Hear slaves, and Civil war veterans speak

[jongib369]

Confederate "General" Julius Howell Recalls the 1860s
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHDfC-z9YaE)

Found Voices: Slave Narratives Pt 1
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWqVMNUawso)
Footage of Civil War Veterans at 50yr Anniversary in 1913 & 75yr Anniversary in 1938
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVjD2DaB4bY)

Part 1 Hear Former Slaves Speak
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VTFkyDrH3M)

85 YEAR OLD Civil War Veteran Lauren Higbie Recorded On Early 78rpm Record (Absolutely Captivating!)
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KKiBTSOWVZA)

Confederate soldier Julius Howell Interview What The south Fought For
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPiDqUB9k1I)

Children of U.S. Civil War Vets Reminisce About Fathers
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3UCRBZ-qlWM)

[Nick Young]

wow. Rednecks still sounded like rednecks even back in the day

[jongib369]

A thread about licking asshole explodes, yet hearing slaves talk about their expierences can hardly get a response. Jesus lmao

[gigantes]

interesting... thanks for sharing.

Confederate soldier Julius Howell Interview What The south Fought For (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KPiDqUB9k1I)
i bet the majority of southerners didn't really know what they were fighting for. they probably thought it was for a variety of stuff that only marginally included slavery. not to mention, the theory that the south won the post-war is probably the same force that kept so many ignorant of the real reason right up until today.

you could even argue that people who benefited from slavery, which obviously includes huge swaths of the southern states, are the ones who have caused the most harm to the united states across the years. as in, it caused untold suffering, early death, depression and economic disparity on one hand... generations of acts / attitudes borne out of resentment from all that... and cultural seeds which have nourished many varieties of bigotry and xenophobic thinking still alive and flourishing.

then again, what good does it do to blame a whole region and a bunch of long-dead people? :confusedshrug:

[gigantes]

A thread about licking asshole explodes, yet hearing slaves talk about their expierences can hardly get a response. Jesus lmao
ISH gonna ISH. the other day i posted a drink recipe that is cheap, easy, quick and a great way to creatively flavor up beer for a hot day when you want a little variety. the responses were exactly how you'd imagine...


ew... it's too hard to make!

ew... it's sort of like a bloody mary but it isn't as alcoholic!

ew... it's too strange for me!

i just came in this thread to post a gif LOL

[DonDadda59]

Nice finds. I've heard some of the slave narratives before.


interesting... thanks for sharing.

i bet the majority of southerners didn't really know what they were fighting for. they probably thought it was for a variety of stuff that only marginally included slavery. not to mention, the theory that the south won the post-war is probably the same force that kept so many ignorant of the real reason right up until today.

you could even argue that people who benefited from slavery, which obviously includes huge swaths of the southern states, are the ones who have caused the most harm to the united states across the years. as in, it caused untold suffering, early death, depression and economic disparity on one hand... generations of acts / attitudes borne out of resentment from all that... and cultural seeds which have nourished many varieties of bigotry and xenophobic thinking still alive and flourishing.

then again, what good does it do to blame a whole region and a bunch of long-dead people? :confusedshrug:

That's probably the way it's always been in war, still is today. I'm sure the common soldier in Caesar's army had different motivations for crossing the Rubicon than Julius did. Today, plenty of soldiers who signed up for the Iraq war effort genuinely thought they were going to save America from WMDs.

[32jazz]

Interesting. I have read many of the collected slave narratives & own several books with selections from the WPA Narratives.



The only issue with the Slave narratives ( collected 1936-38) was that most of the slaves were too young to remember the true horrors of slavery by then .

Slavery ended in 1865 & the narratives were collected 71-73 years later. By 1936 the ex slaves had to be at least 85 years or older recalling their childhoods.


Many of the surviving slaves in 1936 -38 were just children or becoming adolescents by 1865 .


The Slave narratives would have been more relevant , insightful had they been collected by an agency( Freedmans Bureau perhaps) in 1870's ,80's or 90's


The adults who bore the brunt of slavery were still around & young enough to remember more clearly.

[Nick Young]

A thread about licking asshole explodes, yet hearing slaves talk about their expierences can hardly get a response. Jesus lmao
Slavery ended 150 years ago in America. It's not really an exciting topic.

