Customize

"Let's bitch about Southern/Confederate History!" NSFW warning

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by KittyKatSpanker, Aug 21, 2017.

  1. The Internet Member

    When you teach several generations of southern children that taking up arms against their own government is honorable rather than treasonous, this is the cancer that results.
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  2. The Internet Member

    Another causal factor in the civil war crisis: the Internet. Well not our Internet but something much like it: the rotary printing press.

  3. The Internet Member

    The testimony of Robert E. Lee's slave, Wesley Norris, has corroboration.
    A further eloquent commentary on General Lee:
    The essay above gives some evidence that the slaves Robert E. Lee inherited from his father-in-law were actually his own wife's kin. He should have set them free when his wife's father died. But he didn't.
  4. By the way the north wasn't a picknick either. The mouth said something, but the heart wasn't in it,
    • Like Like x 1
  5. The Internet Member

    The North said it wanted to preserve the union and its heart was most certainly behind that.

    Before the war the US stated that it wasn't going to enact laws that would abolish slavery in the slave states. The line was drawn against expanding slavery into the territories. That's the part the South could not abide. Well, the several very wealthy and politically powerful southerners involved in the domestic slave trade at least.

    On my list of things to Google: the Confederate "Fire Eaters."
  6. Innocent!
    There was a worker underclass in the North, the Irish, no need of slaves, and cheaper than slaves. The North stated" what ever was expedient. Slavery was in the territories -Oregon for example. The cause of the Civil War was economic. Industrialized north wirh cotton mills, cotton fields in the South. The decisions in Congress had favored the North's economy.
    This isn't Johnny btw.
  7. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/us/robert-e-lee-slaves.html

    Something old:

    19xp-letter1-master675.jpg

  8. The Internet Member

    Economically there was cooperation and mutual benefit between northern and southern states. The boom in northern cotton mills depended upon southern cotton. Bankers in New York became wealthy thanks to southern commodities.

    It is a great exaggeration to say that factory workers were chattel slaves. Certainly they were often exploited. Children were employed. There were no safety standards, etc. But humans didn't flock from the farms to the cities because they'd been kidnapped.

    You mention the Irish. I'd also heard and believed that many Irish people were trafficked to the New World in slave-like conditions. But I looked into this and it is a terrible exaggeration. Indentured servitude didn't strip a person of citizenship and rights. The state of being a servant was not heritable. And at the term's end the contract required the manager to pay the servant a little nest egg.

    Although slavery existed in the territories the Missouri Compromise set limits upon it, up until the Dred Scott decision.

    I still see these three things as primary causes of the conflict:
    1. US territorial expansion
    2. Dred Scott
    3. The profitability of slavery.
  9. The Internet Member

    Slaves were cheaper than indentured servants. And indentured servants were cheaper than wage workers.

    From my reading slaves cost about 10 pounds while indentured servants cost about 20 pounds. Servants worked only for 3-7 years and were granted land or money in some form at the contract's end. Slaves worked for a lifetime and could produce more slaves.

    Among the Caribbean sugar plantations, indentured servants were an important source of labor early on. But they were replaced with slaves over time because slaves were less expensive. In the colonies indentured servitude faded out once transatlantic travel became less expensive.

    If the Irish were cheaper than slaves, why didn't southern farmers invite them down to pick cotton?

    Try to think things through a little bit. Don't swallow propaganda hook, line, and sinker. "Marxist history" sounds like crazy talk. Facts are not political.
  10. The Internet Member

    According to several people who spoke with Custis, he wanted his slaves freed upon his death but he left the logistics to his executor, Robert E. Lee. So the "five years" part is Lee's choice.

    About half of Custis' slaves were mixed-race family members so of course he wouldn't want his own kin in bondage and potentially sold to owners far away.

    Lee might have liberated the slaves and given them something like indentured servant contracts for five years. But he didn't. I'm not a huge fan of my in-laws but I like to think I'd treat my wife's kin a little better.
  11. read the whole text first plox. Alsoo there is a link: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/us/robert-e-lee-slaves.html


    fucking lol at this:
  12. The Internet Member

    To say that northern free states didn't want slavery in the territories is a generalization but a fair one.

    To say that "slavery was in the territories" is technically true but misleading if you are using this detail to imply that northern free states were not "really" opposed to slavery in the territories.

    Why u wanna mislead, bro?

    Let's take a look at "Oregon for example."

