What if the Confederacy had been allowed to secede peacefully?

[Boss]

Shit....History as told by Gone with the Wind

No, southern whites did not trust blacks. They feared they would rise in the middle of the night and murder them in their beds. They feared they would band together and revolt. They feared they would get educated. They feared they would rape white women and worst of all.....they feared that blacks would consider themselves the equal of whites

We did not resolve those fears with the abolition of slavery. The south carried those fears up through the Civil Rights era when they were forced to finally give them up

If anyone needs to see how the mind of a bigot works, look no further than the above posting. This is how bigots think. "The South" is consolidated into a single entity, as if every person living south of the Mason-Dixon had one universal mind, acted one universal way, held one universal belief. Not only does this bigot believe everyone was the same, he goes on to tell us exactly how they all thought and felt. Even more, how their ancestors thought and felt up until today. No need to argue with the bigot, he is right in his mind and you are wrong.

I suspect, if we peeled back this bigots layers of dishonesty, we'd find that his heart is filled with the sort of hateful and shameful things he is attempting to attribute to someone else. It's called "projection" and bigots do it very well. I think they do it because they can't live with the kind of people they are. Some say it's so they can shine the light of truth away from themselves. Whatever the reason, when you see someone exhibit this sort of lumping all people into one universal set of thought and behavior, rest assured, that is a Class A, certified bigot.

Did EVERY person in the South believe the same? Of course not

But enough to pass JimCrow laws, enact segregation and terrorize "negroes" throughout the south

Did the South cause the SCOTUS to uphold Jim Crow laws? Did the South cause the race riots in Milwaukee, Detroit, Chicago, New York? Was "negro" only a word used in the South?

No the South didn't cause the SCOTUS to uphold Dredd Scott either....but they applied political pressure. Pressure that finally caught up to them in Brown vs Board of Education

Fact is our southern "brothers" drove our nations racial policies for almost the first 200 years of our existence. They did not give up their "peculiar institutions" without a fight and resorted to lynching, firebombing, intimidation and political obstruction to preserve their "heritage"

Again, the historical record is clear on the racial riots in Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit and New York. None of which are "southern" cities, as I recall. The Supreme Court doesn't bow to political pressure, it's a separate branch of our government and autonomous. What happened between Dredd and Brown is society changed.

It's mighty rich to blame the South for "driving racial policies" following the Civil War, when the South went through Reconstruction and was essentially powerless. How the hell did they pull that off in your vapid little bigoted mind?

 

[Politico]

Shit....History as told by Gone with the Wind

No, southern whites did not trust blacks. They feared they would rise in the middle of the night and murder them in their beds. They feared they would band together and revolt. They feared they would get educated. They feared they would rape white women and worst of all.....they feared that blacks would consider themselves the equal of whites

We did not resolve those fears with the abolition of slavery. The south carried those fears up through the Civil Rights era when they were forced to finally give them up

If anyone needs to see how the mind of a bigot works, look no further than the above posting. This is how bigots think. "The South" is consolidated into a single entity, as if every person living south of the Mason-Dixon had one universal mind, acted one universal way, held one universal belief. Not only does this bigot believe everyone was the same, he goes on to tell us exactly how they all thought and felt. Even more, how their ancestors thought and felt up until today. No need to argue with the bigot, he is right in his mind and you are wrong.

I suspect, if we peeled back this bigots layers of dishonesty, we'd find that his heart is filled with the sort of hateful and shameful things he is attempting to attribute to someone else. It's called "projection" and bigots do it very well. I think they do it because they can't live with the kind of people they are. Some say it's so they can shine the light of truth away from themselves. Whatever the reason, when you see someone exhibit this sort of lumping all people into one universal set of thought and behavior, rest assured, that is a Class A, certified bigot.

Did EVERY person in the South believe the same? Of course not

But enough to pass JimCrow laws, enact segregation and terrorize "negroes" throughout the south

Did the South cause the SCOTUS to uphold Jim Crow laws? Did the South cause the race riots in Milwaukee, Detroit, Chicago, New York? Was "negro" only a word used in the South?

I love how folks conveniently forget how many laws were in fact passed by 'union' states. Comically the most were in the supposed PC shit hole Kalifornia.

 

[thanatos144]

Shit....History as told by Gone with the Wind

No, southern whites did not trust blacks. They feared they would rise in the middle of the night and murder them in their beds. They feared they would band together and revolt. They feared they would get educated. They feared they would rape white women and worst of all.....they feared that blacks would consider themselves the equal of whites

We did not resolve those fears with the abolition of slavery. The south carried those fears up through the Civil Rights era when they were forced to finally give them up

If anyone needs to see how the mind of a bigot works, look no further than the above posting. This is how bigots think. "The South" is consolidated into a single entity, as if every person living south of the Mason-Dixon had one universal mind, acted one universal way, held one universal belief. Not only does this bigot believe everyone was the same, he goes on to tell us exactly how they all thought and felt. Even more, how their ancestors thought and felt up until today. No need to argue with the bigot, he is right in his mind and you are wrong.

I suspect, if we peeled back this bigots layers of dishonesty, we'd find that his heart is filled with the sort of hateful and shameful things he is attempting to attribute to someone else. It's called "projection" and bigots do it very well. I think they do it because they can't live with the kind of people they are. Some say it's so they can shine the light of truth away from themselves. Whatever the reason, when you see someone exhibit this sort of lumping all people into one universal set of thought and behavior, rest assured, that is a Class A, certified bigot.

