Ahhh, duly noted..

Every board has one... ;-)

Thanks. I'll be here all week.

Lest we be reminded of the Obama/Lincoln comparisons. :rolleyes:

No. You should. Never assume that you disagree with someone because that person is uninformed and needs to research.

I didn't assume anything. While it's a common arguement and /or fact that slavery was an underlying cause for the Civil War, most Americans don't know that most of the Confederate States directly referenced that "pecuilar institution" in their letters of secession. In fact, most Americans in the Southern States have never even seen thier own states' letter, much less the rest of them. Ironically, the "Confederate Flag" as we know it, is not even the original Confederate flag, but that's another story.

But hey, if you don't think Haley Barbour's statement doesn't represent the views of most of the people who fly that flag nowadays, then I'll be more than happy to agree to disagree.

Sure.

Which has been discussed quite a few times here at GC. ;)

;) He wants to inform.

Interestingly enough, this goes back to my original statement:
This isn't the Confederate Flag, itself.

Since you have twice chosen to inform me that I am in error, I will reply again.

An American 'legal perspective' is completely irrelevant to a Human Rights issue. The fundamental Human Right of Self Determination is independent of any court. In particular, it is independent of the American Supreme Court. Humanity has the right to choose their own form of government no matter what the USSC says. They had this right before the USSC came into existence and they will have it when the USSC is history.

Quoting a USSC decision from just after the war is merely Victor's Justice. If Ewell had taken Culp's Hill at Gettysburg, that case would never have been heard. But in any case, the hearing of it or the non-hearing do not effect the right of people to govern themselves.

In logic, we abstract away to get at the underlying form of the argument. Many words that seem different are really the same from the point of view of the analysis of the form of an argument. Saying that secede and revolt are different is ingenuous as born out by the firing on Fort Sumpter, which was surely a revolt. Both words can be abstracted to leave. Then saying that the US has the right to leave GB, but that the South cannot leave the US, is the very definition of Special Pleading.

Saying that the relationship was different, is irrelevant. No mater what the previous form of the relationship, we all have a right to Self Determination which is a right not granted by the USSC, but rather by, in Jefferson's words "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God".

Since you keep using the wrong name for England at that time, I will expand on that. In 1776, our opponent was Great Britain. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland came into existence on Jan 1, 1801, at least from the English point of view. From the Irish point of view, it was meaningless as the native Irish recognized neither the Kingdom Of Ireland nor the UK. The Irish, the Americans and every other country within the British Empire and every other place on earth had the right of Self Determination which did not depend upon any court.

Oh dear, France. I think things would have been even worse for the Confederacy if France was involved. They had helped during the Revolutionary War, and had their Revolution, Napoleon had Waterloo, and we were still paying them back borrowed money. There was the whole issue in Mexico and Cinco de Mayo and potentially pissing off the British. I could picture Britain supporting the Union just because France was supporting the Confederacy and well. Britain is still ticked at times about the Battle of Hastings. Of course if Britain hadn't done better in the French and Indian War, things could have been different.

American slavery was far more humane than most forms of slavery (and I say most, because the only one I can think of that might have been more humane is the Russian slaves...which is the etymology of the word..Slavs/Slaves)

What does totality mean? Because there were alot of them? Not really. In the South, slaves consisted of perhaps 45% of the population...maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less depending on your source.

But that's not a high percentage of the population whatsoever especially according to Encylcopaedia Brittanica's "Guide to Black History"

http://www.britannica.com/blackhistory/article-24157

Brutality? Nah, not really. It had it's bad spots, as slavery does but it's no where near as brutal as the Jews, during the Khmer Empire, or a few others. (Koreans in Japan)
I mentioned the Jews...the helots in Sparta I believe were enslaved much longer as well as about twenty other people's. The human race is cruel.

I don't know what that means?

Assuming that race is real (I don't know that I believe it) and thus ignoring that part of the argument, you are an absolute fool. I guess you have forgotten all of Central and South America. Perhaps, you should read Bartolome De Las Casas "Destruction of the Indies".

Except it has. Repeatedly. Human nature can be cruel. I would argue that even more so, the African-to-America experience was far less brutal than the African-to-other parts of Africa. I mean, you do know what brought the majority of the slaves to the ports...right?

I would argue that America has bloodied hands for three reasons. It is politically viable for certain demogogues to "blood-up-the-hands", sort of the "bloody flag" theory. Secondly, it is more noticeable than most of the other slavery attempts in that the skin color is almost a signifier whereas in Russia with the serfs, Greece with the Helots, and Africa with the various slavery systems, the skin color is not a signifier of slavery (it's not really here, as we have African immigrants...but the majority are not recent African immigrants). Lastly, because rights weren't fully given and African-Americans had to work to gain them.