    Number of slaves in 1860:
    - in the US: 4 million
    - in Missouri: 115,000
    - in Oregon: less than 50

    http://www.blackpast.org/perspectives/slavery-oregon-reuben-shipley-saga
  13. The Internet Member

  14. Not many slaves in the territories but think about it... if you were black you couldn't stay in Oregon. Freed slave? Still not safe. Runaway slave? They would send you back. Black people in Oregon moved out, so "only 50" for a black person was a100% reason not to be in Oregon
  15. The Internet Member

    Yep those Missouri transplants and others living in Oregon did not want darkie farmers getting free land and living beside them.

    But Oregonian racism does not change my point: the free states and the Lincoln administration were willing to live with slavery in the slave states but they were opposed to the expansion of slavery into Federal territories.

    This distinction matters because neo-Confederate revisionists paint a picture of Mr. Lincoln and the Yankees being bullies and trying to overturn that dear old beautiful genteel Southern way of life.

    The deep south already had secession strategies worked out before the 1860 election so whatever their butthurt Lincoln didn't do it.
  16. "But Oregonian racism does not change my point: the free states and the Lincoln administration were willing to live with slavery in the slave states but they were opposed to the expansion of slavery into Federal territories.

    This distinction matters because neo-Confederate revisionists paint a picture of Mr. Lincoln and the Yankees being bullies and trying to overturn that dear old beautiful genteel Southern way of life.
    "
    You lost me here.why were they willing to live with slavery in the southern states? Wasn't that the professed cause of war?



  17. This story was published seven years after the alleged incident, and seven years after two similar stories were published from anonymous authors. But in those stories, Lee did the whipping himself. And it also would seem that no attempt was ever made (or at least published) to interview any of the "dozen witnesses" that Mr. Norris said that could corroborate his story.

    Not saying that the story is definitely false, but it should be taken with a big grain of salt, and has little (if any) historical value.

  18. It's on the LOC website and you need a private session to listen (after ordering it)

  19. Give me the name of one Confederate soldier, or government official that was tried for treason against the USA.

  20. Well, he's been shot in the face.
  21. The Internet Member

    My yankee school taught me that Lincoln was against imposing abolition on southern states because the government was in no position financially to compensate slave owners for their losses. He hoped that slavery would fade away naturally with time. However, he was strongly opposed to the expansion of slavery into the territories where it was not yet established.
  22. The Internet Member

    If my wife cheats on me and I forgive her, that doesn't mean she didn't cheat on me.

    Similarly if people join in an armed rebellion against their own government, that is treason by definition whether or not their government decides to convict them. The US Constitution requires two witnesses to the act of treason for it to count. In the case of Confederate soldiers we meet that standard easily.

    John Wilkes Booth was never tried for treason or murder but I believe we consider him guilty of both.
  23. Can you name anyone that was tried for treason?
  24. The Internet Member

    You're commenting upon the testimony of Wesley Norris, one of Robert E. Lee's runaway slaves. I quoted from an article in the Atlantic that says there are multiple sources corroborating Norris' testimony. There's even a receipt book showing a payment for the flogging given to Mr. Norris by the county constable, Mr. Dick Williams.
  25. The Internet Member

    Do you understand what forgiveness and reconciliation mean? Those gifts are not given to innocent men.
  26. The Internet Member

    A President doesn't forgive people for committing treason when they didn't actually commit treason.

    Proclamation 179
    Granting Full Pardon and Amnesty
    for the Offense of Treason Against the United States
    During the Late Civil War
    December 25, 1868
    By the President of the United States of America

    Whereas the President of the United States has heretofore set forth several proclamations offering amnesty and pardon to persons who had been or were concerned in the late rebellion against the lawful authority of the Government of the United States, which proclamations were severally issued on the 8th day of December, 1863, on the 26th day of March, 1864, on the 29th day of May, 1865, on the 7th day of September, 1867, and on the 4th day of July, in the present year; and

    Whereas the authority of the Federal Government having been reestablished in all the States and Territories within the jurisdiction of the United States, it is believed that such prudential reservations and exceptions as at the dates of said several proclamations were deemed necessary and proper may now be wisely and justly relinquished, and that an universal amnesty and pardon for participation in said rebellion extended to all who have borne any part therein will tend to secure permanent peace, order, and prosperity throughout the land, and to renew and fully restore confidence and fraternal feeling among the whole people, and their respect for and attachment to the National Government, designed by its patriotic founders for the general good:

    Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson President of the United States, by virtue of the power and authority in me vested by the Constitution and in the name of the sovereign people of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare unconditionally and without reservation, to all and to every person who, directly or indirectly, participated in the late insurrection or rebellion a full pardon and amnesty for the offense of treason against the United States or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof.

    In testimony whereof I have signed these presents with my hand and have caused the seal of the United States to be hereunto affixed.

    Done at the city of Washington, the 25th day of December, A. D. 1868, and of the Independence of the United States of America the ninety-third.

    ANDREW JOHNSON.

    By the President:

    F. W. SEWARD,

    Acting Secretary of State .

    Citation: Andrew Johnson: "Proclamation 179 - Granting Full Pardon and Amnesty for the Offense of Treason Against the United States During the Late Civil War," December 25, 1868. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=72360.
  27. The Internet Member

    Without the Presidential amnesty for treason, the ex-Confederates would have been in a pickle. They were non-citizens of the USA. Without citizenship you can't get married or sell land or do a lot of stuff.
  28. The Internet Member


  29. Wow, you actually used source information!

    ZxrpYTevDLmmY.gif
    • Like Like x 1
  30. The Internet Member

    So you concede the point, the US government viewed the Confederate rebellion as treasonous but granted amnesty to those involved.
    • Like Like x 2
  31. Whereas the President of the United States Internet has heretofore set forth several Dox, in support of the proposition that the Confederacy be nothing but a Pack of treasonous Dogs, and

    Whereas the eponymous Johnny Reb, having opposed the same by arguments Specious and Egregious, and

    Whereas it is conducive to renew and fully restore confidence and fraternal feeling among the whole WWP

    I hereby proclaim and declare unconditionally and without reservation, that Johnny Reb is Pardon'd, with all Rights and Privileges and Immunities restored, solely on the condition and understanding that the Point be Seceded Conceded.

    In testimony whereof I have signed these presents with my handle and and have caused my Avatar to be hereunto affixed.
    • Like Like x 2
  32. I haz question: Why do they sing 'look away, look away, Dixieland '

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_(song)

    (The further you go down this rabbithole the worse it gets, kind of reminds me of Scientology.)

    1900sc_SM_Dixie.jpg
  33. The Internet Member

    I'm not sure why KKS, Calle, and Johnny make the point that blacks suffered from an inferior political status compared to whites living in the free states. There is no disagreement on this point. White people north and south generally believed that the "negro race" was intellectually and morally inferior to the "white race."

    Today there's a tendency to look at US map showing "red" and "blue" states as if everyone within a state shares the same political bias. But we know that there are plenty of blue people in red states and vice-versa.

    Similarly, there were pro-slavery whites in free states as well as abolitionists in slave states. Support for slavery was greatest amongst people who made a lot of money from it, including Wall St. Shocking, I know.

    The US government did not take up arms for abolition but for the preservation of the Union. The south took up arms for some other reason.
  34. Yes to all of that, but

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettysburg_Address


    I mean that song first was sung by whites in blackface in a musical setting and is now a confederate anthem. So much fail.

  35. TFW ! Bernie Sanders state was the first !!! GO VERMONT !

    https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-slavery/chronology-who-banned-slavery-when-idUSL1561464920070322

  36. The Internet Member

    Seems like whenever I talk to someone about slavery I get back, "well the North was no picnic for blacks either."

    I don't exactly know what is going on here.

    Maybe the horrors of slavery are so overwhelming people just can't take the thought of it? They have to find something similar as a way to normalize it a little bit?

    We didn't even have a Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to help protect our slaves from truly sick motherfuckery.

    Slaves are mentioned in the Bible and other ancient writings but I get the impression that ancient slaves were still considered human. US chattel slaves were property, full stop.
  37. Who are you to say what the best course of action is for the entire country? Isn't exactly that kind of thinking anathema to the idea of states' rights?

    If you want it to be settled locally, and you support states' rights, then you should say that you would respect the local laws, which may OR MAY NOT require that decisions such as the removal of monuments should be put up to a vote of the local constituents. You are being a bit of a controlling federalist when you say that everyone has to follow your "best course of action," and that the local jurisdictions that remove these monuments have to put it up to a vote, regardless of what their local laws might be regarding monument removal. The implication that there is only one "best course of action," just seems totally anathema to the idea of states' rights, and anathema to the idea that localities could have their own policies, laws, and codes already in place to deal with this issue, regardless of what you think the "best course of action," might be.

    Also, this country can walk and chew bubblegum at the same time, and it can address homelessness and crime while it addresses other problems in the society. If we followed your advice, then some completely resolvable problems and injustices might be allowed to last forever simply because there are "more important" and probably more intractable issues to solve.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins