robbio said:

---

What would have happened if the Government offered to buy all the slaves and then free them?

Could a law have been passed that everyone born in the US was a free citizen no matter the race?

---

The Republicans floated this idea to save money by avoiding war. It was never really considered a serious option.

Washington D.C. residents who owned slaves were compensated $300 for their enslaved people in 1862.

4 said:

---

HoustonAggie11 said:

---

Maroon Dawn said:

---

I think that people forget this important point:

Lincoln was the first president ever elected without a single electoral vote from the South.

For the South, that was all the evidence they needed that the North was now fully in control of US politics going forward and was going to force abolition on them sooner or later and likely sooner than later.

---

He also suspended parts of the constitution he didn't like, great president.

---

Lincoln also didn't give a rat's ass about slavery, and he said so.

The reason he issued the emancipation proclamation was because France was about to enter the war on the side of the south, and he knew if he made the war appear to be about slavery, France couldn't do it politically.

---

By 1865 Lincoln had changed his mind. He forced the 13th amendment through congress, even though he knew it meant that the Confederate government would never accept peace terms if the 13th passed. It cost the Union and the Confederates thousands of lives, but it did free the slave once and for all.

it's stupid to say the civil war was about slavery, because it was about a deeper divide between cultures and ideas about governance and federalism. It was about the control by industrializing north over the agrarian south in economics - particularly the south enduring the expenses of tariffs which benefited the north almost exclusively. it was also about what the constitution meant and how it was going to applied, and whether it was going to be a strong legal document or not. primary sources exist in abundance to support all of this both on the north and the south.

However, it's also manifestly stupid to say the war wasn't about slavery, because primary sources exist in abundance to support this as well.

We can solve this by a framework - universal vs particular. The first argument focuses on universals, the latter on the particular expression. the former is the universal causes which made civil war inevitable; slavery was the particular flashpoint making it the proximate cause. the war was about slavery as its core manifestation, but rooted in universals that provided the fertile ground for the conflict.

thank you for coming to my ted talk.

BQ78 said:

---

Awesome cherry pick, that was actually a decent gripe by Texas, now tell me what the rest of it says and how many more words they used for that issue. Is that why South Carolina left, Indian depredations? Did any other states say that was their reason?

Also more meat is contained in the Declaration s ofSecession if a state issued it (Texas did not).

---

You did not like the Critical Thinking book? The first seven states to secede did mention slavery and a concern that Lincoln was hostile to the institution. Each one offered other causes for Secession. Of the last four, Virginia, Tennessee, Arkansas and North Carolina, only Virginia even mentions slavery. They did not even secede until Lincoln called for an invasion of the South. Virginia April 17, 1861 The Virginia Ordinance of Secession is a legalistic document that references other slaveholding States: the "Federal Government having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States". There is no other reference to slavery.
Arkansas May 6, 1861 The Arkansas Secession Ordinance essentially says that they warned the US Government that if coercion was used against States that had seceded, Arkansas would secede. They were good to their word. Slavery is not mentioned.
North Carolina May 20, 1861 The title of the North Carolina ordinance says all you need to know: "An Ordinance to Dissolve the Union Between the State of North Carolina and the Other States United with Her Under the Compact of Government Entitled the Constitution of The United States." The ordinance does not mention slavery.
Tennessee June 8, 1861 The State of Tennessee unashamedly called on the Declaration of Independence as their basis for secession instead of arguing the legality of the same. Here is the title of the document. "Declaration of Independence and Ordinance Dissolving the Federal Relations Between the State of Tennessee and the United States of America." There was not one mention of slavery.
ConclusionThe lie that every Southern States' secession documents made it "crystal" clear that their separation from the Union was because of slavery is persistent. Some will say that allusions to slavery still count as slavery being the cause. Please refer to the beginning of the document. An allusion is not crystal clear, by definition, or in reality. The reality is that there were many Constitutional issues outside of slavery. Besides, even with the easier standard of accepting allusions to slavery, it only takes one not to allude to slavery for it to be a lie.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Wait until you read how well the CSA protected the people of Texas against the American Indians.