[Marv_Albert]

ISH gonna ISH. the other day i posted a drink recipe that is cheap, easy, quick and a great way to creatively flavor up beer for a hot day when you want a little variety. the responses were exactly how you'd imagine...


ew... it's too hard to make!

ew... it's sort of like a bloody mary but it isn't as alcoholic!

ew... it's too strange for me!

i just came in this thread to post a gif LOL

Got the link brah? I'm keen to try that I missed your thread

[Nick Young]

ISH gonna ISH. the other day i posted a drink recipe that is cheap, easy, quick and a great way to creatively flavor up beer for a hot day when you want a little variety. the responses were exactly how you'd imagine...


ew... it's too hard to make!

ew... it's sort of like a bloody mary but it isn't as alcoholic!

ew... it's too strange for me!

i just came in this thread to post a gif LOL
http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr02/2013/9/18/17/anigif_enhanced-buzz-5557-1379539151-4.gif

Holy shit dude, grow a pair.

"No one commented on my beer spritzer cocktail recipe! wah wah wah"

[jongib369]

Slavery ended 150 years ago in America. It's not really an exciting topic.

Maybe not to you, but you can't go much further back with recordings.... Millions of people now voiceless, but we have a chance to listen to those who had to suffer, or fight during these times. First hand, not some text book, or some joe schmoe talking about it. That's a beautiful thing, though quite sad too.

What ethnicity are you?

[gigantes]

That's probably the way it's always been in war, still is today. I'm sure the common soldier in Caesar's army had different motivations for crossing the Rubicon than Julius did. Today, plenty of soldiers who signed up for the Iraq war effort genuinely thought they were going to save America from WMDs.
i think a better analogy would be a civil or ideological war, which would bear little resemblance to the roman legions or things like the iraq war. from what i remember, legionnaires usually joined to gain full citizenship and/or get some benefits and a plot of land. i know because i read it in asterix the gaul!


@32jazz,
i bet even around 1937 there were still lots of black folks who lived the horrors through the lives and experiences of their parents and grandparents. not to mention, i bet there were still lots of southern black people living relatively similar sharecroppers' lives compared to their civil war counterparts. the justice system and culture at large was still pretty much geared to keep them down and in place. "slavery" as a word ended in 1863, but i reckon much of the existing system carried on.



Got the link brah? I'm keen to try that I missed your thread
sure dude. let me know if you come up with an interesting version:
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=392384

[gigantes]

Maybe not to you, but you can't go much further back with recordings.... Millions of people now voiceless, but we have a chance to listen to those who had to suffer, or fight during these times. First hand, not some text book, or some joe schmoe talking about it. That's a beautiful thing, though quite sad too.

What ethnicity are you?
he was born and raised a f-cking idiot.

[jongib369]

he was born and raised a f-cking idiot.

:lol

[Nick Young]

Maybe not to you, but you can't go much further back with recordings.... Millions of people now voiceless, but we have a chance to listen to those who had to suffer, or fight during these times. First hand, not some text book, or some joe schmoe talking about it. That's a beautiful thing, though quite sad too.

What ethnicity are you?
Jew

[Nick Young]

he was born and raised a f-cking idiot.
http://ak-hdl.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/webdr02/2013/9/18/17/anigif_enhanced-buzz-5557-1379539151-4.gif
"Why no one like my beer spritzer summer cocktail doe?"

[CavaliersFTW]

Why a Southerner fought in the South in the Civil War in his own words:

https://youtu.be/uHDfC-z9YaE?t=13m00s

[Dresta]

Why a Southerner fought in the South in the Civil War in his own words:

https://youtu.be/uHDfC-z9YaE?t=13m00s
Just another lying and racist southern c*nt of course.

:rolleyes:

This need to use emotive smear tactics to distort how modern generations interpret history is really despicable.

[rufuspaul]

ISH gonna ISH. the other day i posted a drink recipe that is cheap, easy, quick and a great way to creatively flavor up beer for a hot day when you want a little variety. the responses were exactly how you'd imagine...


ew... it's too hard to make!

ew... it's sort of like a bloody mary but it isn't as alcoholic!

ew... it's too strange for me!

i just came in this thread to post a gif LOL


In all honesty that thread was somewhat ghey.

