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

[Curious George]

@Tambourine not sure if you have read this in your research, but you might find it interesting:

https://scholarship.richmond.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1235&context=masters-theses

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Are the Declarations of Secession a greater or lesser authority than Jefferson Davis's personal opinion on why the South seceded from, and fought a war against, the Union? What about any of the other documents I laid out in support of my argument? Are any of these valid, or should I defer to Jefferson Davis as the sole authority on what happened between 1824 and 1865 in the United States? Is he to be the sole authority on the US Constitution, US politics, the US South, and slavery?

I'm just checking whether you consider anything in support of my argument valid or not.


And what is the reason for you to claim that "Jefferson Davis is the best authority as to why the South seceded"? Do you have any evidence in support of that argument? Is there any other reason why I should accept Davis as the sole correct authority on what happened 1824-1865 in the United States?

Just so I get an idea why he is "the best" authority. Or do you consider that self-evident and axiomatic?

I have supported my views of the war with many quotes, concerning secession, slavery, Lincoln, Sumter, the Constitution, etc. You ignore them as they disprove your position on slavery, Lincoln, who started the war, etc. etc. You have no answer for them. Now all you can do is attack the source of the quotes.

Go back and read (213) and (215), if you read them at all.

You did not ask any questions in 161, and I didn't see a need to comment on your statements. If you want me to respond to a question, ask a question, and don't rely on me magically figuring out what you want me to say. I know you are capable of asking questions in a correct manner, you did it before.

Why did New York City hang all those blacks during the Draft Riots?

Why didn't Lincoln free the slaves in the Southern states, controlled by the Yankees, with the 'emancipation proclamation'?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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

Because even the racist factions in New York realized that the Civil War was about freeing black slaves.

 

[Tambourine]

I have supported my views of the war with many quotes, concerning secession, slavery, Lincoln, Sumter, the Constitution, etc. You ignore them as they disprove your position on slavery, Lincoln, who started the war, etc. etc. You have no answer for them. Now all you can do is attack the source of the quotes.

Go back and read (213) and (215), if you read them at all.

#213 presented no external sources, solely your personal opinion on the Fort Sumter issue, devoid of any evidence to support your case.

I have supplied evidence in support of my own interpretation, if you remember.


#215, likewise, cited no external source and provided no additional supporting evidence.


If you disagree, then show me otherwise.

Why did New York City hang all those blacks during the Draft Riots?

Why are you asking me something that you can just look up just as easily?

I'm tired of these attempts to manipulate the conversation with fake-out questions and bad faith rhetoric.
If you want to make an argument, then make an argument.

Why didn't Lincoln free the slaves in the Southern states, controlled by the Yankees, with the 'emancipation proclamation'?

Good-Ole-Rebel

I don't understand the question. You previously called the states inside the Union "Northerners" and the Confederacy "the South". Which exact states are you talking about here?

Further, the emancipation proclamation could not have freed any slaves on its own, as it was not a federal law. At best, it could be considered a very loose formulation of a future policy goal.

The federal law that did free slaves was the 13th amendment, which freed all slaves in the entire United States, including those on former Confederate territory.

Do you think it would have passed if the South had not seceded?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I never said white supremacy was a moral wrong. Quit trying to twist my words.

Quoted without comment.

 

[Tambourine]

Quoted without comment.

Seriously, this is the first debate I've ever had in my life where I've been accused of argueing that slavery is wrong and racism is evil.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you think it would have passed if the South had not seceded?

Yes. That was why the Civil War happened when it did.

The death of the Missourian Compromise, combined with the rapid expansion of the country meant that it was inevitable that the abolitionists would be able to get their amendment passed within a few years.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

#213 presented no external sources, solely your personal opinion on the Fort Sumter issue, devoid of any evidence to support your case.

I have supplied evidence in support of my own interpretation, if you remember.


#215, likewise, cited no external source and provided no additional supporting evidence.


