Were the Confederates as bad as ISIS?

[DrDoug]

We ( the USA ) were all responsible and have blood on our hands as far as slavery goes.

...

Up to the point that the south seceded and took on slavery for itself. Hell, the north was going to let the existing slave states keep their slaves but the south told them to fuck off, if they couldn't get their way then they were going to throw a fit. At that point the south took possession of slavery and owned it until they got their asses kicked. Pre-Civil War history regarding slavery in the US is shared between the north and south, without a doubt, and always will be. As far as the racism and civil rights violations of blacks that followed the war, both sides have blood on their hands. Both those who shed it and those who let it happen and did nothing about it.

There's plenty of blame to go around regarding slavery but it is way past time for states to put away the Confederacy and leave it to history, where it belongs. The war is over, there is a future to work for. If people want to live in the past then they can do that.

Our governments shouldn't.

 

[pcgeek11]

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

War of Northern Aggression!

South Carolina felt it was no longer part of the Union and no longer a Federal Fort. The Union Troops were occupying land and a Fort that belonged to South Carolina. Yes Northern Aggression.

 

[pcgeek11]

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.

So you think the Northern states has less culpability for slavery than the South even in light of the facts I posted.

You're right, you are too thick to discuss this with.

 

[Screech]

So you think the Northern states has less culpability for slavery than the South even in light of the facts I posted.

In light of why the civil war was fought, um, yes. You showed that some people in the north liked slavery. No argument there. At least, before the civil war........then it gets into an interesting debate, albeit not one I would say has equal representation for each side. I might hazard a guess and say that the north has perhaps 3/5s as much responsibility as the south.....

edit: Or we could do this based on numbers. Look at the #s of slaves in the south, vs the north, and say blame is proportional to that ratio. Probably wouldn't look very good for the south.

 

[pcgeek11]

Up to the point that the south seceded and took on slavery for itself. Hell, the north was going to let the existing slave states keep their slaves but the south told them to fuck off, if they couldn't get their way then they were going to throw a fit. At that point the south took possession of slavery and owned it until they got their asses kicked. Pre-Civil War history regarding slavery in the US is shared between the north and south, without a doubt, and always will be. As far as the racism and civil rights violations of blacks that followed the war, both sides have blood on their hands. Both those who shed it and those who let it happen and did nothing about it.

There's plenty of blame to go around regarding slavery but it is way past time for states to put away the Confederacy and leave it to history, where it belongs. The war is over, there is a future to work for. If people want to live in the past then they can do that.

Our governments shouldn't.

No you are wrong. As I posted above Slavery continued in some Northern States. And for your edification about getting asses kicked, for a good while the yankees were getting their asses handed to them... They feared they were going to loose. Just so ya know.

 

[nickqt]

No you are wrong. As I posted above Slavery continued in some Northern States. And for your edification about getting asses kicked, for a good while the yankees were getting their asses handed to them... They feared they were going to loose. Just so ya know.

Yeah, and what happened?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Why compare what happened 150 years ago, when mindsets were completely different in the West, to what is happening today with a radical group in the ME that wants to drag everyone back to the 8th century?

There really is no comparison.

 

[pcgeek11]

Yeah, and what happened?

You didn't hear about it. I'm not telling you.

 

[Moonbeam]

Why compare what happened 150 years ago, when mindsets were completely different in the West, to what is happening today with a radical group in the ME that wants to drag everyone back to the 8th century?

There really is no comparison.

The comparison I think that is actually being made is to the backward bigotry that exists today in the South that has its roots in Southern history and the backwardness of ISIS philosophy. I think also that the intention is to say that folk who believe in the kind of Southern backwardness that exists today should recognize the fact that just as they may see ISIS, that's how the rest of the US sees them, terribly, terribly, backward. The actual facts about which is worse isn't the relevant point.

 

[adolfo18]

I haven't read about anybody mentioning the Corwin Amendment.

 

[realibrad]

No you are wrong. As I posted above Slavery continued in some Northern States. And for your edification about getting asses kicked, for a good while the yankees were getting their asses handed to them... They feared they were going to loose. Just so ya know.

To say the North was afraid they were going to lose is a bit misleading. The North had almost every advantage in terms of resources. The south had the better military leaders no doubt, but the north had vastly more resources. The biggest problem in the start was that the North figured that the South would never be so stupid to do an all out war with the North because of the advantages. The Irony is that they probably should have given the south more credibility considering its how the US became the US, but that is separate.

