Are today's Southern Conservatives any different than Southern Conservatives from the Civil War?

[paperview]

... The issue of slavery was not an "equality" issue, it was a humanitarian issue. It's like how most of us are opposed to animal cruelty... doesn't mean we believe they deserve constitutional rights as our equals. It took another century for blacks to gain equal rights, so let's not pretend the Civil War was a civil rights issue.

Lincoln believed when the Declaration of Independence said "All Men are Created Equal" -- they meant it -- even in regards to slaves.

Of course, Lincoln didn't believe it. He was a white supremacist:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

- Abraham Lincoln, Debate with Stephen Douglas, Sept. 18, 1858, in Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings, 1832-1858 (New York: Library of America, 1989), pp. 636-637.​

Back to the Southern perspectives... Plantation owners represented about 2% of the population and owned about 75% of the land in the South, and most of the slaves. The remaining 98% who weren't slaves, were poor farmers who worked along side the slaves or people who worked to support the large plantation system all through the South."

25 to 30% of Southern families owned slaves.

Heard time and time again is the apology to somehow cast the southerners who went to war as fighting only for a noble cause, and not to protect slavery.

But when you consider more than one on four rebels who took up arms against the North came from slaveholding families (and one in two in a few other states) it presents a different picture.

One could say, yes, well, those were families - just because pop owned the slave, doesn't mean the boys did too.

However, that slave labor on their property, in some form or another, helped provide them food, shelter and money, and also helped formulate their future wealth they could, and most often did, inherit.

Slave labor provided so much of just about everything when it came to the commerce of the South.

The vast majority of slaveholding families (just shy of 90%) had under 20 slaves, 50% under 5. Now consider the sheer volume of slaves: Just shy of 4 million. Out of a total 9 million populace.

Slavery was everywhere, and touched their lives in every way -- they were full up to the brim in it, immersed in it, and that is why the "most southerners didn't own slaves" -- while true in raw numbers -- belies the notion in actuality those boys were fighting to preserve what they knew was literally their lifeblood.

People are sometimes shocked when I tell them that no slave owners died fighting the Civil War.

Not true. see above.

That's all totally irrelevant since the white supremacist, Abraham Lincoln, did not invade Virginia to free the slaves.

Said the man defending slaveholders.

 

[Boss]

25 to 30% of Southern families owned slaves.

Heard time and time again is the apology to somehow cast the southerners who went to war as fighting only for a noble cause, and not to protect slavery.

I'm not apologizing for anything, it was awful that America had condoned slavery since inception. What I said was not incorrect, about 2% of the Southern population were plantation owners who owned most of the slaves. When you say "families" who owned slaves, what does that mean? I suppose you can manipulate that to get to 25% somehow, but that is still a small minority.

But when you consider more than one on four rebels who took up arms against the North came from slaveholding families (and one in two in a few other states) it presents a different picture.

And as I explained, this never happened because wealthy plantation owners sent proxies to serve for their sons and heirs. The overwhelming majority of infantry soldiers were people who didn't even know someone who owned a slave.

Slave labor provided so much of just about everything when it came to the commerce of the South.

I have no argument with that whatsoever. It also provided so much of just about everything to textile industrialists of the North who made fortunes with cotton from the South. The United States three leading exports were 1. Cotton, 2. Tobacco, 3. Sugar cane. All required extensive labor provided by slaves.

Slavery was everywhere, and touched their lives in every way -- they were full up to the brim in it, immersed in it, and that is why the "most southerners didn't own slaves" -- while true in raw numbers -- belies the notion in actuality those boys were fighting to preserve what they knew was literally their lifeblood.

People are sometimes shocked when I tell them that no slave owners died fighting the Civil War.

Not true. see above.

Still, most southerners didn't own slaves, most southern families didn't own slaves. The people who owned the slaves were not doing this because they felt they had some right to own people, they did this because US law allowed them to do this in order to provide labor in the field. Yes, it was a way of life in the South, it was a way of life in the US. It wasn't illegal to own slaves, the court ruled they were property, plain and simple.