Did EVERY person in the South believe the same? Of course not

But enough to pass JimCrow laws, enact segregation and terrorize "negroes" throughout the south

Did the South cause the SCOTUS to uphold Jim Crow laws? Did the South cause the race riots in Milwaukee, Detroit, Chicago, New York? Was "negro" only a word used in the South?

No the South didn't cause the SCOTUS to uphold Dredd Scott either....but they applied political pressure. Pressure that finally caught up to them in Brown vs Board of Education

Fact is our southern "brothers" drove our nations racial policies for almost the first 200 years of our existence. They did not give up their "peculiar institutions" without a fight and resorted to lynching, firebombing, intimidation and political obstruction to preserve their "heritage"

Again, the historical record is clear on the racial riots in Milwaukee, Chicago, Detroit and New York. None of which are "southern" cities, as I recall. The Supreme Court doesn't bow to political pressure, it's a separate branch of our government and autonomous. What happened between Dredd and Brown is society changed.

It's mighty rich to blame the South for "driving racial policies" following the Civil War, when the South went through Reconstruction and was essentially powerless. How the hell did they pull that off in your vapid little bigoted mind?

what has any of that to do with the confederate states of slavery?

 

[Boss]

what has any of that to do with the confederate states of slavery?

I've not defended slavery, assmunch!

The fact remains, slavery existed in the United States because the United States allowed it, condoned it, upheld it for 85 years before the Civil War, before the Confederacy existed. Discrimination against black people existed after the Civil War and was upheld by United States laws and Supreme Court rulings for another 100 years. That cannot be blamed on the Confederacy!

 

[thanatos144]

what has any of that to do with the confederate states of slavery?

I've not defended slavery, assmunch!

The fact remains, slavery existed in the United States because the United States allowed it, condoned it, upheld it for 85 years before the Civil War, before the Confederacy existed. Discrimination against black people existed after the Civil War and was upheld by United States laws and Supreme Court rulings for another 100 years. That cannot be blamed on the Confederacy!

Sure it can. They all were democrats.

Tapatalk

 

[mikegriffith1]

Far from being the "problem child," we should all be grateful that the South had so much influence over national policy. Had it not been for Southern influence,

* There would have been no Mexican War and thus no Mexican Cession and thus no California, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, etc.

* Texas may have remained part of Mexico.

* There would have been no Louisiana Purchase and hence no Arkansas, Missouri, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.

* The corrupt Bank of the United States would have continued unabated.

* Our currency would have been corrupted much sooner than it was (Lincoln nationalized the currency and destroyed the Independent Treasury System).

* The federal government would have grown much more rapidly, both in size and power, than it did (it didn't start to explode in size and scope until Lincoln came along).

I might add that it's a shame that the South's antebellum push to annex Cuba did not succeed. Think of how much better off Cuba would have been, and would still be, as an American state. No Batista, no Castro, etc., etc.

I don't think the South had sufficient cause to secede. I think they had some valid complaints, especially economic complaints, but I don't think these were sufficient reasons to justify secession. However, I think the far greater evil was Lincoln's use of force to compel the seceded states to rejoin the Union.

 

[Boss]

I don't think the South had sufficient cause to secede.

I think the great mistake we make in retrospect is failing to adequately realize the true reason and cause. It is a prime example of the adage, "the victors write the history books." We are taught all through school that the Civil War was fundamentally about slavery, the south wanted to keep it and the north wanted to abolish it, and this was why they fought the war.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The fundamental issue was the Constitution. You see, we had a problem. The Constitution does grant every citizen his or her inalienable rights, but it doesn't specify slaves are citizens, or even people, really. In the US courts, slaves had been deemed 'property' owned by a citizen, and as such, were protected from illegal seizure by the 4th amendment. Slaves were the same as their house, livestock and tools. This was not THEIR doings, it was what United States policy, law and court findings WERE. It's what US congresses had discussed, debated and passed into US law in America. This institution had been legitimized for 85 years by the policies of the United States of America, not the Confederacy.

So the issue from the Southern perspective was, you've told us this is our property that we own, now you claim you're going to seize it illegally or render it invalid as property? Uhm, no! And not just no, but HELL no! If slaves are property, and we own this property, your Constitution doesn't give you that power, it is our inalienable right under your own Constituion, as determined by your own Court.

They very much had a legitimate grievance here, and it wasn't because they simply had a different perspective, as many wish to believe. It was a basic fundamental right they had under the 4th Amendment, and inalienable right as a matter of fact. No court ruling had ever found slaves to be anything other than property owned by the slave owner. They weren't considered people at all, much less, citizens with rights.

Today we look back on this in retrospect and we fail to realize how minds thought differently back then as compared with today. We somehow envision them as being aware they were doing something wrong and horrible, they just didn't care. How dare those evil Southerners think that black human beings were their property? But back then, that wasn't just how Southerners saw it, that was how it was in general. It was very rare to come across an individual who even thought slaves were deserving of consideration as citizens, much less equals. Certainly not social equals by any means. That would take another century to happen.

We seem to lose perspective of the huge gap between people who saw slavery as inhumane, like you would be opposed to dog fighting, or zoos mistreating the apes, and those who supported true racial equality. Many abolitionists weren't what you would call "on board" with the idea of black slaves mingling in white social society. Very much to the contrary, they had a variety of ways we were going to deal with freed slaves, ever hear of Monrovia?