Many in the North did not want war with the south, which is why the North tried to take it easy from the onset. It was not until Lincoln had enough losing that he finally had them burn the South down. The North was hoping that the country could be unified if they did not destroy the south. Sherman had tried to argue that the Civil War was not going to be quick, but, as war often is decided by politicians he was ignored. Once the North got serious, the South burned.

 

[CU]

In light of why the civil war was fought, um, yes. You showed that some people in the north liked slavery. No argument there. At least, before the civil war........then it gets into an interesting debate, albeit not one I would say has equal representation for each side. I might hazard a guess and say that the north has perhaps 3/5s as much responsibility as the south.....

edit: Or we could do this based on numbers. Look at the #s of slaves in the south, vs the north, and say blame is proportional to that ratio. Probably wouldn't look very good for the south.

The South had more because it was profitable. It was not profitable for the North. They needed a different kind of labor. I believe money was the reason not morals.

North had slaves after the civil war. Lincoln only freed the Southern slaves leaving 500,000 still slaves in the Union border states, why? Even after the 13th amendment it was rarely enforced until years later.

 

[Svnla]

So you were attempting to muddy the waters?

Muddy? Nope. The OP asked were the Confederates as bad as ISIS and I stated why I believe they were not.

 

[realibrad]

The South had more because it was profitable. It was not profitable for the North. They needed a different kind of labor. I believe money was the reason not morals.

I am not sure that is true. If it was not immoral for people to have slaves, then why would anyone in the North care? I don't drink urine, and I don't consider it immoral if someone does. I don't care if others drink urine. I think rape is immoral, and i think rape should not be allowed.

If slavery were not immoral to those in the North, then I don't see any reason anyone would spend time and energy on the debates about its morality. Make no mistake, the issue of slavery in terms of its morality was a massive issue before the civil war. Hell, Lincoln ran on an anti-slavery agenda backed by an anti-slavery party. They did not oppose slavery on the grounds that it was too profitable in the south but not the north, so I am not sure what you think the argument against slavery was.

North had slaves after the civil war. Lincoln only freed the Southern slaves leaving 500,000 still slaves in the Union border states, why? Even after the 13th amendment it was rarely enforced until years later.

Lincoln was vehemently against slavery, but he did not want conflict. Appeasement was always the goal of Lincoln before the war. In his first speech, he tried to reassure the South that he would not abolish slavery because he hoped it would smooth things over. He would have much rather let slavery die a slow death and avoid war. The whole reason he only freed some of the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation was to get states who saw that the South would lose to come back to the Union so they could keep their slaves.

Lincoln tried to appease the south and not rub in anything. In trying to appease the south, he very likely made more bloodshed than if he had simply waged a full out war. The implications of either action are hard to see, but the main reason Slavery was held over was to not stir up more trouble. The south succeeded on the assumption Lincoln would try and abolish slavery. Lincoln literally had said he would not and had not even taken office when the South moved to succeed.

The south wanted freedom, but the freedom they wanted was the freedom to continue to enslave black people. People can argue it was about taxes and other things, but that is not true.

How can I make this claim? The answer comes from John McQueen, the U.S. Representative of South Carolina.

...
I have never doubted what Virginia would do when the alternatives present themselves to her intelligent and gallant people, to choose between an association with her sisters and the dominion of a people, who have chosen their leader upon the single idea that the African is equal to the Anglo-Saxon, and with the purpose of placing our slaves on equality with ourselves and our friends of every condition! and if we of South Carolina have aided in your deliverance from tyranny and degradation, as you suppose, it will only the more assure us that we have performed our duty to ourselves and our sisters in taking the first decided step to preserve an inheritance left us by an ancestry whose spirit would forbid its being tarnished by assassins....

So the idea that the Civil war was not about slavery is wrong. It might not have only been about slavery, but it was mainly about slavery.

 

[sm625]

Now, I don't pretend to be an expert in American history but roughly 600,000 Americans died in the US civil war, started because a bunch of racist old white men didn't want to give up slavery, thought they were a supreme people, were incredibly racist, etc. This group of people attempted to secede and start their own country, and fought a bloody, terrible war to get it.

You might want to try actually studying american history.

Declarations of Causes

The south seceded because the north did not follow or respect the constitution, particularly Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3. Several states mention it in their Declarations of Causes. If the north wanted to ban slavery, then they should have amended the constitution as need be. Instead of doing that, they simply scrapped it. The federal government was crushing the south, giving away money to every special interest in the north, from railroads to fisheries. The north got massive handouts not unlike the wall street of today. The south paid taxes but received virtually nothing. That is what really drew the anger of the average southerner back then. There was no reason to remain in the union.

Only 1% of white americans owned slaves. Their little microcosm in itself was not enough to draw millions into war.