If you disagree, then show me otherwise.



Why are you asking me something that you can just look up just as easily?

I'm tired of these attempts to manipulate the conversation with fake-out questions and bad faith rhetoric.
If you want to make an argument, then make an argument.


I don't understand the question. You previously called the states inside the Union "Northerners" and the Confederacy "the South". Which exact states are you talking about here?

Further, the emancipation proclamation could not have freed any slaves on its own, as it was not a federal law. At best, it could be considered a very loose formulation of a future policy goal.

The federal law that did free slaves was the 13th amendment, which freed all slaves in the entire United States, including those on former Confederate territory.

Do you think it would have passed if the South had not seceded?

No, you have not responded to post (213). You ignore it.

Neither have you responded to post (215), for the same reason.

I don't need to look it up. You do. I am aware of it already. You are not. It is to your benefit to look it up and answer the question. Why did those New York Yankees hang some 80 blacks in the Draft Riots? What does it prove? It proves the North was racist and white supremacist just as the South was. No difference.

You don't understand the question because you don't like the answer. You are ignorant of the emancipation proclamation and what it really involved. Now you 'plead ignorance'. This is true of course, your ignorance that is. But it reveals a lie that you try and project that Lincoln's racism was not the same as the South.

You don't like my questions and refuse to answer yet you want to ask questions of me. Sorry pal. Do some real study instead of Google and Wikipedia. Then get back with me.

You have proved nothing concerning your opening statements other than you don't know what you are talking about.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why did those New York Yankees hang some 80 blacks in the Draft Riots? What does it prove? It proves the North was racist and white supremacist just as the South was. No difference.

No, it proves that even a gang of ignorant racists in 19th-century New York undertood what you claim not to: that the Civil War was about the fate of black people.

The Civil War was about ending slavery. Racists in New York didn't think that was a cause worth dying for, so they took revenge on the group they saw as the beneficiaries of the war they were conscripted to fight.

 

[Tambourine]

No, you have not responded to post (213). You ignore it.

Neither have you responded to post (215), for the same reason.

I don't need to look it up.

So you are claiming that I didn't respond to a post when you admit you didn't even look at my response. Yes, that's a definite showing of good faith right there (that was sarcasm, in case you can't tell).

No, you have not responded to post (213). You ignore it.

Neither have you responded to post (215), for the same reason.

I don't need to look it up. You do. I am aware of it already. You are not. It is to your benefit to look it up and answer the question. Why did those New York Yankees hang some 80 blacks in the Draft Riots? What does it prove? It proves the North was racist and white supremacist just as the South was. No difference.

You don't understand the question because you don't like the answer. You are ignorant of the emancipation proclamation and what it really involved. Now you 'plead ignorance'. This is true of course, your ignorance that is. But it reveals a lie that you try and project that Lincoln's racism was not the same as the South.

You don't like my questions and refuse to answer yet you want to ask questions of me. Sorry pal. Do some real study instead of Google and Wikipedia. Then get back with me.

You have proved nothing concerning your opening statements other than you don't know what you are talking about.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Other than typing up this huge tantrum, do you have anything new to offer to this debate?

I note that you still haven't even acknowledged my requests for evidence to support your claims. Is this evidence going to show up at any point, or should I just accept that you're not going to back up any of these arguments?

 

[Tambourine]

He couldn't have. It's good to have Presidential support, but amending the Constitution doesn't require the presidents signature. It does require ratification by 3/4 of the States. Which made the Emancipation proclamation null and void. Correct? But it didn't matter as the Emancipation Proclamation didn't free any slave anyway.

If it didn't matter, then why do you keep bringing it up? We are still debating the South's motivation to go to war, the Emancipation proclamation doesn't have anything to do with either.

Lincoln was concerned with the Union, not slaves. Yes. That is what I have been telling you. It wasn't about slavery. It was about the Union and it's preservation.