[UK2K]

Nice finds. I've heard some of the slave narratives before.



That's probably the way it's always been in war, still is today. I'm sure the common soldier in Caesar's army had different motivations for crossing the Rubicon than Julius did. Today, plenty of soldiers who signed up for the Iraq war effort genuinely thought they were going to save America from WMDs.

Nah, I wanted to engage radical Islam on that side of the world, as opposed to this side.

[gigantes]

In all honesty that thread was somewhat ghey.
too many homoerotic images...?

[32jazz]

Just another lying and racist southern c*nt of course.

:rolleyes:

This need to use emotive smear tactics to distort how modern generations interpret history is really despicable.
Yes he is .

The Lost Cause " States Rights" BS isn't a modern invention & goes back to slaveowning bigots like this gentleman.


Tell him to read the Southern States articles of secession.

[Dresta]

Yes he is .

The Lost Cause " States Rights" BS isn't a modern invention & goes back to slaveowning bigots like this gentleman.


Tell him to read the Southern States articles of secession.You're such a piece of shit - so desperate to rewrite history according to what you want it to be that you can't even give ear to an interesting account, given by someone who is a far more interesting person than you could ever hope to be, just so can unless dismiss him as a 'bigot,' disregard what he says, and still believe the tropes you learnt at school. He has far more right to say what he fought for than you do to project your own insecurities onto him. To deny someone who fought for, and risked their life for something they considered important, the right to even say what it was for which they fought, is repugnant and actually rather fascist.

Because of course it had to do with States' Rights: if you knew anything about America and American history then you would know that States Rights was the issue in American politics, literally before the Constitution was even adopted (read the notes to the convention - it's why prominent Virginians like Patrick Henry, George Mason, Edmund Randolph argued against the Constitution - it's why the New England States almost seceded long before the South did over the Embargo and War of 1812 - or was this slavery-driven also?).

Not to mention that the Confederate leaders and veterans all considered themselves to be fighting for this concept, and for the right to self-determination (if you are denying this, you are denying historical reality, the recorded opinions of the key players of that time, made in private correspondences - nor do you even notice that most people's loyalties then were still first to their state, then to the Union). Slavery was the motivating force behind the growing mutual dislike of North and South, but how would this have not been an issue if the Federal government was usurping powers from the States? The southern articles of secession don't prove your idiocy right by any means - they just show what the focus was on in that particular period of history - and remember, it was the abolitionists who put the focus on slavery, and who were attempting to wage war on the domestic institutions of southern states (something that was plainly unconstitutional)

Slavery would have withered on its own had fanatics like yourself not forced millions onto the battlefield to fight their brethren for a completely fruitless cause (it really didn't make blacks any better off in the long run) - this is why someone like Lincoln detested the abolitionists, and rightly understood that their impatience and fanaticism were polarising the nation and rendering it asunder. Instead you had over half-a-million dead, and the nation far worse off than it was before the war.

Only a petty and fanatical fool would reduce the great intellectual debate over the balance of power between the State and Federal levels, that has dominated American history since its inception, to a simple matter of slavery, or of racism - that is just so, so pathetic, and so utterly narrow-minded.

Ah, but this is the guy who thinks the Reconstruction period should have been used to enforce a permanent southern subjugation - as if a nation already nearly torn to pieces by the worst war in its history could possibly hope to do any such thing :roll:. Country broke? check. Millions wounded and dead? check
Yeah: makes sense to occupy a vast expanse of territory and to subjugate the people there until they do what they're told! We really had the resources and manpower for that! Not to mention how it would have led to a widespread guerilla insurgency, a constant drain, one that would've prevented American from playing the important role it played in the 20th century.

People like you always see the past with a decidedly modern tint - you are ahistorical, myopic, and stupid.

[Norcaliblunt]

Quote from Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens rejecting the American Idea that all persons are created equal.

[Dresta]

Quote from Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens rejecting the American Idea that all persons are created equal.

“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.”

As for the Confederate Constitution of 1861, it was emphatically organized around slavery, prescribing that...

