Va. Gov. FORCED to say slavery was cause of the Civil War

reply to post by TheCoffinman


We won't learn from the past if people refuse to leave it there. Let it be. If they wish for true equality we can't go about holding chips on shoulders and expect no challenge. My ancestors were tenant farmers, we never owned slaves and fought for the South to protect our homes and families. Yet because of my skin color people assume we had slaves and are racists. Its a shame that people remain so blind.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS

Originally posted by mothershipzeta

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Schizoptimistics
Um, because I believe everything should be equal. And I mean everything. Anything that can have 2 sides, should be equal all the way around.

How is Black History Month equal to Confederate History Month? What two sides do they represent?

Shhh! You're not supposed to point out inconvenient things like that.

That would be kind of silly considering there were thousands of black slave owners. ( Mostly in Louisiana, around New Orleans)

I guess they could have black confederate history month?

[edit on 8/4/10 by MikeboydUS]

Yeah...and some Jews helped the Nazis. Does that mean the Nazis get a free pass?

Even black slave owners were either second-class citizens or no citizens at all, had no political voice and no right of equal protection under the law.

Originally posted by Schizoptimistics
OMG really?

I won't entertain your apparent need to argue anymore.

The only point I was trying to make, is that if you're human, you should be equal. Everybody should be entitled to the same things, NO SPECIAL TREATMENT.

That's it, that's my point.

Then I advise you to avoid false equivalencies in the future.

reply to post by mothershipzeta


You can't compare the CSA to the Nazis. It just doesn't work.

First slavery wasn't widespread, you had to be wealthy to own slaves. Most slave owners, including the creole ones in Louisiana, were landed aristocrats. It was a very very small part of the population that owned slaves.

These aristocrats valued their slaves, they were not exterminating anyone. Slaves for the most part were not allowed to dangerous work like mining, construction, and industrial work. Slaves either worked in the fields or in the households.

No one was blaming Africans for their problems, they were not scapegoated.

There was a whole group of people who were consistently hated and despised by everyone, including being hated by the slaves, that group was the Irish.

The Irish were treated like dogs in the South. All of that dangerous work the slaves were not allowed to do, was done by them.

The hate between the slaves and the Irish in many ways laid down modern racism in the south. The racism people associate with the South today was not prevalent before the Reconstruction. It was after the war that it exploded. Then the blacks were scapegoated, even the free blacks. The creoles in Louisiana lost practically everything. Then it could be argued that the Southern democrats became at least in terms of racism, like Nazis.

It's past time to let go of some of these holidays, occassions, and tributes. There should never have been any reason to "celebrate" things that open old wounds and bring to mind sad memories. These things only promote division; whether its a North/South thing or racial, it is a distraction from peace and unity. There should be nothing "proud" or "grand" about any war.

We have entered a new millenium. It's time to wipe away sorrows of the past and bury the dark moments of history in favor of turning our attention toward a future of better reasoning behavior. Our civilization will never lift itself from the mire if we continue to celebrate war and keep prejudices alive.

Originally posted by Schizoptimistics
The only point I was trying to make, is that if you're human, you should be equal. Everybody should be entitled to the same things, NO SPECIAL TREATMENT.

But who is getting special treatment?

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex
reply to post by mbkennel

 

reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Thank you both for bringing much needed historical facts into a discussion full of propaganda and spin.

Those are the original declarations from the Southern states themselves at the time, not propaganda! Its just astounding when you cannot handle the evidence you folks continue dismissing it.

Im still waiting for this excuse of what else it was about aside from slavery. And please dont tell me it was the tariffs of 1828 that caused the war a full 30 years before the time, conveniently a month after Lincoln assumed office. Thats not a good enough excuse.

Theres nothing wrong with celebrating southern heritage, there is plenty wrong with celebrating the confederacy.

reply to post by cenpuppie


You right, honest abe and most northerns at the time tolerated slavery for the most part, and many nother states benefitted from slavery in one way or another. That being said Slavery was abolished in all states but Southern by 1810 and the Southern states were the only ones resistant to further abolishment. They viewed slavery as a states issue (this is why apologists insist the federal government overstepped grounds) which is completely contradictoray to what the southern revolutionaries insist on standing for today.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Their secessions didn't start the war.

