Stereotyping the Old South

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Thanks, Dixie. Blacks = Dogs

You're welcome, but I never said that.

People of 1860 were opposed to slavery because it was inhumane, not because they felt blacks were equal to whites.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Deflection does not equate to a valid argument.

The valid argument has been presented twice in this thread, and we've had this argument before, so how many times does it have to be presented before you can refute it with something honest? All I keep getting from you and others, is this revisionist claptrap, and scapegoating of the South. Sorry, but the South is not going to take all the blame for slavery, racism, and discrimination in America. There is plenty of blame to go around, for all of it! No need to try and paint the South as the guilty ones, while the North is portrayed as crusaders for black freedom, because that simply isn't an accurate view of history. It is indicative of a racist mindset, to try and show others are to blame, to absolve yourself of any responsibility, to marginalize and minimize YOUR group's involvement.

 

[Bonestorm]

No they didn't. Southerners did not feel the world would be more perfect without black people. In fact, just the opposite is true. There was no prejudice against black people in the South in 1860 that wasn't also in the North in 1860. To pretend that is how it was, is laughably foolish and demonstrably incorrect. The South advocated slavery, not because they didn't think blacks should have equal rights to whites, but because they were the source of labor which drove Southern economies. The North didn't oppose slavery because they thought blacks should be equal to whites, they opposed it for much the same reason we currently oppose dog fighting. Now, those who think it is inhumane to fight dogs, do not automatically feel that dogs should be treated equally to people, do they? It's two entirely different arguments, isn't it? There were people in BOTH THE NORTH AND SOUTH who favored abolition of human slavery. The bone of contention was over compensation for property rightly purchased and owned by the slave owners. Many slave owners freed their slaves voluntarily, and many slaves remained on the plantations as hired hands, long after slavery was abolished.

From the Cornerstone Speech by Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy:

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Yes Nigey, I know... they wrote some terrible awful sounding shit back then, in context of today's viewpoints. The problem is, there are speeches and writings from Abe Lincoln and others who were opposed to slavery, that were just as awful sounding. Lincoln tried for a year to get Congress to adopt his plan to ship all the slaves to Central America, Haiti, and back to Africa. They actually purchased the land for this, and tried it on a small scale, where hundreds of slaves were sent to their deaths... shipped off to an undeveloped island, with no resources, no food, no means of defending themselves from wild animals or disease. When this idea fell on its face, Lincoln then began negotiating with slave owners to allow slavery to continue until 1911, when it would then be phased out.

If Gallup had been around back then, it would have found about 98% of the white people believed blacks were inferior to whites. It was extremely RARE to find a white man who believed otherwise, and wasn't afraid to articulate it. This notion that Northerners were somehow standing up for "civil rights" by opposing slavery, is naive and simple-minded, and fails to comprehend the prevailing viewpoints of the time. I can go dig up Lincoln's statements during the Douglass debates, where he clearly states that he doesn't believe blacks are equal to whites, nor will they ever be. I can show you statements from Lincoln that confirm he was a strict "segregationist" when it came to the question of what to do with the slaves once they were freed. I could post a Lincoln quote and a David Duke quote, and you wouldn't be able to tell me which was which.

What you (and others) are trying to do here, is like me trying to say it was the Northerners who were opposed to the women's right to vote, then posting a bunch of shit that Northerners said back then, while completely ignoring the Southerners who were saying the same thing! We can't parse out what we want to look at and ignore everything we don't, it all has to be pulled out and examined objectively, and you people just aren't doing that. You want to hide behind some silly argument that doesn't comport with reality, because the South lost the Civil War.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Nigel was simply pointing out that the Confederacy was based upon slavery, and that it was trying to defend a racial caste system.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Nigel was simply pointing out that the Confederacy was based upon slavery, and that it was trying to defend a racial caste system.