“No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.” — Article I Section 9(4)

“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.” — Article IV Section 3(3)

It was thus Confederacy and slavery, then and forever, one and inseparable.
That doesn't contradict what i've said in any way whatsoever.

The view expressed in the first quote (by A. Stephens) was not at all prevalent in the South until States Rights were constantly and continuously attacked by a rapidly growing and northern dominated House of Representatives. John C. Calhoun himself argued in Congress for the establishment of the national bank and federal internal improvement bills (as well as being) when Old Republicans like John Randolph and Nathaniel Macon and Josiah Quincy defended States Rights (and as Madison and Jefferson did in 1798/9 - see here: http://www.constitution.org/rf/vr_1799.txt, or even Daniel Webster) - the cause of States Rights was not a southern cause until the lead up to the Civil War, and it was anterior to the growth of the Calhounite pro-slavery South, which was very much a reaction to its shrinking minority status and power (don't forget, New England and New York bankers and speculators had been using this power to their advantage, and to the detriment of the southern states, ever since the Yazoo fraud).

Sectionalism didn't really gain any ground until this happened, and the changing demographics (rapid population growth in the North, exacerbated by large-scale immigration, as over 80% settled in the North) shifted the power equilibrium that had held the Confederacy of the United States together up to that point.

Saying it was inseparable is like saying it was inseparable from their agrarian form of economy (if the South was a vast and expanding industrial empire then there would have been no divide and no slavery either) - obvious, but besides the point.


edit: But right, gotta always paint the enemy as evil bastards so as to justify the slaughter of their and your own citizens, led by the agitation, strife and sectionalism created by power-hungry and grasping politicians (with legions of devoted scribblers in their wake).

[Norcaliblunt]

That doesn't contradict what i've said in any way whatsoever.

The view expressed in the first quote (by A. Stephens) was not at all prevalent in the South until States Rights were constantly and continuously attacked by a rapidly growing and northern dominated House of Representatives. John C. Calhoun himself argued in Congress for the establishment of the national bank and federal internal improvement bills (as well as being) when Old Republicans like John Randolph and Nathaniel Macon and Josiah Quincy defended States Rights (and as Madison and Jefferson did in 1798/9 - see here: http://www.constitution.org/rf/vr_1799.txt, or even Daniel Webster) - the cause of States Rights was not a southern cause until the lead up to the Civil War, and it was anterior to the growth of the Calhounite pro-slavery South, which was very much a reaction to its shrinking minority status and power (don't forget, New England and New York bankers and speculators had been using this power to their advantage, and to the detriment of the southern states, ever since the Yazoo fraud).

Sectionalism didn't really gain any ground until this happened, and the changing demographics (rapid population growth in the North, exacerbated by large-scale immigration, as over 80% settled in the North) shifted the power equilibrium that had held the Confederacy of the United States together up to that point.

Saying it was inseparable is like saying it was inseparable from their agrarian form of economy (if the South was a vast and expanding industrial empire then there would have been no divide and no slavery either) - obvious, but besides the point.


edit: But right, gotta always paint the enemy as evil bastards so as to justify the slaughter of their and your own citizens, led by the agitation, strife and sectionalism created by power-hungry and grasping politicians (with legions of devoted scribblers in their wake).


Hey dude you make solid points, there are 2 sides to every story and more than meets the eye, but I've heard it all before. The fact remains slavery was a main part of the confederate constitution, and leading confederate players voiced their desire for a white ruled/slave empire. With help from Britain and France, and also possible expansion into the Caribbean and Latin America, slavery wasn't going anywhere anytime soon, if just left up to them.

[Kblaze8855]

I'm always amused by the idea that slavery should have just been allowed to continue until it ended it on its own. I bet the civil rights movement would have been in 1998.

You could still murder black people with little repercussions in the sixties.

I'm sure half the town of Orangeburg South Carolina knew the men who killed my grandfather's little brother and hung him outside City Hall in broad daylight but nobody gave a shit. My grandma remembers it. I'm sure there are people walking around down there right now who either saw it or took part and I notice no rush for justice.

They cheered in my moms class when it was announced that Martin Luther King was killed. the teacher announced it cheerfully.

I grew up with Klan rallies at the flea market and on local football fields.

left to their own devices I'd be shocked if my grandma wasn't a slave.

Even as it was she was raised by slaves.

that shit being a generation closer would have a huge impact on the world.

my grandma went to school and became a teacher. My mother did the same thing. I can't imagine who id be today if my grandma was denied access to an education. slavery had to go and regardless of how simplistic it sounds the south was too stubborn and too evil to let it go without a fight. it most certainly wasn't the entire cause of the Civil War but it was enough of it to call it the main reason.

And I'm sure the north wasn't just looking out for the best interest of black people for any benevolent reason. it's all politics then as now. But fact is they were on the right side of history and the right side of morals.

the south was ****ed up when I was growing up and it was a lot worse for my mother and a hell of a lot worse to my grandmother and her mother. I wouldn't bet a quarter on the South deciding to do the right thing at any point. Slavery would have eventually ended because of outside pressure but they weren't going to just let it go without a fight. and even if they had I can't imagine the extent of the oppressive laws they would have put in place to keep black people down. The Jim Crow era was bad enough when they had the rest of the country to answer to.

Imagine being black in the South in 1955 in the Confederacy. forget being attacked by dogs. The police would have been riding war elephants through black neighborhoods that were thinking about trying to vote.

Id pay anything just for a glimpse at the parallel universe footage of the civil rights movement in a completely independent Confederate States of America.

That shit would be so tragic you'd have to laugh.

[32jazz]

^^^^^^Damn Kblaze.

Your story reminds me of a book I read called:
" At the Hands of Persons Unknown... " about lynchings in America (. Check it out or" Without Sanctuary ")


There would be jubilant photos posed with the dead bodies of the the lynched , even postcards made , souvenirs ( body parts ) sold or publicly displayed ,etc...

Despite the photos & of some of the perpertrators posing with the bodies the case would always be closed & deemed murdered ".. At the hands of Persons Unknown".

The Postmaster General was so embarrassed & horrified that around 1908/09 that he banned the circulation of lynching postcards.


Not shocked by the outcome your Great Uncle.


My family has stories of day to day indignities that they can laugh about NOW ,but no serious violence.

An Aunt of mine was corrected by a White playmates Father by telling her to " put a handle on her name..." .. When she talks to her friend.

In other words My aunt should not call her friend " Becky" any longer, but " Miss Becky" although they were no older than 11 or 12. My Aunt wasnt allowed( nor did she want to go) to return to their home & lost a friend.

[32jazz]

That doesn't contradict what i've said in any way whatsoever.

The South was overrepresented in the US due to the three fifths compromise & Slave Power absolutely dominated American politics up until 1860.




John Quincy Adams spent his Congressional career railing against slave power that dominated the body he was elected to.

The South was so dominate that a " gag rule " was put in place for decades that did not allow for the subject of abolition of slavery to even be discussed on the House floor( although Adams would try to get around it).

The South ( slave power) saw their dominance coming to an end in 1860 when Abraham Lincoln was elected President without winning a single Southern state.

So stop with the poor little innocent Southerners just wanted " states Rights" when they dominated national politics until Lincoln's election.



It was then that the "slave power" that had dominated US politics for decades wanted to take their ball & go home:cry: & the States began exceeding before Lincoln was ever sworn into office.

Stop being a lost cause apologist.

[Kblaze8855]

'

Technological economic progress meant slavery wasnt valuable in the way it once was. You had machines that did what a slave could for far cheaper and people could do what a machine couldnt for much more profit which slavery was a barrier to.

Slaves were very expensive compared to these things too. Keeping slaves was expensive. Even just giving bare subsistence level amounts of food to a slave was expensive when food was much more expensive and scarce back then. Let alone other necessities. Then if you lose a slave you just lost a massive investment. It didnt make a ton of economic sense.

Idk if the world would be better if just left without northern intervention (kind of doubt it), but every country had banned slavery within 20 years or so of the civil war. It was an inevitability and the only thing really holding back abolition was how far behind the north the south was technologically.


All that...and they still wouldnt give it up until forced. And even if they ended slavery at some point....the south didnt want blacks having equal rights even 100 years later in the real world. Imagine another few decades of slavery. Imagine the confederate states treatment of blacks....without northern federal law to hold them back.