 

[Political Junky]

Liberal "rights" are just excuses to give people stuff while others pay for it.

I guess you feel the same thing about the Liberal Bill of Rights and the Liberal Constitution?

Modern liberals bares no resemblance to 18th Century liberalism. The former has it's roots in socialism and Marxism.

There are plenty of Modern Liberals like myself who are closer to and have roots to so-called 18th century Liberalism and the Enlightenment Movement than to Socialism and Marxism. Much closer than many so-called Modern and past conservatives. We just have a more updated version of Liberalism. For example we believe: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

We updated it to mean men and women of all races have those unalienable rights, we certainly would support chattel slavery or any state that would deny a human being of those inalienable rights.

Your version of liberalism is updated to include supporting socialism, which is just another form of slavery.

What "socialism" do you think I support? Now granted, just like Ben Carson *(1996 &2012) I do support some government run programs (like FEMA for instance) but I don't think that we should be a socialist country.
This is the same hero that recently called Obamacare "the worst thing that happened in our country since slavery.".
LOL
Articles Ben Carson s Problematic Views on Health Care

He's no different from anyone on the Right, they have no answer for health care.

 

[bripat9643]

1. The original claim implied that such incidents were common. So far there has only been one example posted. Whereas, I posted multiple examples of black atrocities committed against whites.
2. The second implication of the claim was that it was something unique to whites. That obviously isn't the case.

Why should anyone be concerned about a unique occurrence of white on black crime?

Lynch Law By Ida B. Wells

I don't see the cause of a single lynching listed as "talking to a white woman."

BTW, ass breath, no one ever claimed there were never any lynchings in the South.

You said: I don't see the cause of a single lynching listed as "talking to a white woman."

I can't believe you said that when the most famous lynching of all was Emmett Till.

It wasn't listed in the post I was responding to, numskull.

Let me make sure I understand this. You said: I don't see the cause of a single lynching listed as "talking to a white woman." So I pointed out the most famous lynching of all. And you apparently, after making such a comment admited you didn't know shit. Then you call me "numskull". Since I don't know what that is, I'm guessing it's supposed to be a "retort"?
You not knowing anything doesn't make me stupid. I thought that was obvious.

I didn't see it in the post I was responding to, you witless baboon. "Numskull" is to flattering a term for you. A numskull is a positive genius compared to you.

 

[bripat9643]

I guess you feel the same thing about the Liberal Bill of Rights and the Liberal Constitution?

Modern liberals bares no resemblance to 18th Century liberalism. The former has it's roots in socialism and Marxism.

There are plenty of Modern Liberals like myself who are closer to and have roots to so-called 18th century Liberalism and the Enlightenment Movement than to Socialism and Marxism. Much closer than many so-called Modern and past conservatives. We just have a more updated version of Liberalism. For example we believe: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

We updated it to mean men and women of all races have those unalienable rights, we certainly would support chattel slavery or any state that would deny a human being of those inalienable rights.

Your version of liberalism is updated to include supporting socialism, which is just another form of slavery.

What "socialism" do you think I support? Now granted, just like Ben Carson *(1996 &2012) I do support some government run programs (like FEMA for instance) but I don't think that we should be a socialist country.
This is the same hero that recently called Obamacare "the worst thing that happened in our country since slavery.".
LOL
Articles Ben Carson s Problematic Views on Health Care

He's no different from anyone on the Right, they have no answer for health care.

An "answer" is defined as some huge government program. Right, I have nothing like that to propose. i call that a disaster, not an "answer."

 

[bripat9643]

25 to 30% of Southern families owned slaves.

Heard time and time again is the apology to somehow cast the southerners who went to war as fighting only for a noble cause, and not to protect slavery.

I'm not apologizing for anything, it was awful that America had condoned slavery since inception. What I said was not incorrect, about 2% of the Southern population were plantation owners who owned most of the slaves. When you say "families" who owned slaves, what does that mean? I suppose you can manipulate that to get to 25% somehow, but that is still a small minority.

But when you consider more than one on four rebels who took up arms against the North came from slaveholding families (and one in two in a few other states) it presents a different picture.

