist my words.
Neither did I. I said: "And I am not going to discuss whether slavery or white supremacy are moral wrongs."



I said that which was wrong was your presenting the South as white supremacist and not the North.
At no point in this debate have I said that the North was not racist.

And you did it to place the South in a bad light. But I proved you wrong and so you had to back away from it.
Characterizing the South as a slave economy based on white supremacism is not placing "the South in a bad light", it is a simple statement of fact. If you think the South's white supremacism is "placing" it "in a bad light", then that is your problem to come with, not mine.

As I said, I am not interested in morality tales. If you think that racist slaveholders are evil, then you have to cope with that on your own.

What I'm interested in debating is why the Southern slaveholders first seceded, and then went to war.


My point is you clearly wanted to paint the South as white supremacist and evil.
What exact statements led you to that conclusion?

You were ignorant of the North's white supremacy as well.
No, I simply did not mention it because I didn't think it would be relevant, as we are debating the Confederacy's motivation to go to war, not the Union's.

Once it was shown you, you tried to ignore it. You even denied Lincoln's white supremacy. But I proved you wrong.

Now you try and equate it with the 'morality' discussion as if it was the same. But it is not. You are, as I said, crawfishing.

Good-Ole-Rebel
You seem very upset by my bringing up that slavery in the South was rooted in white supremacy. Were you ignorant of this, or is there some other reason for your indignance here?

Either way, it is of no concern for this debate. If you want to debate the prevalence of racism in the Union or seek moral justification for the Confederacy, then I humbly request you start a new thread.
 

Prim969

Member
Americans actually tried to repatriate former slaves in Liberia before the American Civil War, but as far as I can tell that did not go down quite as they had hoped.
You mean Cape Mesurado. Well yes a lot of the freed slaves had mixed reservations about moving to Liberia after all they had given their sweat and blood to build America. So to start all over again was not a light thing considering that the land brought in 1821 was only 36 miles long and 3 miles wide and not the size that Liberia is today. Though some 12000 did take up the offer and relocated. In like 40yrs : ) So not so successful
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
No he didn't. He helped pass the 13th Amendment, remember?

Which is exactly what the Southern slaveholders feared he would do. In the words of David Clopton, a Representative from Alabama:

(Source)
Clearly, the South considered Lincoln an enemy to slavery, and feared that he would try his best to end it.
And eventually, he would do exactly what they went to war to prevent.

The 13th amendment was not passed by Lincoln. It was passed by the Reconstruction Court after the war. Lincoln freed no slaves. He kept the slaves in slavery in the areas in the South that the Yankees had taken over. He didn't free them. But he could have.

So Lincoln's racism is no different.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 
Last edited:

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
No, I have not understood what you are saying. That is why I asked you to clarify your statements.

It is common courtesy to elaborate on one's position when asked for clarification. I will gladly do the same for my position if you ask.

Furthermore, we were previously debating our own positions on the subject, not anybody else's.
So, could you please explain, or summarize, your own position in your own words?

I have elaborated on my position. I have supported it with a quote from Jeff Davis .

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Neither did I. I said: "And I am not going to discuss whether slavery or white supremacy are moral wrongs."




At no point in this debate have I said that the North was not racist.


Characterizing the South as a slave economy based on white supremacism is not placing "the South in a bad light", it is a simple statement of fact. If you think the South's white supremacism is "placing" it "in a bad light", then that is your problem to come with, not mine.

As I said, I am not interested in morality tales. If you think that racist slaveholders are evil, then you have to cope with that on your own.

What I'm interested in debating is why the Southern slaveholders first seceded, and then went to war.



What exact statements led you to that conclusion?


No, I simply did not mention it because I didn't think it would be relevant, as we are debating the Confederacy's motivation to go to war, not the Union's.


You seem very upset by my bringing up that slavery in the South was rooted in white supremacy. Were you ignorant of this, or is there some other reason for your indignance here?

Either way, it is of no concern for this debate. If you want to debate the prevalence of racism in the Union or seek moral justification for the Confederacy, then I humbly request you start a new thread.

No, it doesn't bother me that black slavery was a product of white supremacy. What bothers me is your blowing smoke.

If you want to know why the South seceded go back and read the Jeff Davis quote I gave you.

Is all this smoke of yours an effort to not reply to post (160) and (161)? You still need to reply.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 
Last edited:

Shad

Veteran Member
I understand. But, as I said, clemancy by a Kansas governor does not remove the charge of murder by the state. Clemancy is not a pardon. And it doesn't do anything to the U.S. indictment for those murders. And the U.S. (North) had him and let him go.

The problem is the specific clemency was dropping of charges.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
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.

The number is pretty shocking when you consider whites in the South were only around 4 million and declining due to war casualties.
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
I have elaborated on my position. I have supported it with a quote from Jeff Davis .

Good-Ole-Rebel
No, you have not elaborated on your position. You've pointed me at a quote you posted days ago, and refused to elaborate any further, and in fact even refused my request to clarify your position.

You also have so far avoided answering my questions about that quote:
Where have we established that
  • Davis's opinions are "the real reason for the secession" and
  • Jefferson Davis never changed his mind on what the "real reasons" were?
Where does this come from? What evidence do we have that supports these claims?

Are you going to address these at some point?
 

Tambourine

Well-Known Member
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.
Please support your claims.

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.
Yes, because that was the only way to preserve slavery.

Concerning John Brown, read post #(124).
I know John Brown exists. What of him?
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.
So I presented something which I failed to present? How does that work?

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)
Finally, a source!
So, you see. The North refused the decision by the Supreme Court. The South could expect no protections under the Constitution.
So we agree that the South had to secede if it wanted to preserve slavery.


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.
As I have shown in the beginning, Georgia and South Carolina claimed that they seceded to preserve slavery.

And as you said, the Union (not the North, the Union - Delaware and Maryland were slave states, remember?) was not going to just let them secede. So in order to preserve slavery, the reason for their secession, they had to go to war.

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
They were a threat to slavery and pro-slavery advocates.
But yes, by advocating an end to slavery, and by actively engaging in actions to further that goal, abolitionists constituted, by their very existence, a threat to the Southern slave economy.

As long as there were US citizens advocating an end to slavery, there was the threat of a government unsympathetic or actively hostile to the cause of slavery - which was realized when Lincoln came to power. And because of that threat to slavery, the South seceded.

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 13th amendment was not passed by Lincoln. It was passed by the Reconstruction Court after the war. Lincoln freed no slaves. He kept the slaves in slavery in the areas in the South that the Yankees had taken over. He didn't free them. But he could have.

So Lincoln's racism is no different.

Good-Ole-Rebel
Wikipedia says that the amendment was passed in 1864 and ratified in 1865. Do you have sources which contradict that?
 
Last edited:

Good-Ole-Rebel

Well-Known Member
Wikipedia says that it passed Congress in 1864.
Do you have sources that say otherwise? I'd like to see them if you do.

It only passed the senate in 1864, It still had to pass the house, and to be ratified by the states. That would include the Southern states. Lincoln died in April 1865. The 13th amendment was not ratified until Dec. 1865.

This was accomplished through the dog and pony show of the Reconstruction Courts.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 
Top