Were the Confederates as bad as ISIS?

[pcgeek11]

I call BS on your BS.

Here's a "kind" master:

"How the Negro slaves were treated may be gauged by the diary of the aforementioned William Byrd II, who felt himself to be a kindly master and often inveighed against “brutes who mistreat their slaves.” Typical examples of this kindly treatment were entered in his diary:

2-8-09: Jenny and Eugene were whipped.
5-13-09: Mrs. Byrd whips the nurse.
6-10-09: Eugene (a child) was whipped for running away and had the bit put on him.
11-30-09: Jenny and Eugene were whipped.
12-16-09: Eugene was whipped for doing nothing yesterday.
4-17-10: Byrd helped to investigate slaves tried for “High Treason”; two were hanged.
7-1-10: The Negro woman ran away again with the bit in her mouth.
7-15-10: My wife, against my will, caused little Jenny to be burned with a hot iron.
8-22-10: I had a severe quarrel with little Jenny and beat her too much for which I was sorry.
1-22-11: A slave “pretends to be sick.” I put a branding iron on the place he claimed of and put the bit on him.
​

It is pointless to criticize such passages as only selected instances of cruel treatment, counterbalanced by acts of kindness by Byrd and other planters toward their slaves. For the point is not only that the slave system was one where such acts could take place; the point is that threats of brutality underlay the whole relationship. For the essence of slavery is that human beings, with their inherent freedom of will, with individual desires and convictions and purposes, are used as capital, as tools for the benefit of their master. The slave is therefore habitually forced into types and degrees of work that he would not have freely undertaken; by necessity, therefore, the bit and the lash become the motor of the slave system. The myth of the kindly master camouflages the inherent brutality and savagery of the slave system."


https://mises.org/library/brutality-slavery

So I double dog triple your BS claim... Nah! Still no comparison to ISIS.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So I double dog triple your BS claim... Nah! Still no comparison to ISIS.

You did notice that he was one of the "kind" masters didn't you?

 

[MongGrel]

I was going to make a thread "Is FIFA as bad as ISIS" but didn't bother.

Is probably more relevant these days.

 

[pcgeek11]

You did notice that he was one of the "kind" masters didn't you?

Who's opinion was that?

 

[Svnla]

I do not remember reading any books about how Confederate folks cut anyone heads, capture and enslave women as trophies/sex slaves, blow up and kill civilians, and on and on.

So the answer is no, not even close.

 

[Angry Irishman]

In the end .....they were Americans. Do you really think the average Johnny Reb owned slaves?

 

[Schmide]

I do not remember reading any books about how Confederate folks cut anyone heads, capture and enslave women as trophies/sex slaves, blow up and kill civilians, and on and on.

So the answer is no, not even close.

Score Card

lynchings = beheading
women slaves = sex slaves
church bombings = terror bombing

The more we mitigate the stupider we sound. The only thing we lacked was the technology and global travel.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

In the end .....they were Americans. Do you really think the average Johnny Reb owned slaves?

The vast majority of soldier on either side were used as pawns of the politicians and the rich as always. Most of the soldiers the south did not fight to preserve slavery but to prevent those in the power in the north from having control of their lives.

 

[Svnla]

Score Card

lynchings = beheading
women slaves = sex slaves
church bombings = terror bombing

The more we mitigate the stupider we sound. The only thing we lacked was the technology and global travel.

Slavery WAS legal then. Not saying it was right, just saying it was LEGAL. Also, if you did not want to own slaves, no one would come over and make you to convert as slaves owner or your head would be chop off.

 

[Blanky]

You did notice that he was one of the "kind" masters didn't you?

Based on the fact he considered himself kind? I just robbed a bank. I consider it legal. What weight does that carry?

 

[werepossum]

I was going to make a thread "Is FIFA as bad as ISIS" but didn't bother.

Is probably more relevant these days.

+1

Definitely more relevant.

The vast majority of soldier on either side were used as pawns of the politicians and the rich as always. Most of the soldiers the south did not fight to preserve slavery but to prevent those in the power in the north from having control of their lives.

Point. Germans fought well for the Nazi regime for the same reason - it's their country.

A better comparison then would be was the Confederacy as bad as ISIS. Even then it's a stretch, but I don't think it's a walk for the Confederacy. Just different forms of evil.

Slavery WAS legal then. Not saying it was right, just saying it was LEGAL.

All those things are legal under ISIS now. Hell, some of them are even mandatory - unlike holding slaves.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Who's opinion was that?

Is the issue that you are unable to read properly? Or, is it a comprehension problem?