And as I explained, this never happened because wealthy plantation owners sent proxies to serve for their sons and heirs. The overwhelming majority of infantry soldiers were people who didn't even know someone who owned a slave.

Slave labor provided so much of just about everything when it came to the commerce of the South.

I have no argument with that whatsoever. It also provided so much of just about everything to textile industrialists of the North who made fortunes with cotton from the South. The United States three leading exports were 1. Cotton, 2. Tobacco, 3. Sugar cane. All required extensive labor provided by slaves.

Slavery was everywhere, and touched their lives in every way -- they were full up to the brim in it, immersed in it, and that is why the "most southerners didn't own slaves" -- while true in raw numbers -- belies the notion in actuality those boys were fighting to preserve what they knew was literally their lifeblood.

People are sometimes shocked when I tell them that no slave owners died fighting the Civil War.

Not true. see above.

Still, most southerners didn't own slaves, most southern families didn't own slaves. The people who owned the slaves were not doing this because they felt they had some right to own people, they did this because US law allowed them to do this in order to provide labor in the field. Yes, it was a way of life in the South, it was a way of life in the US. It wasn't illegal to own slaves, the court ruled they were property, plain and simple.

You're wasting your time treating this worthless Lincoln toady as a reasonable human being. He isn't interested in the facts. He's only interested in pushing his agenda.

 

[Faun]

To demonstrate how retarded you are -- YOU added a period to end that sentence where no such period exists. You tried to alter that resolution to meet your deranged definition of it since its actual meaning paints you as the imbecile you are.

Thanks for providing that tell.

Desperate.

I added a period to the sentence that contained the quote. Don't you know the most basic rules of English?

Adding the period altered the context of the sentence; which of course, is why you modified the sentence. Placing a period where you did excludes the limits of their jurisdiction encoded in that sentence.

You altered the ******* meaning of the sentence and then have the audacity to pretend it doesn't matter.

At any rate, realize it or not, you threw in the towel on that one by tacitly admitting SC did not retain ALL legal jurisdiction on the land. You had to remove the section where they say the retain only process serving rights on individuals who may violate SC law.

Nope, it retained authority over "all processes, civil and criminal." The later part says "and any person there being who may be implicated by law." That means in addition to "all processes, civil and criminal."

You really need to take some remedial English.

Umm ... if the sentence said what you delude yourself into believing it meant, you wouldn't have had to alter it.

Here's part of the sentence you removed ... what do you think it means ...

shall and may be served and executed upon the same​

I've posted the entire thing multiple times. You're the one trying to alter its meaning. Here it is again:

Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law;
​

Note: the stuff coming after the last "and" is in addition to the stuff referred to prior to it. People may be served IN ADDITION TO "processes civil and criminal"

You're too funny (in a crazy way) ... YOU modify the sentence to alter its meaning and then when caught, accuse me of doing that.

Your craziness aside, that sentence still means SC maintained the authority to serve anyone on the who violated SC law, either civilly or criminally. That was the extent and the limit of their "legal jurisdiction."

And I note, you ran away from answering this question. What do you think the following means?

shall and may be served and executed upon the same​

 

[bripat9643]

Desperate.

I added a period to the sentence that contained the quote. Don't you know the most basic rules of English?

Adding the period altered the context of the sentence; which of course, is why you modified the sentence. Placing a period where you did excludes the limits of their jurisdiction encoded in that sentence.

You altered the ******* meaning of the sentence and then have the audacity to pretend it doesn't matter.

At any rate, realize it or not, you threw in the towel on that one by tacitly admitting SC did not retain ALL legal jurisdiction on the land. You had to remove the section where they say the retain only process serving rights on individuals who may violate SC law.

Nope, it retained authority over "all processes, civil and criminal." The later part says "and any person there being who may be implicated by law." That means in addition to "all processes, civil and criminal."

You really need to take some remedial English.

Umm ... if the sentence said what you delude yourself into believing it meant, you wouldn't have had to alter it.

Here's part of the sentence you removed ... what do you think it means ...

shall and may be served and executed upon the same​

I've posted the entire thing multiple times. You're the one trying to alter its meaning. Here it is again:

Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law;
​

Note: the stuff coming after the last "and" is in addition to the stuff referred to prior to it. People may be served IN ADDITION TO "processes civil and criminal"

You're too funny (in a crazy way) ... YOU modify the sentence to alter its meaning and then when caught, accuse me of doing that.

Your craziness aside, that sentence still means SC maintained the authority to serve anyone on the who violated SC law, either civilly or criminally. That was the extent and the limit of their "legal jurisdiction."

And I note, you ran away from answering this question. What do you think the following means?

shall and may be served and executed upon the same​

Apparently you believe people can't read it for themselves. Anyone who isn't brain damaged can see that my interpretation is correct and that yours is incorrect. The bottom line is that the state of South Carolina has the title to the property on file. That means it's in the jurisdiction of South Carolina.

 

[bripat9643]

... The issue of slavery was not an "equality" issue, it was a humanitarian issue. It's like how most of us are opposed to animal cruelty... doesn't mean we believe they deserve constitutional rights as our equals. It took another century for blacks to gain equal rights, so let's not pretend the Civil War was a civil rights issue.

Lincoln believed when the Declaration of Independence said "All Men are Created Equal" -- they meant it -- even in regards to slaves.

Of course, Lincoln didn't believe it. He was a white supremacist:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

- Abraham Lincoln, Debate with Stephen Douglas, Sept. 18, 1858, in Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings, 1832-1858 (New York: Library of America, 1989), pp. 636-637.​

Back to the Southern perspectives... Plantation owners represented about 2% of the population and owned about 75% of the land in the South, and most of the slaves. The remaining 98% who weren't slaves, were poor farmers who worked along side the slaves or people who worked to support the large plantation system all through the South."

25 to 30% of Southern families owned slaves.

Heard time and time again is the apology to somehow cast the southerners who went to war as fighting only for a noble cause, and not to protect slavery.

But when you consider more than one on four rebels who took up arms against the North came from slaveholding families (and one in two in a few other states) it presents a different picture.

One could say, yes, well, those were families - just because pop owned the slave, doesn't mean the boys did too.

However, that slave labor on their property, in some form or another, helped provide them food, shelter and money, and also helped formulate their future wealth they could, and most often did, inherit.

Slave labor provided so much of just about everything when it came to the commerce of the South.

The vast majority of slaveholding families (just shy of 90%) had under 20 slaves, 50% under 5. Now consider the sheer volume of slaves: Just shy of 4 million. Out of a total 9 million populace.

Slavery was everywhere, and touched their lives in every way -- they were full up to the brim in it, immersed in it, and that is why the "most southerners didn't own slaves" -- while true in raw numbers -- belies the notion in actuality those boys were fighting to preserve what they knew was literally their lifeblood.

People are sometimes shocked when I tell them that no slave owners died fighting the Civil War.

Not true. see above.

That's all totally irrelevant since the white supremacist, Abraham Lincoln, did not invade Virginia to free the slaves.

Said the man defending slaveholders.

You worship a white supremacist and mass murderer.

 

[bripat9643]

Modern liberals bares no resemblance to 18th Century liberalism. The former has it's roots in socialism and Marxism.

There are plenty of Modern Liberals like myself who are closer to and have roots to so-called 18th century Liberalism and the Enlightenment Movement than to Socialism and Marxism. Much closer than many so-called Modern and past conservatives. We just have a more updated version of Liberalism. For example we believe: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.-"

We updated it to mean men and women of all races have those unalienable rights, we certainly would support chattel slavery or any state that would deny a human being of those inalienable rights.

Your version of liberalism is updated to include supporting socialism, which is just another form of slavery.

What "socialism" do you think I support? Now granted, just like Ben Carson *(1996 &2012) I do support some government run programs (like FEMA for instance) but I don't think that we should be a socialist country.
This is the same hero that recently called Obamacare "the worst thing that happened in our country since slavery.".
LOL
Articles Ben Carson s Problematic Views on Health Care

Do you support the following?

Social Security
Medicare
Medicaid
Obamacare
Public Schools
Public Universities
Welfare of any kind
Interstate Highways
High speed rail
Space program
EPA
SEC
FDA
FCC

Social Security: Sure because most workers in this country are already invested into the Social Security system. BUT , I'm not against a program where people can opt out of it and have their own private "social security" as long as they don't go running to the government if something catastrophic happens or they go broke.

Medicare: It should be voluntary if one wants to opt out "as they don't go running to the government if something catastrophic happens or they go broke".

Medicaid: Poor people do need access to healthcare, this benefits society at large. Imagine if some poor person caught the ebola virus (or the like) and was too poor to see a doctor and get treatment, thus having the ability to spread a deadly contagious disease to everyone, including rich people.

Obamacare: I'm disappointed that he didn't keep his promise to make it VOLUNTARY and NOT mandatory (thus following the lead of the Heritage plan). So the answer is NO.

Public Schools: I have no problem with public schools because they are pretty much VOLUNTARY, if people want to opt out they can home school or send their children to a private school as long as they don't use services (that they don't pay for) that are meant for public school children.

Public Universities: Same as above.

Welfare of any kind: "Don't be afraid of the angry man, be afraid of the hungry man.". I have no problem with it as long as it is not finite and they have to pay back their benefits before they can get on it again.

Interstate Highways: Of course!!!!

High speed rail: What about it? Many private companies will benefit from it.

Space program: Sure because it helps with our national security.

EPA: Of course, who would want some idiots dumping toxins in our waterways and poisoning us?

SEC: Sure, we have enough ponzi schemes to deal with already.

FDA: See my EPA answer.

FCC: In a very limited role.

By "opt out" you don't mean opt out of paying for the program, so it's meaningless. You support the program. You're a socialist. As for the three letter agencies, there are other ways of handing such problems without creating vast oppressive government bureaucracies.

 

[Faun]

Adding the period altered the context of the sentence; which of course, is why you modified the sentence. Placing a period where you did excludes the limits of their jurisdiction encoded in that sentence.

You altered the ******* meaning of the sentence and then have the audacity to pretend it doesn't matter.

At any rate, realize it or not, you threw in the towel on that one by tacitly admitting SC did not retain ALL legal jurisdiction on the land. You had to remove the section where they say the retain only process serving rights on individuals who may violate SC law.

Nope, it retained authority over "all processes, civil and criminal." The later part says "and any person there being who may be implicated by law." That means in addition to "all processes, civil and criminal."

You really need to take some remedial English.

Umm ... if the sentence said what you delude yourself into believing it meant, you wouldn't have had to alter it.

Here's part of the sentence you removed ... what do you think it means ...

shall and may be served and executed upon the same​

I've posted the entire thing multiple times. You're the one trying to alter its meaning. Here it is again:

Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law;
​

Note: the stuff coming after the last "and" is in addition to the stuff referred to prior to it. People may be served IN ADDITION TO "processes civil and criminal"

You're too funny (in a crazy way) ... YOU modify the sentence to alter its meaning and then when caught, accuse me of doing that.

Your craziness aside, that sentence still means SC maintained the authority to serve anyone on the who violated SC law, either civilly or criminally. That was the extent and the limit of their "legal jurisdiction."

And I note, you ran away from answering this question. What do you think the following means?

shall and may be served and executed upon the same​

Apparently you believe people can't read it for themselves. Anyone who isn't brain damaged can see that my interpretation is correct and that yours is incorrect. The bottom line is that the state of South Carolina has the title to the property on file. That means it's in the jurisdiction of South Carolina.

If it meant what you claim it means, you wouldn't have altered the sentence. Your interpretation only serves to demonstrate your struggles with the English language.

And for the third time, I ask ... what do you think this means ... ?

shall and may be served and executed upon the same​

 

[Faun]

Oh lookie here ... I found why the forum rightard refuses to answer my question ... because he knows the answer destroys his position -- as well stated on civilwarhome.com ...

The process was very simple: a state would, through its members of Congress and senators, argue that the National Interest required that a fort be built, such as one in the middle of Charleston Harbor. The necessary legislation would pass Congress and be signed by the President. Then the state legislature would pass a law granting title (if the state owned the property) or affirming title (if the land was privately owned) to the United States. The one general exception was a clause inserted to allow state officials to enter the Federal property to seize fugitives from justice or to serve civil process papers.

http://civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.htm​

 

[Asclepias]

There are MANY aspects of the Civil War that we don't have the frame of reference for in a post-Civil War America. And I think that is worth a great deal of consideration when trying to comprehend the times and what was actually happening. We have to realize the federal government was not outlawing slavery and the South rebelled, there had been no legislation suggesting any sort of a thing. We outlawed slave trade, the slave markets, etc., that had been done years before, it wasn't happening in America in 1860. The SCOTUS had ruled in several cases and the US law of the land said slaves were property and the fundamental right to own them rests with their owner. The Southern states didn't do this on their own. This was the actions of US Presidents and Congress all the way up to Lincoln.

So from a purely Constitutional standpoint, what power does the government have to come seize your property? It's covered in the 4th Amendment of the Bill of Rights. It was literally for this very reason the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the seceded states... they weren't protected by the Constitution anymore. It was well after the end of the war that Congress got around to drafting the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments rendering slavery unconstitutional.

Now, as much as there was any kind of "conservatives" back then, they were the business men who mostly favored states having the right to decide on slavery. Cotton was our #1 trade good.... King Cotton. Mills all along the Eastern seaboard were making tons of money on cotton thanks to Eli Whitney, and life was sweet. New York threatened to secede over the war because they simply didn't want to fight it. But the war happened, the South lost and the history books were written so as to make the war about slavery. And the South has been the scapegoat ever since.

The war was entirely about slavery because if you take slavery out of the equation it is impossible to envision a plausible scenario where 11 states would secede while unifying around the forming of a completely new nation,
the result being a war between that nation and the states remaining in the Union.

I have to say yes and no. The war was actually about whether states have the right to secede from the US. It happened to involve the slavery issue, but the issue was not enslavement of people. SCOTUS and Congress had determined slavery was legal and constitutional. Slave owners had the constitutional right to own slaves as property protected by the 4th Amendment. Slaves had no constitutional rights.

Thats what they want you to think. If it was about the right to secede instead of slavery they would not have mentioned they were seceding because of slavery. It says it right in the articles of secession. It also says the same thing in the Keystone address. It was the most important issue of the day for decades leading up to the civil war. Slavery in the US was a money maker like none other in history. Its thee reason the US became an economic power. Of course for the south slavery was the issue.

Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

"Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition."

That simply leaves no room for doubt.

Thats what they want you to think.

Who is "they?" I have been intrigued by Civil War history my entire life. I have probably read more books on this than you've read books of any kind. I have studied about the lead-up and causes of the war, from various different sources and from different perspectives. It's sort of a hobby, to be honest. I speak for myself, no one is telling me what to think.

Yep... slavery was a money maker. It was the backbone of the Southern economy and virtually the entire US agricultural economy, which was most of the economy in 1860. Not only did slaves make money, they had real value as property. They were assets. It is estimated their property value at the time of the war was somewhere close to $1 billion. (That's like a trillion in today's world.)

So on what Constitutional basis does the federal government have to render their property rights null and void? I'm not asking you a moral question but a constitutional one, and it was the prevailing constitutional question of the day. Lincoln could not legally apply the Emancipation Proclamation to the Union States, it would have been unconstitutional at that time.

As for the "negro equality" issue, that is another animal entirely from slavery. About 97% of American white society did not believe blacks were equal to whites. Lincoln reiterated this in the Lincoln-Douglas debates. The issue of slavery was not an "equality" issue, it was a humanitarian issue. It's like how most of us are opposed to animal cruelty... doesn't mean we believe they deserve constitutional rights as our equals. It took another century for blacks to gain equal rights, so let's not pretend the Civil War was a civil rights issue.

Back to the Southern perspectives... Plantation owners represented about 2% of the population and owned about 75% of the land in the South, and most of the slaves. The remaining 98% who weren't slaves, were poor farmers who worked along side the slaves or people who worked to support the large plantation system all through the South. Their paychecks were tied to the Plantation, so they had some vested interest in what was best for them. But for the most part, it was the perspective of protecting their homeland.

People are sometimes shocked when I tell them that no slave owners died fighting the Civil War. This may not be absolute truth, but it has to be pretty damn close. As crazy as it sounds today, back then you had an option afforded the wealthy and powerful whereby they could send "proxies" to do their fighting. No wealthy plantation owner or his sons had to go off to war, they sent proxies. Now some of them did go, but they went as officers and generals. The 600k men who died with muskets in hand on the battlefields were not slave owners.

"They"...are the people that would claim the south seceded over state rights. Thats a bunch of BS trying to cover up the simple fact they were thieves in possession of stolen humans and sadistic torturers while proclaiming how civilized and advanced the white race was. You may have read more books than I have on the subject but that just tells me you are more indoctrinated by what someone else is telling you.

The constitution says all men are created equal. That is the right of the government to stop slavery. People are not property. Lincoln freed the slaves to keep the political power of southern whites slave owners from ruining the country further. He did it and the south lost...life is tough...play hard.

Not really interested in what white people thought. I'm really only interested in what Black people thought. I already know whites reasons for either actively or passively supporting the enslavement of Black people. What they thought is unimportant to me. I already know the norths reasons for the war and I am under no illusion it was for the benefit of Black people. It was simply a political move. The 98% that were not slaves benefited from slavery as you pointed out either directly or indirectly. They were free to gang rape Black women and girls. they were free to abduct free Black men to sell into slavery. They were free to separate families of the enslaved over and over again They made the chains that created the coffles that dug into the flesh of Black men and women as they were sold on auction blocks and worked as overseers that forcibly migrated enslaved people from the southeast and northeast to the west and the south. They were free to feel that even in their poor state at least they were better than a enslaved person. Every white person got a piece. Thats why it took so long to actually free the enslaved. Men who fought to maintain this status quo were lower than an earthworms dick and have not an once of honor. If I could go back in time I think one of the moments I would love to see is when the south surrendered like the flea bitten, cowardly dogs they were.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

There is a difference.

Today, it is NOT legal to own ASCLEPIAS.

I really hated to have to give him back.

 

[paperview]

25 to 30% of Southern families owned slaves.

Heard time and time again is the apology to somehow cast the southerners who went to war as fighting only for a noble cause, and not to protect slavery.

I'm not apologizing for anything, it was awful that America had condoned slavery since inception. What I said was not incorrect, about 2% of the Southern population were plantation owners who owned most of the slaves. When you say "families" who owned slaves, what does that mean? I suppose you can manipulate that to get to 25% somehow, but that is still a small minority.

But when you consider more than one on four rebels who took up arms against the North came from slaveholding families (and one in two in a few other states) it presents a different picture.

And as I explained, this never happened because wealthy plantation owners sent proxies to serve for their sons and heirs. The overwhelming majority of infantry soldiers were people who didn't even know someone who owned a slave.

Joseph T. Glatthaar, in his magnificent study of the force that eventually became the Army of Northern Virginia, lays out the evidence:

"Even more revealing was their attachment to slavery. Among the enlistees in 1861, slightly more than one in ten owned slaves personally. This compared favorably to the Confederacy as a whole, in which one in every twenty white persons owned slaves. Yet more than one in every four volunteers that first year lived with parents who were slaveholders. Combining those soldiers who owned slaves with those soldiers who lived with slaveholding family members, the proportion rose to 36 percent. That contrasted starkly with the 24.9 percent, or one in every four households, that owned slaves in the South, based on the 1860 census. Thus, volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who owned slaves than the general population.

The attachment to slavery, though, was even more powerful. One in every ten volunteers in 1861 did not own slaves themselves but lived in households headed by non family members who did. This figure, combined with the 36 percent who owned or whose family members owned slaves, indicated that almost one of every two 1861 recruits lived with slaveholders. Nor did the direct exposure stop there. Untold numbers of enlistees rented land from, sold crops to, or worked for slaveholders. In the final tabulation, the vast majority of the volunteers of 1861 had a direct connection to slavery. For slaveholder and nonslaveholder alike, slavery lay at the heart of the Confederate nation. The fact that their paper notes frequently depicted scenes of slaves demonstrated the institution’s central role and symbolic value to the Confederacy.

More than half the officers in 1861 owned slaves, and none of them lived with family members who were slaveholders. Their substantial median combined wealth ($5,600) and average combined wealth ($8,979) mirrored that high proportion of slave ownership. By comparison, only one in twelve enlisted men owned slaves, but when those who lived with family slave owners were included, the ratio exceeded one in three. That was 40 percent above the tally for all households in the Old South. With the inclusion of those who resided in nonfamily slaveholding households, the direct exposure to bondage among enlisted personnel was four of every nine. Enlisted men owned less wealth, with combined levels of $1,125 for the median and $7,079 for the average, but those numbers indicated a fairly comfortable standard of living. Proportionately, far more officers were likely to be professionals in civil life, and their age difference, about four years older than enlisted men, reflected their greater accumulated wealth.

The prevalence of slaveholding was so pervasive among Southerners who heeded the call to arms in 1861 that it became something of a joke; Glatthaar tells of an Irish-born private in a Georgia regiment who quipped to his messmates that “he bought a negro, he says, to have something to fight for.”

LINK

 

[paperview]

More:

"In the vast majority of cases, each household (termed a “family” in the 1860 document, even when the group consisted of unrelated people living in the same residence) that owned slaves had only one slaveholder listed, the head of the household. It is thus possible to compare the number of slaveholders in a given state to the numbers of families/households, and get a rough estimation of the proportion of free households that owned at least one slave. The numbers varies considerably, ranging from (roughly) 1 in 5 in Arkansas to nearly 1 in 2 in Mississippi and South Carolina. In the eleven states that formed the Confederacy, there were in aggregate just over 1 million free households, which between them represented 316,632 slaveholders—meaning that somewhere between one-quarter and one-third of households in the Confederate States counted among its assets at least one human being.



The UofV system also makes it possible to generate maps that show graphically the proportion of slaveholding households in a given county. This is particularly useful in revealing political divisions or disputes within a state, although it takes some practice with the online query system to generate maps properly. Here are county maps for all eleven Confederate states, with the estimated proportion of slaveholding families indicated in green — a darker color indicates a higher density: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, All States.

LINK

A stunning amount of slaveownership.

Nearly half the population of the south were slaves. In some southern states, slaves were the majority population.

 

[Asclepias]

There is a difference.

Today, it is NOT legal to own ASCLEPIAS.

I really hated to have to give him back.

Even if it was legal you couldnt afford me. You wouldnt have lasted one night before I slit your throat and watched you bleed out. In addition, they didnt allow common white trash to own slaves. Practically everyone knows that.

 

[hadit]

You also defend such people. There's no getting around that.

It's all yours buddy. These are the people you defend.

That's right, run away like a scared little puppy with your tail between your legs.

You're a loser and a coward.

Your a ******* idiot. Your boys..the loser confederates...were nothing but peddlers of human flesh that didnt know when the gig was up.

You added what you usual add to a thread: nothing.

You loser confederate rednecks add nothing to life. Youre like a shitstain in the boxers of America.

Mockers and haters don't add anything positive to life, period.

 

[Asclepias]

It's all yours buddy. These are the people you defend.

That's right, run away like a scared little puppy with your tail between your legs.

You're a loser and a coward.

Your a ******* idiot. Your boys..the loser confederates...were nothing but peddlers of human flesh that didnt know when the gig was up.

You added what you usual add to a thread: nothing.

You loser confederate rednecks add nothing to life. Youre like a shitstain in the boxers of America.

Mockers and haters don't add anything positive to life, period.

I thought it sufficient to just call them losers and rednecks.

 

[Dad2three]