Im sorry...I just have to disagree with you.

How do you figure that the chattel system in the US was 'humane'? when the effects are still being felt TODAY?

As to the 2nd passage you do realize that the reason why there is no accurate number of how many were brought to these shores is due to the huge amounts of people thrown (or jumped) overboard ships.

Show me one example of this ' humane ' treatment you refer to.

http://www.picturehistory.com/images.../prod_7303.jpg

Have you heard of Doug Wilson and his writings on how slavery was beneficial for the slaves, and they were better off? He lives in my town and hosted a conference about it. No lie, google him.

http://www.amazon.com/Southern-Slave.../dp/188576717X You can inter-library loan it or something.

@VandalSquirrel I heard of him and if I remember correctly he had to retract a whole lot of that hooey he said.

He's anti gay too if memory serves...

I didn't say that it was humane.

I said that it was "more humane." Large difference. At that point it can be very inhumane, but still more humane than others. And you can argue about whether or not the effects are being felt, I disagree (at least on the psyche of being a slave...not necessarily the greater socio-economic effects).

That doesn't debunk my statement.

I'm not sure anything I wrote says anything to that effect. The poster had absolutely no idea what he was talking about in regards to the history of slavery. Would you care to debunk it?

Oh the school he runs is just strange, I love the code of conduct about narcing on others and not listening to popular music.

It's like you was saying water is 'more wet'.

Either way what you said just doesn't make sense. When people are systematically killed and their culture is wiped out after living on these shores, humane is the farthest word that comes to mind.

It's like saying a man is 'more humane' because he beats his dog a little less.

Chattel slavery in the US was far from 'humane'.

What exactly is compassionate about keeping slaves?

"I love the pure, peaceable, and impartial Christianity of Christ: I therefore hate the corrupt, slaveholding, women-whipping, cradle-plundering, partial and hypocritical Christianity of the land. Indeed, I can see no reason, but the most deceitful one, for calling the religion of this land Christianity. I look upon it as the climax of all misnomers, the boldest of all frauds, and the grossest of all libels. Never was there a clearer case of 'stealing the livery of the court of heaven to serve the devil in.' I am filled with unutterable loathing when I contemplate the religious pomp and show, together with the horrible inconsistencies, which every where surround me. We have men-stealers for ministers, women-whippers for missionaries, and cradle-plunderers for church members. The man who wields the blood-clotted cowskin during the week fills the pulpit on Sunday, and claims to be a minister of the meek and lowly Jesus. . . . The slave auctioneer’s bell and the church-going bell chime in with each other, and the bitter cries of the heart-broken slave are drowned in the religious shouts of his pious master. Revivals of religion and revivals in the slave-trade go hand in hand together. The slave prison and the church stand near each other. The clanking of fetters and the rattling of chains in the prison, and the pious psalm and solemn prayer in the church, may be heard at the same time. The dealers in the bodies and souls of men erect their stand in the presence of the pulpit, and they mutually help each other. The dealer gives his blood-stained gold to support the pulpit, and the pulpit, in return, covers his infernal business with the garb of Christianity. Here we have religion and robbery the allies of each other—devils dressed in angels’ robes, and hell presenting the semblance of paradise."

~Frederick Douglass

It didn't. But, you do dislike the difference between "it's" and "its." ;)

As for what you said, I disagree with people's (usually white people's) need to quantify and compare everything. Slavery can stand alone without being compared to anything. It was a shitty practice regardless of the fact that slavery existed outside of North America and whether or not conditions were as horrendous as reported. It (both ideologically and economically) served as the foundation for the racist ideologies and practices that still have a hold on societies (N.America and others).

I liken this discussion to that of the Holocaust. Sure, there are people here and there who will claim that it wasn't all it was cracked up to be and that the conditions of the Jews paled in comparison to that of (insert bullshit comparison). Jews, in general, are quick to put a foot up your ass if you EVER try to lessen the horrendousness of this experience and act as though they, as a group, have no reason to be outraged.

With all of that said, still fuck Lincoln and the horse he rode in on--and I'm not offended by the Confederate Flag ITSELF.

ETA: Oh yeah, fuck Frederick Douglass with his posthumously inducted Alpha Phi Alpha ass.

Shut up.

Better than you.

ETA: If this is my annoying cyber-boo Xanthus, I meant the "shut up" but you can add a ;) to lighten the tone.