For Lincoln, yes. But Lincoln did not lead the Confederacy, and Lincoln did not secede from the Union in order to preserve slavery. Lincoln also did not order the bombardment of Fort Sumter, despite your counterfactual claims to the contrary.

The North was interested in preserving the union only when the South seceded. And that was based upon money. Not for any freedom of the blacks.

I'm taking an educated guess here that you won't be supporting that claim with any evidence, right?

Prior to that, yes the North wanted to destroy slavery in the South as it would affect the South's economy. It would destroy it. The North made the mistake of pushing the South too far not believing they would ever secede. But, they were wrong.

That argument makes absolutely no sense. It is also refuted by the evidence you presented, which shows that Unionist Northerners were willing to bend over backwards to protect Southern slavery, just to keep the slaveholders in the Union.

The North made the "mistake" of electing Lincoln, a known abolitionist and a Republican. For the Southern slaveholders, that was the incident inciting them to secede: A US President who publically opposed slavery.

Again, you project your ignorance concerning Sumter. Sumter was property of S. Carolina when S. Carolina seceded.

No it was not. We've been over this already. I've presented evidence for my case, and you did not.

If you want me to recognize your claim as valid, present supporting evidence for your case.
If you can't, then I don't see why I should accept your claims when they contradict the sources available to me.

And it was in fact S. Carolina's property earlier as the Federal govt. did not fulfill it's three year obligation in completing it's purpose for it.

There was no "three year obligation" as a condition, and Fort Sumter did not revert back to South Carolina after three years, either. Present evidence for your case, or leave it.

Sumter involved secession, not slavery. Lincoln and the North came down to force the Southern States back into the Union. Not to free slaves.

The firing on Forth Sumter was instigated by Lincoln and the North. Not the South.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Neither Lincoln nor "the North" controlled the artillery that opened fire on Fort Sumter on April 12th 1861.

The South declared secession in order to protect slavery. You have not been able to present any argument that would refute this.

 

[Tambourine]

No, you have not responded to post (213). You ignore it.

Neither have you responded to post (215), for the same reason.

I don't need to look it up. You do. I am aware of it already. You are not. It is to your benefit to look it up and answer the question. Why did those New York Yankees hang some 80 blacks in the Draft Riots? What does it prove? It proves the North was racist and white supremacist just as the South was. No difference.

See, I knew you were capable of actually making an argument. Now you just need to demonstrate what this has to do with the Southern motivation to secede and go to war with the Union, because, as you know, that is the topic under debate, not whether the Union was morally pure.

You don't understand the question because you don't like the answer.

How would you know that? You haven't given any.

You are ignorant of the emancipation proclamation and what it really involved. Now you 'plead ignorance'. This is true of course, your ignorance that is. But it reveals a lie that you try and project that Lincoln's racism was not the same as the South.

Lincoln's racism is irrelevant to the question why the South went to war, or why the South seceded. Besides, you said yourself that you see nothing wrong with white supremacy, so why do you spend all this time argueing that Lincoln was a white supremacist? Shouldn't you be argueing the opposite, given that you likely share Jefferson Davis's belief that slavery and white supremacy were ordained by God?

You don't like my questions and refuse to answer yet you want to ask questions of me. Sorry pal. Do some real study instead of Google and Wikipedia. Then get back with me.

As soon as you respond to the questions I've asked you a month ago. You know, all those you completely ignored in favor of your frequent temper tantrums.

You have proved nothing concerning your opening statements other than you don't know what you are talking about.

So with this statement, I'm guessing you have now answered my question whether you consider the evidence I provided valid in the face of Jefferson Davis's personal opinion, with a "no".

Is there any point for me to continue given that you do not consider anything I present valid evidence?

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

So you are claiming that I didn't respond to a post when you admit you didn't even look at my response. Yes, that's a definite showing of good faith right there (that was sarcasm, in case you can't tell).


Other than typing up this huge tantrum, do you have anything new to offer to this debate?

