Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: More Evidence That The War Between the States Was NOT "About" Slavery

  1. #1
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    32

    More Evidence That The War Between the States Was NOT "About" Slavery

    I see many people became active in my thread on Abraham Lincoln, most people responded by saying the War was some righteous crusade to end slavery. Here's some evidence to the contrary:

    The WHOLE NATION was complicit in slavery:
    Northern states, particularly in New England, made fortunes off the slave trade for a very long time. States like Connecticut and Rhode Island were economically based on the slave trade. Almost all of the northern and Midwestern states passed laws excluding or downright forbidding blacks.

    An example from an Illinois law in 1833 (Lincoln's home state):
    “If any person or persons shall permit or suffer any...servant or persons of color, to the number of three or more, to assemble in his, her, or their out-house, yard, or shed, for the purpose of dancing or reveling, either by night or day. The persons so offending shall forfeit and pay a fine of twenty dollars”

    A quote from Elbridge Gerry (representative from MA, THE FIRST STATE TO LEGALIZE THE SLAVE TRADE)
    "Why should the blacks, who were property in the South, be in the rule of representation more than the cattle & horses of the North?"

    A quote from John Brown on slave trade (a RI representative, Brown university was built using the family's fortune from trading slaves):
    "In my opinion there is no more crime in bringing off a cargo of slaves than in bringing off a cargo of jacka**es"



    THE THREE FIFTHS COMPROMISE
    Anyone with common sense knows that representation in the early days of our nation was based on population. The plan was for 1 representative for every 10,000 people. THE SOUTH WANTED TO COUNT SLAVES IN THE CENSUS. This would have effectually given them some more base rights.

    However, northern representatives, in a power-grab were shocked and argued this would have given the south an unfair balance in representation (some states like SC had slave majorities). So they compromised by allowing the south to count only 3 out of every 5 slaves towards their populations.

    Basically, northern greed and racism prevented slaves from being counted as human beings, not the south.


    NORTHERNERS SAW AFRICAN AMERICANS AS A DIFFERENT SPECIES:
    Anyone who doubts the racist attitudes of northern states should give some time and research to JOSIAH NOTT, an author/scientist from one of Connecticut's oldest families.

    He wrote a book titled "TYPES OF MANKIND" which argued blacks and whites are different in the way that humans are different from apes. This book was accepted as legitimate science, especially in the north where most people had little to no contact with slavery.
    Last edited by Younger Longest; 12-01-2017 at 07:12 PM.

  2. #2
    WoR-Dev GeorgeCrecy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Oregon, USA
    Posts
    668
    Hey there Younger,

    Looks like a new thread that would have done just fine in the old one, but not to worry.

    To look at some of your claims, yes, there was a ton of racism that went on in years past, and some might say even today. Should people of the past be absolved of this? Of course not. At the same time, I might suggest looking up the term cultural relativism, it is a very helpful anthropological tool when looking at previous eras and other cultures. One is most definitely able to bring up untold examples of it in the North, such as factories saying "Help Wanted, no Mics or N***rs need apply," or examples of legislation like the Compromise of 1850 and its Fugitive Slave Act, or here in my native Oregon and how it had some very racist laws on the books paralleling those you mention from Illinois.

    But you possibly forget that it was in the north that - due to various factors that stem back to the very foundation of the colonies - you have all sorts of abolitionist groups like Williams Lloyd Garrison's and the Underground Railroad, and the abolition of the practice of slavery in their states since before the Revolution in some cases. While economically they did benefit, I would argue that was more out of necessity than want. The south was the premier supplier of cotton for the entire world until Britain had Egypt and India set up their own farms, and those came on line during the Civil War, which was part of the reason for their not using the outrageous prices being charged by Blockade Runners.

    You forget that those in the North hated the Fugitive Slave Act, either the one from 1793, or the stricter version from 1850. Various cities and states in the north purposefully circumvented that law, as according to research by Thomas D. Morris in his 1974 book Free Men All: The Personal Liberty Laws of the North, 1780-1861. He showcases various "personal liberty laws" or laws that did not allow local jails to be used to assist the recapture of fugitive slaves. In Prigg v. Pennsylvania of 1842, the Supreme Court ruled that states did not have to offer aid with hunting or recapturing slaves, in relation to the earlier law. For one so for states' rights, I would assume you would be for this lesser-government stance? Furthermore, the 1850 version was deemed unconstitutional by the Wisconsin state supreme court in Glover v. Booth, though that was later overruled by the US Supreme Court in 1859.
    Another example comes from Vermont, which I will quote from the Wikipedia article for the basic rundown of the event:

    "In November 1850, the Vermont legislature passed the "Habeas Corpus Law," requiring Vermont judicial and law enforcement officials to assist captured fugitive slaves. It also established a state judicial process, parallel to the federal process, for people accused of being fugitive slaves. This law rendered the federal Fugitive Slave Act effectively unenforceable in Vermont and caused a storm of controversy nationally. It was considered a "nullification" of federal law, a concept popular in the South among states that wanted to nullify other aspects of federal law, and was part of highly charged debates over slavery." Link

    If the North was so complicit, as you say, then surely there would not have even been a debate over slavery, and surely there never would have been abolishing of it in the North to begin with?

    In relation to the 3/5ths Compromise, it was not something that was initially wanted by Northerners. While both sides liked the idea of a population-based elected representatives for the House, the Southerners did not have as much of a free white population as the north to stay competitive, and those in the North originally proposed that only free men should be counted for the number of seats, because of their opposition to slavery. During the Articles days, it was Benjamin Harrison of Virginia and several New Englanders that proposed a one-half compromise, though that failed, and it was replaced by a 3/5ths proposed by James Madison, though that ultimately failed too because New York and New Hampshire refused to sign it. It came up again in the Constitutional Convention, and due to different priorities, was able to be passed.