Good point, but if France got involved, I think the North would've lost, and then the United States would be more like little countries/territories with totally different laws. Like Europe. I don't think the British would've gotten involved, because they were offering slaves their freedom if they fought on their side during the Revolutionary War, prior.

*were

No it's like saying you're less fat. If you weighed nine hundred pounds and lost 20, you got less fat. You're still fat as hell, but you're less fat.

At no point did I say it was humane.

He is, compared to the man who beats his dog to death.

I said nothing of compassion. Where do you come up with this stuff?

You based an entire post of things I didn't say.

Haha, now that's fact. I guess I don't pay attention to it, which is awful...but spell check always corrects me on it even if I didn't know I made a mistake.

Absolutely and totally agreed. If you'll notice though, the argument was started by the poster saying that the slavery here was the most egregious of all slavery, as if it were some sort of "slavery-exceptionalism". Which, in turn, I responded that his assessment wasn't entirely correct.

I really think you underestimate the long standing issues between Britain and France, and how France helping the Confederacy could freak Britain out about Canada and France trying to take it back via Quebec (and also France helped us get free from Britain and become the US). It also goes the other way, lots of Quebec people are still not enthused about Britain taking over before the Revolutionary War, and they are French Canadian, not French Frenchian (thanks for the poutine!). I'll give you the Trent Affair incident, but once the Emancipation Proclamation was signed no European power would help the Confederacy because it was now a slavery issue, and Britain abolished slavery in 1833/34/38 (except a few places), with France and other European nations doing this before and after Britain did.

Granted we still had slavery after the Emancipation Proclamation, Native Americans were still slaves in places like California, and this shouldn't be surprising considering Native Americans weren't considered citizens until 1924 and still couldn't vote in some states after that. Makes the passport joke to leave the rez in Smoke Signals even funnier when one is aware of that. Furthermore some Native Americans owned slaves as well, and tribes and individuals served for both the Union and the Confederacy.

Yeah they hated each other. They were with war with each other more often then they were at peace. Like a friend of mine said, it was a fact of life back then. "The sky is blue, and we are at war with France."

No matter how you cut it, there is no way with numerous documentations and citation that US chattel slavery was 'more humane'. It's still a crime against humanity.

This is why some people still get pissed when symbols of the South are venerated because it is still a dark reminder to what could have been.

As some posters stated earlier ad nauseum, the Confederate flag is almost along the same lines as the Nazi swastika and in some ways even moreso.

Opponents of the Confederate flag see it as an overt symbol of racism

Others view the flag as a symbol of rebellion against the federal government of the United States

And what doesn't help is that hate groups in the US rally behind the flag.

It's funny when you think about it because the swastika was the same way as it is used as a religious Hindu symbol and was found in Pre Christian Europe. Thanks Germany.

...and where did I get "compassion" from? Well next time in your efforts to correct me, try looking up the definition of the word, "humane".

When you say that slavery was "more humane" you are saying that masters here showed "more compassion" for their 3/5th of a human they kept. I call it bullshit.

This!

One last point too...compared to the man who beat his dog to death, well:

1. When you are, in some instances, paying tax on a property, what does it benefit you to kill it and lose all that hard earned money that you spent getting that free labor/breeding program out of?

and on the other hand...

2. How many acounts are there of slave masters killing their slaves and no one batted an eye?

I completely ignored the OP and you didn't have to follow the white rabbit down the hole. ;)

Let's see, you beleive American slavery was far more humane than most forms of slavery and you also deny the exsistence of race...
I suppose that is consistent, since part of the travesty of American slavery is the fact that a 'Race' or at the very least an indigenous group of people with a definable, distinct and unique phenotype were targeted. Your failure to acknowledge this let's you minimize thier suffering with a clean conscience. Race-based slavery started with the Africans, and is partly why it lasted so long and thoroughly. The inability of African slaves to escape and mingle with the enslaving population made it easier for the slavemasters to create a permanent 'subservient population' that had effects that are still felt today. The most noticeble contrast is to the Native Americans, who proved almost unenslaveable, as there was no way to tell the runaway Indian slaves from the free indignious population. Obviously, the American government came up with another soultion to that problem.. :-(

No where else, and I ask you to prove me wrong.

And perhaps you will be more careful on whom you call fool.

CSA soldiers *not* terrorists.
 

As far as I've been able to tell, there was almost no difference in the rules of war that the Confederates fought under versus the ones that the Union fought under (and *those* were not that different than the ones in the European wars of the 1850's,'60s and '70s such as the Crimean War and the Franco-Prussian War).

As far as I can tell, a *higher* percentage of the Confederate generals were West Point graduates than the Union generals. Grant not only didn't take Lee into custody when Lee surrendered, he didn't even take Lee's sword when offered. General Grant afforded General Lee the highest respect at his surrender, I don't think there is any indication that Grant considered Lee anything close to a terrorist. (And was certainly willing to be seen with him after the war)

To pick some examples given earlier...

Grant: The major difference between Grant and Lee was that Grant was willing to use the fact that his troops outnumbered Lee's by a large enough ratio that he could lose a greater number of troops than Lee in battle and still be better off. If Grant had 9K troops and Lee 6K and during battle Grant lost 5K troops and Lee 4K, then Grant is in even better shape after the battle (now 4K to 2K) than he was before. The confederacy simply didn't have the troops. Prior Union Generals had been unwilling to make that decision.

Sherman: What Sherman did wasn't terrorism, it was rather "total war", During Sherman's march to the Sea, and especially during the trip North after he got to Savannah, people were *very* aware he was coming. If you personally got out of the way, you were fine. Your removable property, OTOH....

Mosby's Raiders. The confederates considered themselves partisans, and they *were* under the CSA command structure. The Union tended to refer to them as guerillas or at worst "thieves".

There was only *one* confederate official convicted of War Crimes and executed and *he* (Henry Wirz) wasn't even on the battlefield (commandant of the Andersonville POW camp). (Frankly, I think he was more overwhelmed and neglectful than anything else, but that's a separate issue).

Having said all this, I am *quite glad* the confederacy lost.

Naraht - Very good synopsis. It's always nice to read the thoughts another CW history Buff. Sherman's actions after Atlanta was as you described, but many Southerners would beg to differ as far as the Atlanta Siege is concerned. Ultimately though, he was looking to destroy property primarily. However, Atlanta civilians did die at his hand, and so , he is the target of many a Southern ire. I have heard him being referred to as a terrorist because of these actions.

LMAO @ comparing slavery.

da hell?

Wow. Taking this too seriously much? People can't disagree and discuss?

But if you want to be informed that you are in error . . .
The United Kingdom of Great Britain (England/Wales and Scotland) came into existence with the Acts of Union, effective May 1, 1707. They had, of course, shared a monarch (personal union) since the accession of James VI of Scotland as James I of England in 1603, but the Acts of Union created political union, with a single parliament, between the two kingdoms. England and Scotland (and Wales), nevertheless remain separate countries, despite being one state. The second Act of Union in 1800 created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which is now, of course, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

While Great Britain and the United Kingdom can be used interchangeably for that period of time (1707-1801), and while Great Britain (or just Britain or even England) was certainly the more commonly used term, my use of UK was deliberate. I was only talking about how SC's independence from the UK differed fundamentally, in my view, from SC secession from the United States, and whether special pleading was going on. It related directly and pretty much only to the fact that SC was a colony and not a constiuent entity of the UK.

As I see it, the special pleading would arise if we recognize the thirteen colonies' natural right to independence but refuse independence to, say, Puerto Rico, Guam or American Samoa. South Carolina as a state of the United States is, on the other hand, comparable to England or Scotland, whose parliaments entered into the Union, wishing to unilaterally withdraw from the United Kingdom. (Ireland, as you suggest, and Wales are perhaps a bit stickier historically.)

While you think that distinction is irrelevant from a human rights/self-determination point of view, I think it is relevant from a logic point of view. It could, I suppose, be framed a different way: Does a state relinquish some future right to self-determination when it exercises its right to self-determination by choosing to voluntarily enter into union with other states, as SC did by ratifying the Constitution? When it has done so, it has cast its lot with those other states and created some interdependence; must the rights of those other states also be taken into account if one state wishes to withdraw?

That's the extent of my point. Not that big a deal really, and certainly off topic.

Nicely put. I only want to add a little to what you so superbly explained.

Grant, Lee, Johnston, Sherman and others all served together in the Mexican/American War. They were all very familiar with each other and that is a huge factor in the way Lee and Johnston were treated when they surrendered. The Generals considered themselves "Brothers in Arms".

My understanding is that Sherman did not really want his troops to lay waste during the "March to the Sea". Instead some believe that he was a weak disciplinarian and would not stop what was being done.

Per Moseby's Raiders one must remember that the Cavalry during this time was designed to circle behind the armies and disrupt supply lines tear up communications and create holy hell. They lived off what they could steal and/or take. Both sides did it as evidenced also by Colonel Benjamin Griersons extended cavalry raid through Mississippi during the flanking of Vicksburg. These were search and destroy missions from both sides.

To a previous posters concern about France coming in on the side of the Confederates. The real concern was Great Britain helping the South. France was very weak at the time and did not pose too much of a threat. Too many wars of conquest and too many defeats. Witness the defeat of the French at the Battle of Puebla in Mexico while under Napolean the Thirds reign.

First, a clean conscience? I don't have any conscience about it. I didn't have any part in it. My English side who had been here forever...were Quaker and thus were abolitionists. My German side came after the war. I don't believe in "Collective conscience" anyways, but if I did it would be clear. If you're speaking to my "far more humane" bit and my conscience, I think the basis in fact makes it okay but what happened was nothing near humane.

Furthermore, I'm not denying the social construct of race. I am disagreeing about race as a physical construct.

Really? So race-based slavery with Africans started before the Jewish enslavement. Now, one can argue whether or not the Jews were/are a "race". I think that's debateable certainly. And race-based slavery occured well before Africans were thought of in Europe. There is nothing new under the sun.
No, I would argue that total government intervention in multiple areas created a "permanent subservient population".
Yes, except for the millions who were enslaved..or worse killed in South and Central America. Totally "unenslaveable". Really? Come on man.
At no point did I say it wasn't a crime against humanity.

I disagree. Had the Confederacy won, slavery would have still been abolished. That's assuming that the war was even fought over slavery which I'm not sure it was (Marx didn't think it did, among other of his contemporarys)

They're more than welcome to see it as that. Doesn't mean it's correct, but they can think that way.

That is not a bad thing.

I agree.

More compassion than the Spaniards in Latin America, the Russian tsars towards their peasants, and the Spartans to the helots, yeah.

The entirety of the point is this: Slavery is inhumane. People are cruel to each other. But to pretend that American slavery was much worse or much different than slavery elsewhere in the world is silly. There is no "slavery exceptionalism".

Shoot, I found out that some of my ancestors were slaves recently. They moved from Russia to Germany to escape years and years back. Interesting.

Actually what he says is true. Central and South America is different from North American slavery in respect like African slavery began with other nations selling their captured slaves to the Europeans. It was after the Native Americans realized the severity of the American slave trade that the nations banded together in some degree to actively oppose the slave trade. By then it was more economically sound (because by then the African slave trade had begun) to continue the Middle Passage than to waste time, money, and mainpower going to war against the Nations.

Yes it would have ended, after it was no longer economically feasible to continue.

Slavery was originally gonna end sooner except for that Eli Whitney guy inventing the Cotton Gin.

He said "Native Americans". Since "American" doesn't specify which nationality in the Western Hemisphere, it can include South and Central American.

Your link talks only of North American Native Americans.

Or, when they all left. Which is what would have happened had the Confederacy won.

Elephant Walk- I think everyone understood who I was referring to when I said 'Native Americans'. That's term has never been used for anybody outside of North America. You say millions of native South and Central Americans being killed. Really? By whom? and When? If you are talking about the African slaves and thier descendents, then you are proving my point.

And something else. The days of slavery may have been numbered due to the Cotton Gin. But only in the form that we know it. Even if the South won, the attitudes of 300+ years of institutionized brainwishing and perennial second-class citizenship doesn't just disappear overnight just because there's no work to be done. Perhaps the South could have used all of the free manpower to man and build factories and compete with the North as an industrial giant. Who knows?
Hell, the South lost and Blacks didn't get full legal equality until 100 years later. What makes you think if the South won, they would not have been treated 10X worse, having a won a war over the ability to own another person as property?

And stop with this "All salvery is inhumane, so all salvery is equal". That is just pure nonsense and proven historically over and over again to be false. Slavery in America was the first time one group of people targeted another group of people based on skin color, for perpetual enslavement with a wholistic focus on wiping out the culture, language and history of the group being enslaved. Not for a finite purpose, or by terms of surrender or for religious conversion (all which requires a level of humane treatment), but for expressed consent of creating a permanent underclass to be the engine of building a new country.

Your relatives left Russia to escape slavery, right? And they were able to blend in with the Germans to escape detection, right? Them along with millions of other folks, correct? When an African slave escaped from a plantation or jumped off a boat comming from America, where were they supposed to go?

VS, you really know a lot of history. A lot of this, I didn't even know about. I need to read more about other things.

Or when they were all killed off by the confederacy.

Also I speak of North America because I specified North America in my response. Since we are talking about the United States in respect to the Civil War.