Then we must ask, WHY was the Confederacy based upon slavery? Cotton grows well in the South. It doesn't grow north of the Mason-Dixon very well. Therefore, from the inception of our country, the southernmost states were heavily agricultural, and since cotton was KING of all crops, that is what they mostly grew. At the time, the only way to harvest cotton, was manual labor. Slavery was accepted by the Founding Fathers as a 'necessary evil' and our entire society adopted the same mindset, for nearly a century. As technology evolved, and people began to assimilate far away from the agricultural South, slaves, or black people to any large degree, the empathy and compassion for humanity began to gnaw at the conscience of Americans, and the Abolitionist movement began. But the fact of the matter is, slavery is the fault of everyone who condoned it as much as those who fought to keep it. The North benefited just as much as The South, from US tariffs on Cotton, in fact, much of the initial industrialization of the North was funded from the sale of Cotton and Tobacco in the South. Our NATIONAL economy was tied to Cotton, long before there was a Confederacy. The misconception you seem to have is, the South was somehow a separate entity before the Civil War, as if we already had two different countries going here... that wasn't the case. The South was part of The North, we both made up the USA. Industry was the base for Northern economy, because Cotton didn't freaking grow there! Cotton SUBSIDIZED the upstart industrialization of the North, prior to the Civil War.

 

[Minister of Truth]

Dixie, the South is a separate entity TODAY. I fail to see how it could have been different then. The North could have certainly used slaves in mining, shipbuilding, and other labor intensive exercizes, but chose not to. In fact, many people feared that slaves would be moved out West and ruin the chances of white settlers to prosper.

 

[apple0154]

It never ceases to amaze me how many ignorant people out there, blame the South for slavery, as if it were the South who insisted on slavery against the will of the North, or the rest of the country. Our Founding Fathers did NOT abolish slavery when they forged the Constitution and this great nation. They certainly COULD have done so, if they had wanted to. Or the US Congress, for nearly a century, before the Civil War, COULD have abolished slavery...they DIDN'T! The Supreme Court, COULD have ruled slavery unconstitutional, cases were brought before the courts, time and time again, only to have the SCOTUS uphold the institution of slavery. The Confederacy hadn't even been formed yet, and these things were happening, so how in the hell do you blame it all on the South?

I guess hate mongers need a scapegoat for their hatred and vitriol, and the South makes a good one for the ignorant. The Victors write the history books, so I guess we have to live with our children being taught revisionist versions of the war, and what it was about. Most people believe the Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery, and that is simply not the truth. Slavery was indeed a big issue of the time, and the vast majority of slaves were in the South, because that is where you grow cotton. The practice of importing slaves to the US, had stopped several decades before the Civil War, the world was changing, views were changing regarding slavery, and I can't help but think, many a mind were 'uneasy' with slavery in light of our Constitutional principles of freedom for all. Even Southern plantation owners must have known slavery was on its way out, and eventually the practice would end. To pretend that Southerners merely wanted to cling to slavery at all costs, because they hated black people or didn't want to free them, is just deplorable and sickening claptrap.

It's OK, Dix. One day we'll get together for a beer and listen to some good music.

 

[apple0154]

Congenital racism? Wow, never heard that one! So, according to Chicklet, the mere fact that you are born in the South, means you are born a racist, and there is nothing you can do about it. That's what "congenital" means, and he chose the word, not me. I actually read this long sentence a few times, I wanted to fully appreciate the level of sheer hate displayed by Chicklet for his fellow man... read it again... can you feel it? It's a deep-rooted seething hate. Now Chicklet doesn't know me, doesn't know anything about me, but he has devout hatred in his heart for me, because I am someone who was born in the South, and that means I am a congenital racist, I can't help that. He goes on to accuse me of being dishonest and lying or distorting the facts, when everything I pointed out is absolutely true. That's why he failed to specify what I was lying or distorting.



What? The creation of the Confederacy marked the legal end to slavery? Is that what you learned in public school? When the Confederacy was created, slavery was still legal. In fact, just months before the Confederacy was created, Abe Lincoln was busy trotting out alternative ideas, like keeping slavery legal until 1911... rounding up the slaves and shipping them off to Haiti and Central America, or back to Africa. Yeah, that Abe really did believe black people should be equal to whites, that's why he said "The negro will never be able to occupy a place in society with whites." Slavery would remain legal in America until Congress and the people amended the Constitution after the Civil War!

You seem to ignorantly think that Abe Lincoln abolished slavery, and the South got mad about that and formed the Confederacy to fight for slavery, but that's not what happened, and it's a gross misunderstanding of history to believe that's what happened. There was a great deal of concern that Lincoln would free the slaves, and there were many Southerners who had no problem with that, the sticking point was compensation for property owned. Now, I know you don't like to think of slaves as property, but the Confederacy didn't make them property, the Supreme Court ruled that, long before anyone ever thought of the Confederacy. So we have these people who owned legitimate property, according to the Supreme Court, and the Bill of Rights already in existence, says that government can't seize your property without compensation. Naturally, these people felt like they had a legitimate complaint, and there was a great deal of money invested in slaves. But that was still not the reason for secession, it was clearly about states rights versus federalism. Slavery was a huge part of that, and it's understandable that people reading the articles of secession would get the impression it was about slavery, but it wasn't about the issue of enslaving human beings, it was about just compensation for property, and the federal government's stubborn refusal to deal with that.