 

[Schmide]

Slavery WAS legal then. Not saying it was right, just saying it was LEGAL. Also, if you did not want to own slaves, no one would come over and make you to convert as slaves owner or your head would be chop off.

So you were attempting to muddy the waters?

 

[Jhhnn]

The vast majority of soldier on either side were used as pawns of the politicians and the rich as always. Most of the soldiers the south did not fight to preserve slavery but to prevent those in the power in the north from having control of their lives.

They may have believed in hogwash which you perpetuate.

Other than slavery, the North had no intention of dictating to their Southern kindred afaict. Certainly not at the time war broke out.

If it's your contention that they did, feel free to document it.

Southern leaders acted pre-emptively to prevent a future westward expanding free state majority from acting to ban slavery. There was no immediate threat as abolitionists lacked the legislative strength to do so.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Based on the fact he considered himself kind? I just robbed a bank. I consider it legal. What weight does that carry?

Until you withdraw your claim of antisemitism we have nothing to say to one another.

 

[Brainonska511]

I just don't see the point of this thread. It's like a dick measuring contest for who was the worst. An utterly pointless exercise.

 

[emperus]

While Southern slave owners were most certainly racist before the war, violence was rare. The war itself was largely fought "honourably", if there is such a thing in war.

.

Violence was rare? I guess you meant violence against other whites was rare or did you forget the brutality that was often visited on the slaves?

But this line is similar to most of this thread. Utterly ridiculous. I think it's a notable thread though and a topic worthy of discussion.

 

[Blanky]

Until you withdraw your claim of antisemitism we have nothing to say to one another.

Promise?

 

[pcgeek11]

Is the issue that you are unable to read properly? Or, is it a comprehension problem?

No, Actually the issue is you.

 

[pcgeek11]

We ( the USA ) were all responsible and have blood on our hands as far as slavery goes. I find that the Northern States are / were just as responsible for slavery as the Southern States. It is reprehensible how now they all try and claim their innocence in the matter.

Some facts: http://www.tracingcenter.org/resources/background/northern-involvement-in-the-slave-trade/

A central fact obscured by post-Civil War mythologies is that the northern U.S. states were deeply implicated in slavery and the slave trade right up to the war.

The slave trade in particular was dominated by the northern maritime industry. Rhode Island alone was responsible for half of all U.S. slave voyages.

The North also imported slaves, as well as transporting and selling them in the south and abroad. While the majority of enslaved Africans arrived in southern ports–Charleston, South Carolina was the largest market for slave traders, including the DeWolfs—most large colonial ports served as points of entry, and Africans were sold in northern ports including Philadelphia, New York, Boston, and Newport, Rhode Island.

The southern coastal states from Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia and Maryland were therefore home to the vast majority of enslaved persons. But there were slaves in each of the thirteen original colonies, and slavery was legal in the north for over two hundred years. While the northern states gradually began abolishing slavery by law starting in the 1780s, many northern states did not act against slavery until well into the 19th century, and their laws generally provided only for gradual abolition, allowing slave owners to keep their existing slaves and often their children. As a result, New Jersey, for instance, still had thousands of persons legally enslaved in the 1830s, and did not finally abolish slavery by law until 1846. As late as the outbreak of the Civil War, in fact, there were northern slaves listed on the federal census.

The North needs to come clean and get off the High Horse. The slavery belongs to All of us, not just the south.

 

[Screech]

We ( the USA ) were all responsible and have blood on our hands as far as slavery goes. I find that the Northern States are / were just as responsible for slavery as the Southern States.

So just to be clear, the people who fought on the antislavery side in a war started by people to protect their right to own slaves, were just as responsible for slavery as the people who were fighting the war to protect their right to own slaves?

Like, seriously?

I'm not saying there wasn't complicity in a lot of the north and racism during and after the civil war -- certainly there was -- but to say "oh yeah well there was a civil war but when it comes to slavery, North = South" is one of the stupidest things said in this thread, and that's setting the bar pretty high (....or low, whatever).

 

[pcgeek11]

So just to be clear, the people who fought on the antislavery side in a war started by people to protect their right to own slaves, were just as responsible for slavery as the people who were fighting the war to protect their right to own slaves?

Like, seriously?

I'm not saying there wasn't complicity in a lot of the north and racism during and after the civil war -- certainly there was -- but to say "oh yeah well there was a civil war but when it comes to slavery, North = South" is one of the stupidest things said in this thread, and that's setting the bar pretty high (....or low, whatever).