    Finally, I will mention that the south was intentionally given an unfair balance all the way until when they decided to try and leave with the Civil War. The only reason they wanted the slaves to be counted fully in the representation was to continue to have that over-representation of slave states vs. free states in the legislature rather than from any conviction of equality. How many quotes should I relate from Southern folks from the time to that affect? As shown with examples like tariff law, they had something short of free reign exempting push-back to do as they pleased. With the 1860 election, they were looking to get control of the executive branch as well, and truly have free reign. Yes, while Lincoln only had 40%, even with several southern states not even including him on their ballots, he still was the majority winner. And you are right, he did not want to end slavery, but Southerners were still afraid of the rhetoric of the Whigs and Lincoln because they wanted to stop it from spreading west. I believe there was recent wording along the lines of "suck it up, he won" for the most recent president? If that is supposed to be an accurate line of reasoning, could that not be equally applied before?

    I will leave one last quote here from the mouth of the Vice-President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, and his famous Cornerstone Speech:

    "The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions — African slavery as it exists among us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution... Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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."

    I don't know of any better example to put this matter to rest. Considering how much you are pushing back against this idea, it feels more like you are trying to convince yourself more than anyone here.
    Last edited by GeorgeCrecy; 12-02-2017 at 02:03 AM.

  3. #3
    I agree with George, you seem to honestly just be pleasing yourself and posting a lot of facts that may not even wholly tie in with your original point. That and you seem to be looking for an argument, again because you post a hot topic thing like that and continue on and on and on, asking to argue. Not that there is anything totally wrong with that, but keep in mind that people do notice that. Point is, you seem that you're just trying to please yourself and repeat tons of facts you know, regardless of relevance to the topic.

  4. #4

    CSA Brigadier General

    Extracrispi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Behind Enemy Lines (aka California)
    Posts
    63
    Younger Longest, I posted this in your other thread, but I'll drop it here as well just in case.

    As a Sons of Confederate Veterans member, I am quite sympathetic to your views and I enjoy lively debate as much as anyone else. But for the sake of keeping this community enjoyable for everyone, I'm going to recommend you not bring up discussions about politics here or at the very least do so in a more moderate tone so as not to encourage others to avoid escalating the debate the *insert bodily excretion here*-flinging you tend see literally everywhere else in this.

    You are of course free to ignore me and speak your mind as you see fit if you want. But I suggest you exercise restraint.

    If you want to have an unfiltered debate about the American Civil War and all the good and bad things that go along with that, I suggest http://boards.4chan.org/pol/ you're always guaranteed to have a lively thread when it comes to that.


    Avoid the History and Humanities board though, unless you don't mind 300+ replies of "Sherman should've burned babies alive" spam or pregnant Anne Frank fetishizing (if you don't know what that is, DON'T ASK)



    And remember, it's not just you who's got something at stake here. If political discourse on this forum is allowed to get as caustic as it is everywhere, we might find ourselves stuck with our version of the gag rule, and in that case, we ALL lose.

    Anyways, welcome to the community.

    Attachment 7617
    Hit that Subscribe Button

    https://www.youtube.com/user/360Nomad

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    32
    George,

    I'm still not convinced by your argument that the north was not complicit in slavery. I noticed you did not comment at all on my statement regarding the New England slave trade. It's important to note that most of the northern states passed "gradual emancipation" laws, stating they would free slaves after certain dates or up to a certain age. I recently taught a unit on this and we discovered there were certain states in the north that still had slaves up until 1850. Blacks also did not have the right to even testify or serve on juries in the northern states, but they did in the south. Look at the trial of Denmark Vesey for example, where multiple slave testimonies were implemented.

    Just look at New York, and what they did to black people there during their draft riots. Once Lincoln made emancipation a war effort, many union soldiers were pissed. In New York, mobs burned buildings, attacked draft officers and police. The military had to be sent in to put the mob down, but not before they were able to kill free blacks in the streets.

    The evidence I have seen of the "underground railroad" is very limp and flaccid. Could you even tell me exactly where it began or ended? All I know is that it was a bunch of routes north that several people took to Canada, not necessarily a single path.

    And its cute to bring up the Alexander Stephens "cornerstone speech"...we could also make the argument that slavery was foundational for America too. I think a simple search would prove that the south was the cash cow of the union. At least the confederacy were up front about their racial issues, and nobody even mentions that they explicitly outlawed the African Slave trade in their constitution.


    McMuffin,

    I am pleasing myself. I tried to keep the debate rational, I feel as if my initial comment on Lincoln as a war criminal was solid. People don't even pay attention to my points, they just keep arguing "lost cause, slavery, treason, etc" and totally ignore my points on Lincoln. They are being emotional and suspending their skepticism, which is why they are so naïve as to think that the civil war was "about" slavery.
    Last edited by Younger Longest; 12-02-2017 at 02:27 AM.

  6. #6
    WoR-Dev TrustyJam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Denmark
    Posts
    5,133
    Quote Originally Posted by Younger Longest View Post

    They are being emotional and suspending their skepticism, which is why they are like sheep that probably don't even question anything the government does today.
    Going to stop you there. You yourself posted a thread with a title asking if anyone else hates Lincoln. If that is not acting on emotion then I don't know what is.

    I suggest you tighten up your doings around here or they will be short lived.

    - Trusty

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •