Racism and Living in the Past

[ThatRobGuy]

It was taxes.

was taxes a reason for the civil war - Google Search

With regards to the reasons for wanting to leave the union, wouldn't it make more sense to trust the words of the people actually wanting to leave, rather than someone from the North?

Prominent figures within the confederacy were very clear on why they wanted to leave. See the Cornerstone speech I posted above from Confederate VP Alexander Stephens.

Excerpt:
The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

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.

Calling the idea that "the negro is not equal to the white man; and slavery is his natural condition" the Foundation and Corner-stone of their new government would indicate it's the primary driver.


When unfair taxation policies are the cause of wanting to break away and form a new nation, you have quotes like:

"no taxation without representation" (sort of like with the American Revolution)
...and not...

"the negro's natural condition is slavery, and our new country will be founded on that great truth"


A president simply saying a belligerent's "reason for engaging in a conflict was XYZ", isn't always grounded in reality.

We once had a president who told the nation that we were attacked because "the terrorists hated our freedom", that wasn't an accurate assessment either.



As far as an accurate historical analysis:
Causes Of The Civil War | History Detectives | PBS

What led to the outbreak of the bloodiest conflict in the history of North America?

A common explanation is that the Civil War was fought over the moral issue of slavery.

In fact, it was the economics of slavery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict.

A key issue was states' rights.

The Southern states wanted to assert their authority over the federal government so they could abolish federal laws they didn't support, especially laws interfering with the South's right to keep slaves and take them wherever they wished.

Another factor was territorial expansion.

The South wished to take slavery into the western territories, while the North was committed to keeping them open to white labor alone.

Meanwhile, the newly formed Republican party, whose members were strongly opposed to the westward expansion of slavery into new states, was gaining prominence.

The election of a Republican, Abraham Lincoln, as President in 1860 sealed the deal. His victory, without a single Southern electoral vote, was a clear signal to the Southern states that they had lost all influence.

Feeling excluded from the political system, they turned to the only alternative they believed was left to them: secession, a political decision that led directly to war.

Regardless of which other proxy issues get cited, they all have a line that can be drawn back to the institution of slavery and the south's desire to preserve it.

 

[RBPerry]

...uh, yeah, about that....

Why exactly was the south wanting to break from the union? Asking for a friend...

Hint: The Vice President of the Confederacy (Alexander Stephens) addressed it in his infamous "Cornerstone" speech.


What he said in his speech (if you're up for some light reading):
The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

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.

Or, to paraphrase, he's saying
- "Slavery is the reason for the late rupture and present revolution" (referring to secession efforts by the south)

- "The ideas in the constitution were fundamentally wrong, because they rested on the assumption of equality of the races"

- "Their new government was to be "based on the moral truth of white superiority"".

Notice he didn't use the words "part of" or "partially influenced by"... he said "based on", and then said his new government was to be "founded on" the idea, and that the belief in white superiority was the "great truth" on which the confederacy's "cornerstone rests upon"

If you read the confederate constitution, the majority of it is largely a word-for-word copy of the US Constitution, with the only differences being ones that specifically centered around protecting slavery.

If there were some other reasons besides slavery that were the catalyst behind the the south wanting to break from the union, I would expect those other differences to be reflected somewhere in their founding documents.


If one says they don't want to be part of their current country anymore and wishes start their own, and they create a central document that's basically a carbon copy of the one from the country they're claiming to want to leave, with the only critical differences being clauses pertaining to slavery...to say slavery isn't the main reason for their intended departure is a dubious assertion at best.

I remember reading this a very long time ago. I do understand that slavery was an issue, and should have been. However Lincoln had other fires burning at the time including building a military that would deal with the Indian problems as settlers moved West. Remember, this is only eleven or twelve years after gold rush in California, America wanted all of the West and it is easy to understand why. As stated, taxation of the South was more of an issue with the South, they didn't want to support the North building a stronger military. Most likely because they realized at some point the fight would move to the issue of slavery. I believe if they had supported the buildup of the Unions military and paid fair share in taxes Lincoln would have left well enough alone and address the slavery issue later. I also believe Lincoln understood he could not allow the South to brake from the Union without a fight.

 

[SummerMadness]

I remember reading this a very long time ago. I do understand that slavery was an issue, and should have been. However Lincoln had other fires burning at the time including building a military that would deal with the Indian problems as settlers moved West. Remember, this is only eleven or twelve years after gold rush in California, America wanted all of the West and it is easy to understand why. As stated, taxation of the South was more of an issue with the South, they didn't want to support the North building a stronger military. Most likely because they realized at some point the fight would move to the issue of slavery. I believe if they had supported the buildup of the Unions military and paid fair share in taxes Lincoln would have left well enough alone and address the slavery issue later. I also believe Lincoln understood he could not allow the South to brake from the Union without a fight.

The primary reason was slavery. All these other issues mentioned do not appear in speeches and founding documents, yet people keep saying to ignore those details for these other issues that do not appear in the literature of the time.