Jim Crow laws were enacted as early as 1866, shortly after the war. They were the basis for what became known as 'segregation' and while we currently have a negative connotation of segregation, a great many Americans believed segregation to be a legitimate way to assimilate blacks into society. Much of their belief was based on ignorance and bigoted prejudice, and it did last way too long, but again... The Confederacy had been defeated before the first Jim Crow law was passed, and for a century, the SCOTUS upheld the Jim Crow laws... the Confederacy didn't force them to do that. The South didn't make the SCOTUS rule as it did, and they didn't make Congress become complacent and disinterested in civil rights for black Americans. It's amazing how you attempt to tie Jim Crow laws to The Confederacy, when they didn't come about until after the Confederacy was no more.



I haven't denied there are racists throughout the 50 states, but I refuse to accept some idiocy that Southern people are just natural born racists because they happened to be born below the Mason-Dixon line! There is no "intrenched racism" in the South, or anywhere else in America, that was maybe the case 60 years ago, but not today. No one currently alive in the South, ever owned a slave or knew any relatives who owned a slave. It doesn't matter what people who were here before us did, how can we be responsible for what they did? If we're going to live vicariously through history, maybe we can stick a bone in your nose and send your unhappy black ass back to Africa, where you can be the ignorant little jungle bunny history intended you to be?




Fuck YOU, and the mentality behind the BS rationalizations for your OWN racist beliefs.

Slavery was a huge part of that, and it's understandable that people reading the articles of secession would get the impression it was about slavery, but it wasn't about the issue of enslaving human beings, it was about just compensation for property, and the federal government's stubborn refusal to deal with that.

Is that why you still have a problem with taxes? Do you still feel the government is trying to take your property ($$$)?

 

[Guns Guns Guns]

Who thinks Dixie has a point?​

Hands up!​

 

[Taichiliberal]

Slavery was a huge part of that, and it's understandable that people reading the articles of secession would get the impression it was about slavery, but it wasn't about the issue of enslaving human beings, it was about just compensation for property, and the federal government's stubborn refusal to deal with that.

Is that why you still have a problem with taxes? Do you still feel the government is trying to take your property ($$$)?

Yeah, all those people---oops, I mean "property" being let go without gov't compensation.

Posts #78, 85 and 87

Fucking Confederate defending intellectual cowards! They just can't accept that they LOST, and the WORLD sees their philosophy and "reasoning" for what it truly is...dehumanizing, racist clap trap.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Slavery was a huge part of that, and it's understandable that people reading the articles of secession would get the impression it was about slavery, but it wasn't about the issue of enslaving human beings, it was about just compensation for property, and the federal government's stubborn refusal to deal with that.

Is that why you still have a problem with taxes? Do you still feel the government is trying to take your property ($$$)?

Just so you realize this, I was not around back when we had legal slavery in America, so I don't "still have a problem" with anything from back then. In fact, I don't even know anyone who knows anyone who was alive back then, to ask if this is the case with them. So I fail to see what your point was with that question, other than to display your profound ignorance on the most basic things... we already had plenty of proof of that.

Let me give your dumb ass an analogy, perhaps you can follow that? Let's say the US Government decides that it's going to ban all farm equipment which operates on diesel fuel. They tell the farmers, you have to hand over all your diesel-powered equipment, it is no longer going to be legal to own it. You are expected to replace your antiquated diesel equipment with solar-powered equipment, at your own expense, the government isn't going to help you with that, you're on your own, but we'll be by to confiscate your diesel-powered equipment soon...... Now, do these farmers have a legitimate constitutional complaint, that the federal government is overstepping it's authority? I think they would! The Fourth Amendment is pretty clear about property rights, isn't it?

In essence, this was what was put on the table for Southerners to accept in 1860, and they rejected it! Now we can have all kinds of philosophical arguments over human rights, but the law was the law, and our SCOTUS had upheld the law for nearly a century, allowing many cotton growers to acquire many slaves, which they purchased as property for many years. It was an investment they had to make, in order to harvest the massive volumes of cotton, which fueled both the Northern and Southern economies.