The south was just too slow to change. They would have held slavery as long as possible...had to alter their constitution to get rid of it...imagine that fight in confederate congress. It was a battle when it was just the north talking about ratifying the 13th amendment. 65 people voted against it the first time....WITHOUT the south.

Imagine having to pass a law in confederate congress giving blacks equal rights in 1890....

Mississippi didnt vote to officially ratify the 13th ammendment until 1995.

You think you just alter the confederate constitution to free slaves and give blacks rights without a struggle of years?

Lets say it did go away in 20 years....so around 1900 slavery is no longer acceptable.

How long can you imagine it takes for a free and independent South to catch up to current America?

Only 8 of 118 members of congress from the confederate states voted in favor of the Civil rights act...and that was in 1964.

The only one from Texas to vote for it had attack ads ran against him because of it and lost his seat....

It would be a hellish uphill battle getting equal rights out of the south without the north forcing it down their throats.

Some places around here only gave up segregated proms when people came from the north and called them out. And some parents were STILL fighting for it. And this is like...the last 5-6 years.

The south is absolutely ****ed up and the only reason they were forced to play nice is the federal government.

I dont want to know what 1985 Possum Kingdom South Carolina would have been like in the Confederate states of America.

And I didnt make that name up by the way. Real place. Possum Kingdom. Ive been.

You dont want to go.

[32jazz]

'

Technological economic progress meant slavery wasnt valuable in the way it once was. You had machines that did what a slave could for far cheaper and people could do.


The Germans used free slave labor extensively during WWII ( I do understand many men were at war) & I saw a documentary recently that claimed that 20% of the German labor force at one time was slave labor. Despite " technology' the Germans saw the value of free labor.


Slavery was banned in by many countries decades or even centuries before ,but it wasn't due to technological advancement as much as taking a moral stand.

The South wanted to expand slavery & if you think the lifetime of free labor exceeded the Slaveowners profits you are fooling yourself.

[Kblaze8855]

go look at the voting history on the major changes over the last 150 years and tell me again that it isn't the north forcing human progress on the south.

the south is stubborn out of principle. it's always the South standing in the way of progress and that goes for 1860 or 2015.

you can barely vote for human decency and keep a seat in Congress in the south.


they were electing psychos threatning to stand out in front of schools and shoot up buses of black children trying to get an education 90 years after the war.


90% of them voted against civil rights.


sorry if I don't see them modernizing quickly without an outside influence.

[Jameerthefear]

go look at the voting history on the major changes over the last 150 years and tell me again that it isn't the north forcing human progress on the south.

the south is stubborn out of principle. it's always the South standing in the way of progress and that goes for 1860 or 2015.

you can barely vote for human decency and keep a seat in Congress in the south.


they were electing psychos threatning to stand out in front of schools and shoot up buses of black children trying to get an education 90 years after the war.


90% of them voted against civil rights.


sorry if I don't see them modernizing quickly without an outside influence.
can u ban masonanddixon?

[Dresta]

The South was overrepresented in the US due to the three fifths compromise & Slave Power absolutely dominated American politics up until 1860.

John Quincy Adams spent his Congressional career railing against slave power that dominated the body he was elected to.

The South was so dominate that a " gag rule " was put in place for decades that did not allow for the subject of abolition of slavery to even be discussed on the House floor( although Adams would try to get around it).

The South ( slave power) saw their dominance coming to an end in 1860 when Abraham Lincoln was elected President without winning a single Southern state.

So stop with the poor little innocent Southerners just wanted " states Rights" when they dominated national politics until Lincoln's election.

It was then that the "slave power" that had dominated US politics for decades wanted to take their ball & go home:cry: & the States began exceeding before Lincoln was ever sworn into office.