---

That is a dumb argument. You are leaning heavily on your personal bias like that other guy. Texas was waging a war on several fronts besides the frontier and that was not lost on the Comanches and Kiowas. The Texas Rangers who had been highly successful in battling those tribes was wiped out when virtually every single one of them enlisted in the Confederate Army. There were no seasoned scout/combatants to replace them.

Zobel said:

---

it's stupid to say the civil war was about slavery, because it was about a deeper divide between cultures and ideas about governance and federalism. It was about the control by industrializing north over the agrarian south in economics - particularly the south enduring the expenses of tariffs which benefited the north almost exclusively. it was also about what the constitution meant and how it was going to applied, and whether it was going to be a strong legal document or not. primary sources exist in abundance to support all of this both on the north and the south.

However, it's also manifestly stupid to say the war wasn't about slavery, because primary sources exist in abundance to support this as well.

We can solve this by a framework - universal vs particular. The first argument focuses on universals, the latter on the particular expression. the former is the universal causes which made civil war inevitable; slavery was the particular flashpoint making it the proximate cause. the war was about slavery as its core manifestation, but rooted in universals that provided the fertile ground for the conflict.

thank you for coming to my ted talk.

---

.
The Confederate states were very concerned over the issue of slavery and the loss thereof..

Four southern states mentioned slavery in their articles of secession.

Slavery is covered in 5 different sections of the Confederate Constitution.
Article I Section 9(1)
The importation of Negroes of the African race from any foreign country, other than the slave-holding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
Article I Section 9(2)
Congress shall also have power to prohibit the introduction of slaves from any State not a member of, or Territory not belonging to, this Confederacy.
Article I Section 9(4)
No bill of attainder ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Article IV Section 2(1)
The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Article IV Section 3(3)
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.

PanzerAggie06 said:

---

flown-the-coop said:

---

txwxman said:

---

Why do Aggies insist on occasionally embarrassing themselves and the university by posting pro-South revisionist drivel?

---

Its done because the Northern narrative was false to start with and history is on the side of the truth, not what some liberal arts cum history teacher or even better PE coach cum history teacher told you was history.

---

The victors write the history. The losers whine about it for generations. If the south wanted a better place in the history books their great great grandfathers should have fought harder.

Southerners crying about their precious Confederacy remind me of native Americans whimpering about "stolen land". The same thing said to them needs to be said to southerners crying about the CSAs place in history… "get over it, you lost".

---

Things a fascist would say…

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Slavery has been the norm for human existence but slavery in America was racially motivated. The justification for slavery had moved from a "necessary evil" to arguing it was a "positive good". It was morally justified and necessary for everyone involved.

And yes, there was a significant economic component and nobody has disagreed with that but it was not just an economic issue, as proven by the "cherry-picked" quotes.

---

Here we have the gold star winner right here… "Geez guys, of course slavery existed all over the world for millennia. But ONLY IN THE USA was it racially motivated with hillbilly southern whites fighting to death to keep their negroes."

I really hope you typed that tongue in cheek or it was a copy-paste from Chat1619 AI website or such.

Blacks were enslaved all across the world. But the 3 to 4% in the United States were done because of muh racism.

Surely you know that, right?

TrumpsBarber said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Wait until you read how well the CSA protected the people of Texas against the American Indians.

---

That is a dumb argument. You are leaning heavily on your personal bias like that other guy. Texas was waging a war on several fronts besides the frontier and that was not lost on the Comanches and Kiowas. The Texas Rangers who had been highly successful in battling those tribes was wiped out when virtually every single one of them enlisted in the Confederate Army. There were no seasoned scout/combatants to replace them.

---

So, how well did the CSA protect the people of Texas against the American Indians?

Of course, they were enslaved all over the world. I never made a statement to the contrary.

In the United States, slavery was based solely on race. I don't know why you feel compelled to be angry about that fact.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Of course, they were enslaved all over the world. I never made a statement to the contrary.

In the United States, slavery was based solely on race. I don't know why you feel compelled to be angry about that fact.

---

That's impressive since the United States did not exist when many of those slaves were brought to these United States.

Why must you fabricate racial motivations when they simply were not unique to the US.

So in the Carribean plantations, those were all white people? Thats weird. But then again maybe thats why there are Jamaicans in the Winter Olympics.

Me thinks you have a very limited understanding of history of slavery overall, history of slavery in the Americas and in particularly the reasons for slavery in the Southern states at the time of the Civil War. Hint: It was not about racism. You are parroting a lie from the likes of which we see from "scholars" who come up with **** like 1619.

Yes, I am angry that you continue to try and paint a broad brush of racism against people based simply upon where they were born or resided.

It's almost like you didn't read what I wrote at all

Quote:

---

That's impressive since the United States did not exist when many of those slaves were brought to these United States.

Why must you fabricate racial motivations when they simply were not unique to the US.

---

The uniqueness of it has no bearing on the issue.

Quote:

---

So in the Carribean plantations, those were all white people? Thats weird. But then again maybe thats why there are Jamaicans in the Winter Olympics.

---

I feel like Billy Bob Thornton's character in Tombstone. "It's like I'm arguing with my brother's kids."

Quote:

---

Me thinks you have a very limited understanding of history of slavery overall, history of slavery in the Americas and in particularly the reasons for slavery in the Southern states at the time of the Civil War. Hint: It was not about racism. You are parroting a lie from the likes of which we see from "scholars" who come up with **** like 1619.

---

Slavery in the United States was based on race. If it wasn't racism, why didn't we codify the slavery of whites, Hispanics, or other races/people?

Quote:

---

Yes, I am angry that you continue to try and paint a broad brush of racism against people based simply upon where they were born or resided.

---

I've not done that. Most northerners weren't more enlightened regarding race and their views would be considered racists by today's standards. I don't really care either way because it has no bearing on me.

Please stick to what is actually being written and use facts to support your poor, hurt feelings. Otherwise, there is no point in continuing to kick your ass.

It's true that race was a pernicious kind of evil here. But I also think it's a little anachronistic because ancient concepts of race were really different, and probably qualified. Basically as soon as we had a kind of premodern / pseudo scientific framework for race and ethnicity versus the more ancient sense of national identity (versus specifically genetic or hereditary) we undid centuries of moral frameworks relating to slavery. Specifically that being a Christian was a kind of ethnicity or nation, and you couldn't enslave Christians. There's certainly a cautionary tale here. Same spirit lead to eugenics and the horrors of Nazism.

Zobel said:

---

It's true that race was a pernicious kind of evil here. But I also think it's a little anachronistic because ancient concepts of race were really different, and probably qualified. Basically as soon as we had a kind of premodern / pseudo scientific framework for race and ethnicity versus the more ancient sense of national identity (versus specifically genetic or hereditary) we undid centuries of moral frameworks relating to slavery. Specifically that being a Christian was a kind of ethnicity or nation, and you couldn't enslave Christians. There's certainly a cautionary tale here. Same spirit lead to eugenics and the horrors of Nazism.

---

That is all fair but race was used to undo previous precedents. In the colonial period, we saw the idea of status being passed along paternal lines change to maternity so that the children of enslaved women and free fathers would be enslaved.

"Please stick with agreeing with my view of slavery was a racist institution unique to America and do not try and bring your own facts and perspective to the discussion."

Legit level of #mytruth

Your arguments are so nascent and understanding of history, slavery and the US that I would welcome arguing with my brothers kids, cause even though they know very little on this subject I think they would be able to point out the flaws in your posts and position.

It's time for you to move on. Ignoring the conditions and reasons for slavery to boil it down to some uniqueness of slavery in America as race based is ******ed.

Class based. Sure. If the gingers from Ireland had been a wee more resilient in the cotton fields and the Africans not well suited for the blazing hot sun, the race of slaves would have been more diversified.

So blaming the climate makes more sense than blaming race.

flown-the-coop said:

---

"Please stick with agreeing with my view of slavery was a racist institution unique to America and do not try and bring your own facts and perspective to the discussion."

Legit level of #mytruth

Your arguments are so nascent and understanding of history, slavery and the US that I would welcome arguing with my brothers kids, cause even though they know very little on this subject I think they would be able to point out the flaws in your posts and position.

It's time for you to move on. Ignoring the conditions and reasons for slavery to boil it down to some uniqueness of slavery in America as race based is ******ed.

Class based. Sure. If the gingers from Ireland had been a wee more resilient in the cotton fields and the Africans not well suited for the blazing hot sun, the race of slaves would have been more diversified.

So blaming the climate makes more sense than blaming race.

---

I've asked for facts. You've provided none. I've provided arguments, you become emotional and provide no retort.

No argument has been made that race-based slavery in the United States was unique. It just was.


Enjoy your trolling and make sure to clean the sand off of your jeans when you come in from recess.

Yea I think we're agreeing. I'm pointing out that as soon as humans invented a new way of categorizing people we took the opportunity to use that to undo societal prohibitions against slavery. Then, just as in the ancient world, it became a real economic problem to eradicate.

The main thing is tho I think if you took "race" or "ethnicity" as a fluid concept (ancients didn't know about genetic heredity, not really) plenty of ancient situations would have qualified as "race based".

What facts are you still looking for?

Slavery is an old institution. Fact.

Slavery is not unique to whites enslaving blacks. Fact.

He'll, the word slave comes from the enslavement of Slavic peoples, who was white. Fact.

Africa has long been known to enslave other Africans. See Moses in the Bible. The Moors enslaving European whites. Their enslavement, trading and selling of blacks in Africa is well known. Ever heard of Timbuktu? They traded African slaves for 1000 years before they began transatlantic shipping. Facts.

Blacks were enslaved all across the Americas. The Brit's, French, Danes etc all are RESPONSIBLE for the tradition of enslaving blacks in America. Not the United States, not Americans. More facts.

Enslavement in the colonies of the Americas was an economic equation. It happened that the best fit for the need regarding forced labor was best met by Africans, who were available on the thriving market in… Africa. Run by black African slave traders. Even more facts.

So again, what more facts are you needing on this.

Oh, and you implied the uniquess of American slavery not two hours ago.

Zobel said:

---

Yea I think we're agreeing. I'm pointing out that as soon as humans invented a new way of categorizing people we took the opportunity to use that to undo societal prohibitions against slavery. Then, just as in the ancient world, it became a real economic problem to eradicate.

The main thing is tho I think if you took "race" or "ethnicity" as a fluid concept (ancients didn't know about genetic heredity, not really) plenty of ancient situations would have qualified as "race based".

---

Yeah, sorry if I came across as argumentative.

I've agreed with all of that already and everything you wrote verifies that slavery in the U.S. was based on race. Only Africans or people of African ethnicity were allowed to be enslaved in the United States. Of course, slavery was allowed to exist because they enjoyed the economic benefits of enslaving blacks.

You keep arguing a point that has been made and agreed upon by both parties.

It was based on available and proper inventory, not race.

It's like saying someone only likes brown cars and hates white ones when the dealership is only selling brown cars.

Keep your race wars going.

But we do not agree. Slavery in these United States was not about race, it was about economics.

flown-the-coop said:

---

It was based on available and proper inventory, not race.

It's like saying someone only likes brown cars and hates white ones when the dealership is only selling brown cars.

Keep your race wars going.

But we do not agree. Slavery in these United States was not about race, it was about economics.

---

Who we allowed to be enslaved was based purely on race. I'd suggest you do some studying on the John Punch Case and the Elizabeth Key case. Have a good day and please educate yourself.

I don't disagree with that and never said anything contrary to that. There were two phases of secession. The first was the Deep South. All of them issued Declarations of Secession (except Texas) in addition to Ordinances of Secession. The Declarations make it very clear why the Deep South was leaving. The only issues not tied to race and slavery were mentioned by Texas (Indian depredations) and Georgia (tariffs, the only state to make that claim that modern Confederate apologists love so much).

Virginia and Tennessee voted against secession in phase 1 and North Carolina and Arkansas refused to even consider it. After Sumter and Lincoln's call for troops to put down the rebellion, it happened as you describe in phase 2. Without slavery, none of this happens the way it did.

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

TrumpsBarber said:

---

Ghost of Andrew Eaton said:

---

Wait until you read how well the CSA protected the people of Texas against the American Indians.

---

That is a dumb argument. You are leaning heavily on your personal bias like that other guy. Texas was waging a war on several fronts besides the frontier and that was not lost on the Comanches and Kiowas. The Texas Rangers who had been highly successful in battling those tribes was wiped out when virtually every single one of them enlisted in the Confederate Army. There were no seasoned scout/combatants to replace them.

---

So, how well did the CSA protect the people of Texas against the American Indians?

---

How old are you,16?

BQ78 said:

---

I don't disagree with that and never said anything contrary to that. There were two phases of secession. The first was the Deep South. All of them issued Declarations of Secession (except Texas) in addition to Ordinances of Secession. The Declarations make it very clear why the Deep South was leaving. The only issues not tied to race and slavery were mentioned by Texas (Indian depredations) and Georgia (tariffs, the only state to make that claim that modern Confederate apologists love so much).

Virginia and Tennessee voted against secession in phase 1 and North Carolina and Arkansas refused to even consider it. After Sumter and Lincoln's call for troops to put down the rebellion, it happened as you describe in phase 2. Without slavery, none of this happens the way it did.

---

I agree with the facts as outlined in the first two sentences and your second paragraph. Also, without oppressive tariffs and wealth redistribution there would not have been Secession.

Disagree the fear of losing their property trumped the tariff in spades, it is very clear if you read enough. Pick up Dew's "Apostles of Disunion" and it will clear your notions about how much the tariff mattered.

In modern parlance I would categorize it as forcing people to use preferred pronouns versus installing Communism.

To further clarify, the south believed it could counter/control tariffs with the cost of their goods sold. Loss of slavery in their minds was not easily controlled and would not only destroy their economy but completely upset the social order.

Please explain.

1. Slavery wasn't "evil" in the sense that had they nor their ancestors not been slaves here in America, they would have been slaves in the African countries they originally came from. As it stands, their ancestors living here today are the wealthiest black people in the history of the world. The reasons why are numerous and I'm sure upsetting to many of the leftists here who refuse to live in reality, but that's the truth.

2. Lincoln, nor people anywhere in the North cared about slaves or black people any more than leftists today pretend to care about illegals. They pretend to, and say they do, but they don't actually do anything to help them and in reality find them disgusting and don't want them anywhere near their neighborhoods. Typical NIMBY mentality.

3. Secession wasn't illegal, and isn't illegal now. The stacked, solely Northern-based court issued a decision in U.S. v. White that is one of the most poorly reasoned, laughable decisions every rendered. It would be reversed today.

4. The states only agreed to give up certain rights when joining the union in an effort to allow a more centralized federal government to handle a few things that were better vested in a unified body; otherwise, they viewed themselves as sovereign entities, free to leave if "the deal" ever stopped working for them. They tried, and they were FORCED to stay. There's absolutely zero legal basis for this. Leftists who pretend Lincoln "had no choice" after Southern troops fired on Fort Sumter are FOS. Of course he had a choice. The irony of his professed purpose of "saving democracy".....by NOT ALLOWING PEOPLE TO VOTE TO END THE RELATIONSHIP...is too thick to cut.

5. Lincoln tried to argue that the Union predated the Constitution and was a "perpetual contract." Again, there's no basis for this at all.

6. Lincoln "preserved democracy" by forcing those to stay who voted to leave, and by suspending/ignoring provisions of the Constitution that formed the basis for the very democracy he claimed to be saving. He was a hypocrite of the highest order.

Kind of busy but want to quickly address 5 and 6. In 5, Lincoln was referring to the Articles of Confederation that actually had a secession clause that required unanimous consent of the states. When the US Constitution instituted a "perpetual union," secession did not need to be addressed and many did not believe it to be an option.

Regarding 6, in secession are only the rights of the leavers to be respected and those of the left behind disregarded? That reminds me of the left's attitude toward abortion, where only the rights of the woman matter and the rights of the unborn citizen are just ignored. Secession affects the left behind too. If Missouri left the Union today would they own all the B-2s in the world? Do you not see how that might be a detriment to the US?

BQ78 said:

---

Kind of busy but want to quickly address 5 and 6. In 5, Lincoln was referring to the Articles of Confederation that actually had a secession clause that required unanimous consent of the states. When the US Constitution instituted a "perpetual union," secession did not need to be addressed and many did not believe it to be an option.

Regarding 6, in secession are only the rights of the leavers to be respected and those of the left behind disregarded? That reminds me of the left's attitude toward abortion, where only the rights of the woman matter and the rights of the unborn citizen are just ignored. Secession affects the left behind too. If Missouri left the Union today would they own all the B-2s in the world? Do you not see how that might be a detriment to the US?

---

1. There's no perpetual union clause in the Constitution. Regardless of the document before it that was deemed to weak to be effective, the fact that it doesn't have it in there at all doesn't imply its existence simply because the prior document did address it. That reasoning defies all the modern canons of construction.

2. Sure I can conceive it. B-2 bombers are federal property. Obviously that would be a point of discussion. However, to the extent there were similar issues back then, Lincoln didn't attempt to address them. He forcibly prevented the South from leaving. Big difference here. A woman leaving her husband because he beats her has an impact on him too.

2. The wife fired at the husband at this instance and the husband hadn't been beating her. He actually had been giving her more power than before. Enslaver's rights had been expanding since 1850.

Certainly the silence of the Constitution on secession means it is an extralegal process. I'm curious how, if Lincoln had been amenable to secession, you think that would have occurred? How would trade deals and foreign treaty obligations be met, defense assets divided, debt divided, etc.?

Countries have difficulties making deals with us today because we charge leaders every four years (Confederates at least changed that to six, the one good change in their constitution). How difficult would it be for them to know states could break off at any time? It is counterfactual but as devastating as the war was for the US, becoming the Balkans of the Western Hemisphere would not have the US sitting on top of the world heap today.

BQ78 said:

---

Certainly the silence of the Constitution on secession means it is an extralegal process. I'm curious how, if Lincoln had been amenable to secession, you think that would have occurred? How would trade deals and foreign treaty obligations be met, defense assets divided, debt divided, etc.?

Countries have difficulties making deals with us today because we charge leaders every four years (Confederates at least changed that to six, the one good change in their constitution). How difficult would it be for them to know states could break off at any time? It is counterfactual but as devastating as the war was for the US, becoming the Balkans of the Western Hemisphere would not have the US sitting on top of the world heap today.

---

I think you may have missed the principle that the United States was founded upon.

The South effectively declared independence from the Union. Not entirely different than that original declaration we will be celebrating all this year.

In your world, no state (and more importantly its people) can elect to throw off their tyrant rulers. I assume you align with Putin in regards to Ukraine.

Maybe a refresher would help here.

Quote:

---

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

---

That was written almost 15 months into a war.

The implication then is if you want to split up you better win it in blood or hope you can negotiate a split with the former lord, who is willing for you to go.

The south chose the former in 1861 by attacking Federal property. They lost destroying their economy for the next century. Guess you'll need better luck next time or hope for a negotiated settlement.