Did you not read the facts in my post above. It goes far beyond complicity.

( examples:
1.) The slave trade in particular was dominated by the northern maritime industry. Rhode Island alone was responsible for half of all U.S. slave voyages.

2.) and Africans were sold in northern ports including Philadelphia, New York, Boston, and Newport, Rhode Island.

3.) slavery was legal in the north for over two hundred years.

4.) New Jersey, for instance, still had thousands of persons legally enslaved in the 1830s, and did not finally abolish slavery by law until 1846. As late as the outbreak of the Civil War, in fact, there were northern slaves listed on the federal census. )

You are over simplifying the causes of the civil war. And the South did not start the war they only wanted to be free of the union. The Northern Troops occupying Fort Sumter in SC refused to leave and the first shots were fired after several requests for them to leave were refused ...

 

[nickqt]

Did you not read the facts in my post above. It goes far beyond complicity.

( examples:
1.) The slave trade in particular was dominated by the northern maritime industry. Rhode Island alone was responsible for half of all U.S. slave voyages.

2.) and Africans were sold in northern ports including Philadelphia, New York, Boston, and Newport, Rhode Island.

3.) slavery was legal in the north for over two hundred years.

4.) New Jersey, for instance, still had thousands of persons legally enslaved in the 1830s, and did not finally abolish slavery by law until 1846. As late as the outbreak of the Civil War, in fact, there were northern slaves listed on the federal census. )

You are over simplifying the causes of the civil war. And the South did not start the war they only wanted to be free of the union. The Northern Troops occupying Fort Sumter in SC refused to leave and the first shots were fired after several requests for them to leave were refused ...

Yes, it was the North's fault that they didn't just walk away from a Federal Fort.

War of Northern Aggression!

 

[norseamd]

In the end .....they were Americans. Do you really think the average Johnny Reb owned slaves?

The vast majority of soldier on either side were used as pawns of the politicians and the rich as always. Most of the soldiers the south did not fight to preserve slavery but to prevent those in the power in the north from having control of their lives.

Yeah how about no. The richest owned many slaves while the poorest only had a few slaves at all. The Southerners who were not that rich or poor seem to not have been slaveowners as much as those who were more poor or rich.

Point. Germans fought well for the Nazi regime for the same reason - it's their country.

This is more accurate for both the Confederates and Germans even when many of them were still fine with what was going on in their country. I think you would find that many Americans today would be fine with the same type of activities from those historical countries if it were practiced today in America and they would only be worried about how they would fit into society.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xh290a_swastika-documentary-1973_shortfilms

 

[Screech]

Did you not read the facts in my post above. It goes far beyond complicity.

( examples:
1.) The slave trade in particular was dominated by the northern maritime industry. Rhode Island alone was responsible for half of all U.S. slave voyages.

2.) and Africans were sold in northern ports including Philadelphia, New York, Boston, and Newport, Rhode Island.

3.) slavery was legal in the north for over two hundred years.

4.) New Jersey, for instance, still had thousands of persons legally enslaved in the 1830s, and did not finally abolish slavery by law until 1846. As late as the outbreak of the Civil War, in fact, there were northern slaves listed on the federal census. )

You are over simplifying the causes of the civil war. And the South did not start the war they only wanted to be free of the union. The Northern Troops occupying Fort Sumter in SC refused to leave and the first shots were fired after several requests for them to leave were refused ...

That's all well and good (complete with the War of Northern Aggression stuff) but it doesn't really negate in any way what I said. Only one side was fighting in 1860 for the right to keep black people as slaves, and protip, it wasn't the North. Everything beyond that is a great example of bullshit false equivalence. Were there lots of people making money from slavery in the North? sure. Its not like 100% of the North was against slavery and 100% of the south was in favor of it. It was probably more like 60% against in the north and 80% for, in the South, or something along those lines (you can look through the electoral maps from 1860 and try to wiggle out what you think the ratios were, or perhaps there were polls from the time -- this is just a ballpark estimate). Certainly there were pro-slavery people in the north, and even a few against it in the south, which is really all that your points are showing. The thing is, no matter how many times you try to say 'its everybody's fault' and 'we are really all the same', those simply aren't true. Only one side in the civil war was fighting for the right to keep black people as slaves. It was the South. The End. Really I'm not sure what else there is to say here.

edit: There is one bullet point you can provide to show that the North has as much blood on its hands, slavery wise, as the south. Show when in 1860-1865 the North tried to secede from another country for the sole intention of keeping slavery legal. If you can do that, then I will be forced to agree with your view on this matter.