 

[realibrad]

You might want to try actually studying american history.

Declarations of Causes

The south seceded because the north did not follow or respect the constitution, particularly Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3. Several states mention it in their Declarations of Causes. If the north wanted to ban slavery, then they should have amended the constitution as need be. Instead of doing that, they simply scrapped it. The federal government was crushing the south, giving away money to every special interest in the north, from railroads to fisheries. The north got massive handouts not unlike the wall street of today. The south paid taxes but received virtually nothing. That is what really drew the anger of the average southerner back then. There was no reason to remain in the union.

Only 1% of white americans owned slaves. Their little microcosm in itself was not enough to draw millions into war.

You might want to read up on American history, as my previous post, the one just above yours, dealt with most of what you said here.

Also, the reason slavery was dealt with in the way it was is mainly due to the south. The very reason the Missouri Compromise came around was because of harsh political and public fighting. Most back then knew slavery would come to a head, and it would not be nice. Henry Clay came up with is line to split western states to keep a stalemate so the North could not abolish slavery.

The Souths move to break away from the North and declare war broke any chance of the "legal" methods you are advocating.

 

[werepossum]

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.

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

Maybe, but the point is that soldiers tend to think about their country rather than its faults.

One interesting corollary here: the vast majority of contemporary accounts by German soldiers or even civilians shows they were firmly behind Hitler right up until the Allies unleashed holy Hell on Earth. Actually supports either side of this issue, showing that people are willing to support the very worst among their own if it leads to prosperity.

So you think the Northern states has less culpability for slavery than the South even in light of the facts I posted.

You're right, you are too thick to discuss this with.

Your points have some merit, but the Northern states had less culpability at the time of the Civil War for two major reasons. First, even slave-holding Northern states accepted making new territories free and free havens for escapees. Second, the Northern states were clearly moving toward abolition for themselves in the decades leading up, many having abolished slavery and others having enacted significant restrictions and/or rights for slavery.

To say the North was afraid they were going to lose is a bit misleading. The North had almost every advantage in terms of resources. The south had the better military leaders no doubt, but the north had vastly more resources. The biggest problem in the start was that the North figured that the South would never be so stupid to do an all out war with the North because of the advantages. The Irony is that they probably should have given the south more credibility considering its how the US became the US, but that is separate.

Many in the North did not want war with the south, which is why the North tried to take it easy from the onset. It was not until Lincoln had enough losing that he finally had them burn the South down. The North was hoping that the country could be unified if they did not destroy the south. Sherman had tried to argue that the Civil War was not going to be quick, but, as war often is decided by politicians he was ignored. Once the North got serious, the South burned.

There was very real fear of a loss in the North in the early years. Lincoln's problem wasn't a lack of will so much as an inability to find generals as good as those who defected.

 

[realibrad]

There was very real fear of a loss in the North in the early years. Lincoln's problem wasn't a lack of will so much as an inability to find generals as good as those who defected.

You are going to have to show me where you get that from, because everything I have learned does not say that. The war was very bloody and many in the North thought the war should end and then find a diplomatic way to get the south to come back, but I never heard of widespread fear of a loss. the first part of the war the North did horrible. A big part of that though was due to the leadership not wanting to go all out in hopes the south would come back. Once they realized it was not going to happen, it got serious and burned the south to the ground when it wanted.

The North was far too powerful to lose that war. The only real hope the south had was a stalemate if Europe jumped in, and that was never really going to happen.

Either way, the Civil war was absolutely about slavery first. The south was pissed about more than slavery, but slavery was the biggest thing.

 

[MetalMat]

There was very real fear of a loss in the North in the early years. Lincoln's problem wasn't a lack of will so much as an inability to find generals as good as those who defected.

The South was never going to just flat out take over the north. Even in the best case scenario where the dice rolled in the Confederacy's favor and they started gaining Union ground the Union would have fought back hard especially if the fighting starting spilling over close to home and they had wayyyyy more resources. The best the South could hope for was a good compromise with the North while being recognized as a sovereign nation and even that was a longshot.

You are correct about the leadership but as the war went on the Confederacy was losing valuable leadership that could not be replaced while the opposite happened with the Union.

 

[MetalMat]

Only 1% of white americans owned slaves. Their little microcosm in itself was not enough to draw millions into war.

No matter how you slice it before the war broke out almost 40% of the confederate population were slaves.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Muddy? Nope. The OP asked were the Confederates as bad as ISIS and I stated why I believe they were not.

Slavery as deplorable by today's standards at least has some economic rationality behind it. Religious nutjobs are a flat out lose-lose to anybody partipating or caught in their shit.