Stop being a lost cause apologist.Really, this is such a simplistic and childish interpretation that it barely deserves a civil reply - what exactly is "Slave Power" - and if it was so dominant (for 70+ years), then why had Virginia withered from the most powerful and important state in the nation (as it was during the War of Independence, and after, when it produced 4 of the first 5 US Presidents). Christ, even Madison and Jefferson and Monroe, all Virginians, made decisions that favoured bankers, business elites and speculators, as they caved to Northern interests, repeatedly, over and over again. I think the final straw was the non-admittance of slaveholders into territories that they'd won with their own blood (over 2/3rds of those who fought were from the South), as that would have meant a permanent subordinate status - without sectional balance, there was always going to be northern attacks on the rights of the states, and thus the inevitability of secession. What you are ignoring that what often lurked behind the antislavery or proslavery crusader was the land speculator, as the opportunities for profits in new territories were enormous (and actually more immediately profitable if these states were free, as Governor of Kansas Reeder recognised early on in his tenure).

The 3/5ths Compromise had nothing to do with "slave power" (that all-explanatory boogeyman) - if slave power had dominated then a slave would've counted as a whole person; the 3/5ths clause was a compromise to reconcile different interests so that the Union could be born, and the Constitution ratified in the first place. It could never have been passed without this compromise, and compromises benefit two parties, not just one - your explaining this as 'slave power' is illogical - all the states wanted to maintain power over their own institutions, and would not have sanctioned the establishment of a Congress with the power to change them. You simply want to ignore that the Constitution protected slavery, legally - Congress had no right to meddle with the domestic institutions of the states, and the "gag rule" was a reflection of that, and a way of dealing with pointless petitions that were only a waste of time. That is not a concession to "Slave Power" but a way to keep Congressmen from shooting one another about a subject over which they had no legal power.

Of course Lincoln was elected without winning any southern state: he wasn't even on the ballot in any southern states; that was the whole problem: that the Republican Party was a strictly sectional, northern party. Think how any people raised on the legend of Washington (a slaveholding Virginian), and the revolutionary spirit of 76, the ideas of popular sovereignty and the right to self-determination would react to such a turn of events, to effectively being ruled by a foreign occupier? The allegiance before the Civil War was to your State first, then to the Union (mostly as the protector of the single states, as a product of their compact). The formation of the Republican Party could only have led to secession, and a hell of a lot of politicians profited from this development, spending their careers agitating (and gaining power and influence) over the cause of slavery.

Take note of this quote from Orestes Brownson:

[QUOTE]Prior to the Southern Rebellion, nearly every American asserted with Lafayettem

[Dresta]

People like you really don't appreciate how destructive war is, and how much permanent and irreversible damage it does to a nation - the American Civil War was by far the most destructive, and the most catastrophic, war in American history; the Reconstruction period was one of the most grotesque in US history, and it was the natural consequence of such a horrible war - and i know, admitting that such a thing could have been done completely unnecessarily, as a result of the passions, vanities, and ambitions of men, is probably not an easy thing for an American to accept. There is a reason the Confederacy had considerable support in Europe, and it wasn't simply about 'racism' (or any other such cultural marxist hocus pocus). As a non-American I can be more objective about the whole thing than you and Kblaze, who really seem quite emotionally invested in the whole issue.

I'll happily admit that maybe the Civil War was necessary (and certainly inevitable from 1850, as Calhoun well recognised in the famous Senate debate on those compromise measures), but if it was, then it was because the nation needed to be bound tighter together to survive - a consolidation of power, in other words, not a moral triumph. Forcing millions of people who wish each other no ill, and formerly regarded one another as brothers, into a conflict that in the end benefitted only politicians, bureaucrats, speculators and industrialists, can never be a triumph for morality, that's for sure.


I wasn't exactly imagining a southern victory. Their loss was inevitable without intervention from the UK or France, which came close to happening a few times. I was just saying however it went down, slavery ending was an inevitability. Slavery even in 1900 sounds ludicrous to me, that's 35 years from the end of the civil war, not 20. The industrial revolution has fully taken hold by then. It just doesn't make sense. Even Brazil had slavery abolished by 1888.

A lot of the worst parts of the south really came about because of the way the war ended anyway. The south was left pretty lawless and was more or less pillaged by the North during the war. The KKK was actually created in direct response to republican governors being elected in the south, and were filled with veterans trying to oust the Northern occupiers.

So the idea that the north was somehow forcing human progress on the south isn't really well founded. It's never as simple as that. The Southern poverty that still exists today was heavily influenced by the outcome of the war and was intentionally never addressed, which is as much of a problem for black southerners as whites.

It's never as simple as people want to make it out to be. The North did an assload of damage in the south. There is no doubt they were in the "right" but they also weren't a beacon of truth and progress. They were out solely for their own gain.
Glad someone else recognises this - Kblaze is constantly conflating the antebellum southern leadership with the rednecks of the KKK and Jim Crow South - the truth is that the vacuum created by the war led to the ushering of the poorly educated former 'po' white trash' as they were contemptuously termed by slaves who often looked down on them. The distinctions just aren't so simple as that between


Also, I don't think the South could ever have 'won' without heavy external support, but they could certainly have worn out the North, until it no longer had the will to fight (i mean, without the resilience and resourcefulness of Lincoln i think they could have given up far sooner) - resources and manpower are only so much when the population has to be compelled, as the vast majority of the North was (not to mention the need to declare martial law and suspend the writ of habeas corpus to secure the border states, and to prevent northern infighting, as there were plenty of people in the North who supported the Confederate cause - particularly the Irish, who were generally treated like shit by the Yankees). Funnily enough, it was the doctrine of states rights that weakened Confederate leadership the most - impaled on the spike of their own ideals :lol (which were only a masquerade to hide racism according to some).

[jongib369]

kblaze dropping nukes in this thread. Good God.
He's my favorite poster for sure. Always well thought out, never seen him not say something of value. When he posts it's usually an either and you see trolls get desperate

Amazes me how ignorant people from the south were, saying blacks were dumb despite never getting a proper education. As if they were "naturally" more intelligent. Moms side is from Kentucky, so chances are if you go back far enough they were racist. But my Grandfathers side came over from Ireland in 1917, and married a Cherokee woman. So maybe he didn't give a ****. Not sure about my Grandmas side though. Not that I had anything to do with it...But I could see knowing that your genes came from such ignorant/evil people being unsettling

Former southern white racist explains why they hate/fear (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2kCEsa_fIBQ)

[longtime lurker]

You gotta love the morons on this board. Yeah the South has shown itself to be very progressive, even in 2015 its a welcoming utopia. Yeah let's just let an institution built on rape, indiscriminate murder and torture to work itself out..

[Kblaze8855]

Forcing millions of people who wish each other no ill, and formerly regarded one another as brothers, into a conflict that in the end benefitted only politicians, bureaucrats, speculators and industrialists, can never be a triumph for morality, that's for sure.


So my great great grandfather who was a slave...and was freed....became a farmer...saved up...bought land...left it to his 7 daughters....

He didnt benefit from the civil war? His family didnt?

[Jameerthefear]

So my great great grandfather who was a slave...and was freed....became a farmer...saved up...bought land...left it to his 7 daughters....

He didnt benefit from the civil war? His family didnt?
again, can u ban masonanddixon?

[Kblaze8855]

Who? And why?

[Jameerthefear]

Who? And why?
PM'd

[gigantes]

So my great great grandfather who was a slave...and was freed....became a farmer...saved up...bought land...left it to his 7 daughters....

He didnt benefit from the civil war? His family didnt?
not to mention the line-- "and formerly regarded one another as brothers."

i really don't understand what he's getting at. as i see it, the closest that US citizens as a whole have ever been was probably during things like the two world wars and 9/11. but on the whole, i think that americans (like most countries) had major distrust between various regions, ethnicities and ideological viewpoints from the beginning.

[Kblaze8855]

PM'd



He seems rather racist ill grant. A lot of people are racist. You can be that....just....cant take it too far while posting. Seems he occasionally does....and I believe he gets banned for it now and then. Just not forever.

[GIF REACTION]

It's great this is all in the past and should have no bearing on today

[gigantes]

i don't know much about the history of abolition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline#1800.E2.80.931849) across the developed nations, but it looks like somehow the south had unusually high leverage in holding out against the world, in effect. it looks like most countries made a fairly clean, decisive break, but not the US.

i suspect the difference comes down to the fact that slavery was such a huge part of continental US industry compared to other nations. and... anything else? the very strength of democracy (and money), perhaps?

[mehyaM24]

It's great this is all in the past and should have no bearing on today

right to the point - agreed.