They seceded out of paranoia.

The war started due to the attack on Fort Sumter. Which was also caused by paranoia. Even then Lincoln still did not want to fight.

Once it started, Lincoln tried to negotiate their return to the Union.

Lincoln had zero intent after his inauguration to end slavery in the South. Only in the course of the war did he proclaim emancipation as a leverage to get the South to return to the Union. The South still stubborn and paranoid refused to compromise.

Wrong. Slavery was at bottom why the south seceded and thus the cause of the Civil War.

Why did the south secede? Because the North, especially with the Republicans in control was gradually restricting slavery! With Lincoln now president the south feared the worst, all the new states would be new non-slave, until eventually Congress will be able to get the 2/3 vote for a constitutional amendment banning slavery. Because the South feared losing their slaves, they seceded. Thus, slavery was the cause of the Civil War!

The south would have been wiser to wait until Congress was actually about to pass this amendment, for they probably would have gotten a much result, like at least some compensation for the slaves, rather that reacting as rashly as they did.

I didn't read this thread, but I just thought I would post the facts for everyone.

The reason some states left the union was because of Slavery.

The Civil War was caused by the idea of federalism vs confederalism.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Their secessions didn't start the war.

They seceded out of paranoia.

The war started due to the attack on Fort Sumter. Which was also caused by paranoia. Even then Lincoln still did not want to fight.

Once it started, Lincoln tried to negotiate their return to the Union.

Lincoln had zero intent after his inauguration to end slavery in the South.

That was not the Republican party policy on slavery, the Republican party then consisted of anti-slavery whigs and Democrats. In addition to that the southern declarations were clear on there reasoning, and slavery was the core issue noted. All but southern states by the end had allowed slavery, the rest of the stated were barred from it and the government was moving to prevent it from spreading.

Im hearing two excuses so far of how this didnt have to do with slavery:

That it was a law enacted over 30years prior that made the states want to leave.

That it was paranoia, but no explanation further from that.

Then you have the convenience of them leaving a month after Lincoln wins, with their declarations clearly outlining the reasoning as slavery. I'd be better off believing this explanation.

reply to post by Geronime


The thing is the secession didn't start the war.

Between Dec 20, 1860 and Feb 1, 1861 there were seven states of the CSA that seceded.

Feb 8, 1861 the CSA was formed.

Mar 4, 1861 Lincoln was inaugurated.

April 12, 1861 the CSA attacks Fort Sumter. War begins.

April 15, 1861 Lincoln responds.

April 17 -May 20, 1861 four more states secede, including Virginia, due to the war.

reply to post by Geronime


bingo, and that goes nicely inline with the paranoia explanation from boyd here.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Its not really that hard to understand.

The Republicans were abolitionists and Lincoln did not want slavery in the West.

Even though he told the South, he would not end slavery there, seven states still seceded out of paranoia. They did not trust him. How much more clear can I be than that?

That same paranoia lead them to launch attacks on Fort Sumter, which is what started the war.

Lincoln did not want war. His hand was forced.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by Geronime

 

The thing is the secession didn't start the war.

Between Dec 20, 1860 and Feb 1, 1861 there were seven states of the CSA that seceded.

Feb 8, 1861 the CSA was formed.

Mar 4, 1861 Lincoln was inaugurated.

April 12, 1861 the CSA attacks Fort Sumter. War begins.

April 15, 1861 Lincoln responds.

April 17 -May 20, 1861 four more states secede, including Virginia, due to the war.

The Union refused to recognize the CSA, other foreign nations, in particular European powers, refused to recognize the CSA as well. Sucession was the reason for the war, slavery was the core reason for CSA sucession, and all evidence points to that.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

Its not really that hard to understand.

The Republicans were abolitionists and Lincoln did not want slavery in the West.

Even though he told the South, he would not end slavery there, seven states still seceded out of paranoia. They did not trust him. How much more clear can I be than that?

Exactly, which leads right back to the reasoning of the CSA for leaving, over slavery. The Union refused to recognize CSA sucession, other foreign powers refused to, and the war started because the Union had no intention of letting the CSA become independent.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Those are the original declarations from the Southern states themselves at the time, not propaganda!

I know, that is why I said you were introducing facts when others were just regurgitating propaganda and spin.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
Sucession was the reason for the war, slavery was the core reason for CSA sucession, and all evidence points to that.

The facts are incontrovertible. So why is there so much confusion and spin? Is it as simple as an attempt to white-wash history?

[edit on 8-4-2010 by DoomsdayRex]

reply to post by Southern Guardian


Had the attack on Fort Sumter not happened, there wouldn't have been any war.

The US was not mobilizing for any war with the South prior to the attack.
Lincoln simply did not want war.

He would have continued talks until they would of returned.

Lincoln was not a warmonger.

[edit on 8/4/10 by MikeboydUS]

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by havanaja
Actually, Germany does a damn good job of facing up to that part of it's past by educating its children to the concentration camps, bussing kids to visit the camps and quickly putting a lid on rabble rousers and racist implicators like Glenn Beck, Michael savage, etc. America has not done this.

While I don't agree with your comments on Glenn Beck (Michael Savage, however...), you are spot on about everything else. Those claiming to be proud of Southern history and wanting a proper accounting of it seem very eager to ignore a very significant part of it. Part of being proud of your heritage, culture and history is acknowledging all of it, the good and the ill, not pretending those ills never existed.

You said it... so now, why don't we also start mentioning that there were in fact African tribe leaders (yes, blacks!) that ended up not only ENSLAVING their own "race" but also, selling them as well to be sold into slavery?

Oh yes, it's always nice to start painting the "evil white man" as the ONLY race that ever enslaved the black people. But don't kid yourself! At that time, and even hundreds of years previous, slavery wasn't something that only "the evil white man" did, it was people from all cultures. Funny fact that people like to gloss over, a lot of African tribes did in fact enslave other blacks... why? Simple, they were either A.) lower caste or B.) members of a rival tribe and got caught. Rather than be killed, they would turn him into a slave. And yes, believe it or not, tribal leaders would in fact "trade" their slaves with the Dutch West India company (and other organizations)... yes, the blacks would trade slaves with the "evil" whites. that too, is part of YOUR heritage.

Now is this how ALL slavery came into being? of course not, I'm not that naive, I'm very well aware that the Dutch West india company, as well as other slave trade organizations, would capture slaves as well, but that doesn't change the fact that tribal leaders also sold your people out into slavery.

In fact, I remember watching on history channel, that in one particular tribe (can't remember the name since I watched this show a while back) a particularly favored bed time story that children were told, was of a child who would climb up socially, become a great powerful leader who would then triumph over, and ENSLAVE his enemies of another tribe. Yes folks, a favored fairytale that focuses on a black person RELISHING in the idea of becoming a great powerful ruler who will enslave other black people.

Want to be proud of THAT part of your heritage? If so, then why is it that we HARDLY ever hear about THAT particular part of African/tribal culture?

You guys want to be "equal" and "fair"? ok, then lets also start talking about white slaves. Yes you heard me right. Before Africa was even discovered or colonized by people living in the european continent, it was whites who were also enslaved. Don't believe me? pick up your greek and roman history books. It didn't stop there, even hundreds of years past that, during the middle ages (and I believe even part of the renaissance period) there were white "indentured servants" or another word for them could be "house slaves".

Slavery, whether it be blacks, whites, asians, (yes, that too happened) jewish or Irish has been around for a while, it was a part of those cultures. We might see it now as deplorable, but back then, it was simply a part of that culture. So now since you're asking us to own up to our heritage, I want all blacks to own up to the fact that yes, even in YOUR culture you were sold out to slavery.

Oh, and I want reparations for the suffering of my greek and roman ancestors, as well as my british ancestors who probably were slaves at one point or another.