You've got to be joking. Are you that ignorant of history? That ignorant? I mean, that's really impressive. Given you stances, I would suggest so.

From Bartolome De Las Casas (who was there):
Or perhaps here...more by De Las Casas
The Spaniards use to kick the Indians babies off cliffs as well as use spears to spear pregnant women killing both the baby and the woman.

You start with the premise that the war was fought over slavery. That's not really true.

Well good, because it's nothing I have said.

That's not true whatsoever. As I've told you repeatedly. The Middle East (properly the Ottoman Empire but several other states) enslaved Africans based on skin color. They enslaved Europeans based on skin color. The Arab invaders of Sind took Indians. I mean, really. At this point you're making up stuff.

Agreed.

It's just not the first time.

As someone had stated earlier, it would have ended when there was no more money in it and either way it still created separate and unequal classes of people...don't make it sound like that the South would have ended slavery and all would have been well because that is far from the truth.

I dropped a link earlier that you can read where there were articles that the Confeds wrote that they wanted to defend their ownership of slaves. So While we already know that the entire war wasn't all about or just about slavery it certainly was in there

But to think that slavery in America was much better or no big deal and just a small part of the Civil War is just as silly

White Lies


A leading Civil War historian debunks many of the myths of the old South being circulated by neo-Confederate ideologues

Brooks D. Simpson, a professor at Arizona State University, is a leading historian of 19th-century American political and military history whose work concentrates on the Civil War and Reconstruction era. The author or co-author of nine books, including studies of Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, William T. Sherman and Reconstruction policy and politics, Simpson serves as co-editor of the University of Nebraska's "Great Campaigns of the Civil War" series and the same institution's Civil War battlefield series.

IR: So you see these neo-Confederates, the leaders and thinkers of groups like the League of the South (LOS), as basically white supremacist?

Simpson: They certainly want the revival of the principles of the Confederacy, and one those principles would in fact be white supremacy, unquestioned and explicit. The racism that's woven into their comments is often quite astonishing.

IR: What actually was the Confederate view of slavery?

Simpson: Confederates during the Civil War had no problem whatsoever in associating their cause with the protection of slavery and a system of white supremacy which they thought was inherent in the Confederate world order. The Confederates of 1861-65 were much more honest about the importance of slavery than are the neo-Confederates of today.

In a famous address [known to historians as the "Cornerstone Speech"], the vice president of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens **, said in 1861 that "slavery is the cornerstone of the Confederacy." And as late as 1865, Robert E. Lee, who's often cited by neo-Confederates as an opponent of slavery, claimed that while blacks and whites were together in the South, their best relationship would be that of master and slave.

A great many Southerners were directly or indirectly involved in slavery — they were either slaveholders, members of slaveholding families, or involved in business enterprises that depended upon slavery for their prosperity.

Some neo-Confederates talk about differing federal policies toward the North and the South, but again those federal policies — especially if they concern the South — have to do with the support of slavery, the acquisition of new territory which would be open to slaveholders, a tariff policy which favored the North.



*But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone 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. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.







This just goes to show you that slavery would have lasted as long as it was profitable but even if it had ended, African Americans in this country would have been treated as 2nd class citizens.

That would certainly surprise the multitude of blacks who willingly fought in the Civil War for the South.

http://www.forrestsescort.org/blacks_files/black1.jpg

Here's a guy displaying his medals... looks to be proud of them (he did wear them):
http://www.forrestsescort.org/blacks_files/black4.jpg

How so?

Go read my last post with that excerpt from Alexander Stevens speech and you tell me.

But then again, we already have nearly 200 years of post slavery history that shows either way, former slaves would not have equal status in this country.

By the way, I would suggest reading this book...

It's free online even! (I think Google has the whole book)
http://books.google.com/books?id=Qjb...page&q&f=false

Read it.

You didn't answer the question.

Not my fault you only see what you want to see.

I didn't need to answer the question Sevens speech was all the answer you needed, you are just too stubborn to admit it.

Both the North and South made it plain that Blacks were not equal.

The South was moreso in keeping the slavery status quo. And if you can't see that in what was left for you a few posts above, I have an optometrist I can recommend.

This attempt at a debate is so tautological on BOTH sides and typical (almost verbatim).

Of course, a photo of a Black man wearing medals could be explained as his being proud of the medals. Afterall, he wore them. That's proof positive because surely there's no other reason why he would wear them, right? The same goes for the Blacks who "willingly" fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War. Go get em, tiger!!

Of course, the nature of the Confederacy will be touted as oppressive and negative (and Blacks who aren't offended by the Confederate ANYTHING would be considered ill-informed and hoodwinked and bamboozled). Afterall, we are essentially taught that some things are damn near inherently evil. Who WOULDN'T agree with all of that when there are catch words such as "racism" and "slavery" attached to it such that "Confederate" and "white supremacy" are synonymous.

Yay.

When it comes to such issues, most people only see what they want to see.

You also feel some kind of way about this topic and have only found the historical and contemporary sources to support your claims. :)

But I fail to see how anything of this has to do with whether or not there would be second class citizens later on. That's my problem.

You asserted this:
How does anything in there have to do with that?

Well hey...I am getting tired of repeating myself.

I'm still waiting for EW to make a feasible and provable point.

All of you are running in circles and whether or not you have actually PROVEN anything is a matter of opinion. I think you all are tautological. "The proof is in the pudding."

Wait...you mean to tell you that you think that if the Confederacy had freed the slaves in some near future when it was no longer 'profitable', that blacks would have been treated as equal citizens??

(Even in our history as it stands now, you do realize that it took almost a hundred years for Blacks to get civil rights laws passed in this country, right?)


HAHAHAHHAHA....good luck proving that one.

DrPhil are you dizzy yet?

I'm not saying that would have been the case, necessarily. I am saying that the statement you provided doesn't prove it.

As I said, the quote you provided doesn't prove anything.

That's the problem with it.

That's why I left the conversation after my last post. It started becoming a, "Well this would have happened"

"Or this would have happened."

"Or this would have happened."

Dude, you have over 400 years of proof that no way in hell were whites north or south were just going to up and give slaves in America equal citizen status. When a mindset of a population over 200 years ago equated a subset of humans and lesser than monkeys and barbaric there is no way that population will right off the bat say, "Oh sure, go own lots of land", "Oh sure, come to my schools and sit in my church.","Oh and yes, you can run for public office...even be president in the 1880's" especially when they spent the first 200 years systematically wiping their culture out.


The statement posted above isn't the only argument. The sentiment of America as a whole in the 1800s from various writings and attitudes show that whites were not willing to give up nor share their power with those they kept subservient to them.

Agreed. I haven't argued any less than such.

Absolutely. That's what government intervention'll do to ya. (I still haven't figured out the attitudes of those who were oppressed by the government, yet want the very same government to fix many of the problems...but that's a debate for another time and place)

I have a BA in History, with a definite emphasis in war/military, and a secondary study area of Native Americans and Alaska Natives, as well as First Nations people. What I know of Indigenous people of Mexico and further south is less, other than people who live on La Frontera. Somehow I also have this random emphasis in film, which everyone thinks is a joke but actually was quite challenging.