I note that you still haven't even acknowledged my requests for evidence to support your claims. Is this evidence going to show up at any point, or should I just accept that you're not going to back up any of these arguments?

I have responded to your posts.

I have supported my statements. You either say they are not relevant or you ignore them.

Google and Wikipedia have left you in ignorance.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

If it didn't matter, then why do you keep bringing it up? We are still debating the South's motivation to go to war, the Emancipation proclamation doesn't have anything to do with either.


For Lincoln, yes. But Lincoln did not lead the Confederacy, and Lincoln did not secede from the Union in order to preserve slavery. Lincoln also did not order the bombardment of Fort Sumter, despite your counterfactual claims to the contrary.


I'm taking an educated guess here that you won't be supporting that claim with any evidence, right?


That argument makes absolutely no sense. It is also refuted by the evidence you presented, which shows that Unionist Northerners were willing to bend over backwards to protect Southern slavery, just to keep the slaveholders in the Union.

The North made the "mistake" of electing Lincoln, a known abolitionist and a Republican. For the Southern slaveholders, that was the incident inciting them to secede: A US President who publically opposed slavery.


No it was not. We've been over this already. I've presented evidence for my case, and you did not.

If you want me to recognize your claim as valid, present supporting evidence for your case.
If you can't, then I don't see why I should accept your claims when they contradict the sources available to me.


There was no "three year obligation" as a condition, and Fort Sumter did not revert back to South Carolina after three years, either. Present evidence for your case, or leave it.


Neither Lincoln nor "the North" controlled the artillery that opened fire on Fort Sumter on April 12th 1861.

The South declared secession in order to protect slavery. You have not been able to present any argument that would refute this.

The emancipation proclamation had everything to do with the discussion. It showed that Lincoln kept slaves as slaves when he had the power to free them. The North's motives concerning this war are just as important as the South's motives. You are like all other PC historians. You want to demonize the South, and ignore what was going on in the North.

Again, that was my point. The war was not over slavery. It was over 'union' and behind that, 'money'.

"Charles Dickens, considered by many the leading man of English letters for the past two centuries, said the American Civil War was 'solely a fiscal quarrel.' (When in the Course of Human Events, Charles Adams, Rowman & Littlefield Pub., 2000, p. 1)

Before the South ever seceded, you had the 'Panic of 1857'. The South was affected but the North was devastated. Thus you had the free labor of the North unemployed. Depression. The slave labor of the South was not affected as the Southern slave owner had an interest in taking care of the slaves. It was after that that the North, and abolitionist's blamed the Depression on the South's slavery as God must be judging the nation for it. "Abolitionists perceived the wrath of God in the economic crisis--indeed, they had been anticipating His judgement for years. The primary cause, asserted the National Anti-Slavery Standard, was northern partnership with the fraud and robbery of southern slaveholders." (America In 1857, Kenneth M. Stamp, Osford Univ. Press, 1990, p. 235) Behind any reason given for the North attacking the South, is money. And when the economy of the South was seen as superior to that of the North, that economy must be destroyed. The loss of money in the North fueled the aboltionist call and was heard by the North.

Yes, the North made the mistake of electing Lincoln. I agree.

I already showed you in post (108) concerning Sumter. Again, Sumter involved secession. Not slavery.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

See, I knew you were capable of actually making an argument. Now you just need to demonstrate what this has to do with the Southern motivation to secede and go to war with the Union, because, as you know, that is the topic under debate, not whether the Union was morally pure.

How would you know that? You haven't given any.

Lincoln's racism is irrelevant to the question why the South went to war, or why the South seceded. Besides, you said yourself that you see nothing wrong with white supremacy, so why do you spend all this time argueing that Lincoln was a white supremacist? Shouldn't you be argueing the opposite, given that you likely share Jefferson Davis's belief that slavery and white supremacy were ordained by God?

As soon as you respond to the questions I've asked you a month ago. You know, all those you completely ignored in favor of your frequent temper tantrums.


So with this statement, I'm guessing you have now answered my question whether you consider the evidence I provided valid in the face of Jefferson Davis's personal opinion, with a "no".

Is there any point for me to continue given that you do not consider anything I present valid evidence?

Everything is relevant to the discussion of your claim that slavery is the motivation for the South seceding. You only want to focus on the South's motivation. The North's motivation must be understood as well. For, by it, you see that the North didn't attack the South because of slavery. She attacked the South because of the breakup of the union and behind that, money.

So, answer the questions in post (61).

You haven't produced any valid evidence. The secession declarations of a couple of states is all you produce. And you ignore most everything in them except the slavery statements.

Personally I don't see any point in you continuing. But, do what you like.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Tambourine]

Everything is relevant to the discussion of your claim that slavery is the motivation for the South seceding. You only want to focus on the South's motivation. The North's motivation must be understood as well. For, by it, you see that the North didn't attack the South because of slavery. She attacked the South because of the breakup of the union and behind that, money.

So, answer the questions in post (61).

You haven't produced any valid evidence. The secession declarations of a couple of states is all you produce. And you ignore most everything in them except the slavery statements.

Personally I don't see any point in you continuing. But, do what you like.

Good-Ole-Rebel

I want to focus on the South's motivation because that is the subject of this debate, as I laid out in my very first post of this thread.
If you're no longer interested in debating that subject, then I see no reason to continue this, either.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I want to focus on the South's motivation because that is the subject of this debate, as I laid out in my very first post of this thread.
If you're no longer interested in debating that subject, then I see no reason to continue this, either.

No, you want to ignore the true history and focus on what you want the South's motivation to be.

I understand. You're in a long line.

As I said, you shouldn't continue. You have nothing to offer.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Tambourine]

No, you want to ignore the true history and focus on what you want the South's motivation to be.

I understand. You're in a long line.

As I said, you shouldn't continue. You have nothing to offer.

Good-Ole-Rebel

I'm curious.
Are you insulting me because you want me to leave, or are you trying to bait me into continueing this useless discussion with you?

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I'm curious.
Are you insulting me because you want me to leave, or are you trying to bait me into continueing this useless discussion with you?

What is insulting is your focus on a single aspect of that War, slavery, as the cause, and your disregarding any information that proves otherwise. You're not alone as most Americans do the same.

You do the same with your belief that the South started the War because She fired the first shot at Sumter. But there is so much history surrounding that firing of the first shot that you disregard, yet it proves the North was the initiator in the firing of that first shot.

Such tunnel vision and disregard is insulting to me. But, I put up with it.

Why do you consider our discussion 'useless'?

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Tambourine]

What is insulting is your focus on a single aspect of that War, slavery, as the cause, and your disregarding any information that proves otherwise. You're not alone as most Americans do the same.

You do the same with your belief that the South started the War because She fired the first shot at Sumter. But there is so much history surrounding that firing of the first shot that you disregard, yet it proves the North was the initiator in the firing of that first shot.

Such tunnel vision and disregard is insulting to me. But, I put up with it.

Why do you consider our discussion 'useless'?

Good-Ole-Rebel

You have not presented any additional information, only your and Jefferson Davis's personal opinions. Despite my asking you over the last five pages, you still haven't shown any source to support your claims.

You also refused to recognize any of my evidence as valid, insisted on the most spurious arguments in the face of evidence to the contrary, and kept insulting me throughout all of that, as if respect and politeness is something you are entitled to but others must beg off your hands.

And now you're playing the victim, after another round of thoroughly insulting me.

Why do you consider our discussion 'useless'?

Good-Ole-Rebel

It's drained all desire from me to engage with this subject. I went into this discussion hoping to learn something, and instead, I just got insulted by someone who gets offended when I say that race based slavery was based on racism.

So, congratulations. You win. I will leave this debate.

Also, I am putting you on ignore. Please do not attempt to talk to me ever again.