 

[RBPerry]

I'm not a historian, I'm a retired psychologist and nutritionist that went through the education system in the 60s and 70s. I no longer have my books from college, that was Loma Linda University and American history was a required as with all schools. Back then homosexuality was a sin and considered sexual perversion, today, well we know what we have today, anything goes.
My point, many things have been changed to remain politically correct, and not offend someone's overly sensitive feelings. Today we have the internet with instant research and of course everything on the internet is true. I'm offended by large avatars that promote radical movements.

 

[SummerMadness]

I'm not a historian, I'm a retired psychologist and nutritionist that went through the education system in the 60s and 70s. I no longer have my books from college, that was Loma Linda University and American history was a required as with all schools. Back then homosexuality was a sin and considered sexual perversion, today, well we know what we have today, anything goes.
My point, many things have been changed to remain politically correct, and not offend someone's overly sensitive feelings. Today we have the internet with instant research and of course everything on the internet is true. I'm offended by large avatars that promote radical movements.

It's not political correctness, it's the actual history. You are simply ignoring the founding documents and speeches of the Confederacy to argue a false history. You mention things being different from the 1960s, can you tell me anytime in history where things haven't changed because there is more knowledge. They used to have a solar system model for atoms in the old days, we learned more and no longer use those outdated and incorrect models. However, in the case of the Confederacy, slavery was always known as the cause, it's the revisionists that are trying to change the history to it not being about slavery.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I remember reading this a very long time ago. I do understand that slavery was an issue, and should have been.

It wasn't just "an issue", it was the central issue.

Just about every other issue was a proxy-issue that had a direct line that could be drawn back to the central issue of slavery.

States' Rights Issue: The southern states wanted the ability to abolish federal laws, specifically the ones interfering with their ability to keep slaves (even though many southern states were staunchly opposed to states rights when certain northern states made their own laws suggesting that they were under no obligation to return slaves back to the south, and wanted the federal government to intervene in order to force those northern states to return their "property" to them)

Expansionism issue: They wanted the ability to take slavery into western territories

Taxation: They didn't want the Northern states to collect revenues from the south (and thus build stronger military forces that could ultimately beat them) if/when there were a fight over the issue of slavery. - which, the writing was on the wall that there would be.


No matter which way you slice it, slavery was the central focal point of the conflict. In every case, it was either blatantly the reason, or indirectly the reason (with very few degrees of separation)


If the South's mentality was simply "it's about tax, states' rights, and the ability to expand", after they lost the war, that should've been the end of their hostility toward Black people, but obviously it wasn't. Their post-war actions in the reconstruction and Jim Crow era were more than enough evidence that their mentality was very much in line with what Alexander Stephens said in his Corner-stone speech.

In fact, as a middle finger to the Black community and the federal government (due to them being mad at civil rights legislation), most of the confederate monuments (that people have been fighting over) were erected in the 1920's-1960's...decades after the civil war was over, by people who never even met the the confederate figures they claimed to be honoring... it was simply a virtue signal to other racists to let people know "where they stand" so to speak.

 

[RBPerry]

Ok, lets think about what was going on, we had the gold rush, both Southern and Norther people were heading West. America is always been about the money. Lincoln needed to put a stop to the Indians slaughtering settlers, so we started slaughtering Indians, that required more soldiers, and that required more money.
The South realized if the North was able to build a large and powerful army they would never be able to defeat the North if war came, so they cut off the money, remember the South was making huge profits off the the cotton and tobacco industry, of course they were making huge profits, they had free labor.
I would never imply that slavery wasn't major factor, I'm saying it wasn't the issue that actually started the war, the South wanted to be it's own country with it's own laws and the North wouldn't allow that.
Since the slaves had been kidnapped from Africa Lincoln wanted to return them to their native country, and that to me was a bad idea on his part.
Yes what the South did after the war is horrid and there is no justification for it. There is still plenty of bigots in this country and that is a shame. I lived through the civil rights movement and seen the injustice first hand, I also groups like the black panthers that decided to hate all whites.
People like Charles Manson wanted to create a race war between the whites and blacks, that is how sick some people were back then, but some good came out of it, and today it is becoming a level playing field in most parts of the country, but not all.
You will never stop ignorant people from deciding to hate someone. The KKK also hates Jews, but waves a bible around claiming to be Christians. Guess they don't realize Jesus was a Jew.
I do feel sorry for the blacks that lived through the injustices and discrimination for so long.
Personally, I don't know why any Southern person would want to hold on to the confederate ideology or heritage.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Have you ever noticed that African Americans are told they should "get over it" on the subject of segregation or slavery? These are the same people that support the flying of the Confederate flag as "heritage."

Whoah, hang on a second. Not everone who doesn't jump in with both feet on this BLM movement is waving a confederate flag. I honestly don't consider myself as racist, but some of these "movements" go too far imo, including BLM. Seems to have an undertone of capatalizing on a "white guilt" movement. I agree with RB Perry that when you talk about black people who experienced the '60s and '70s, you have to show some respect for what they went through. But we had some "movements" back then that made some significant changes towards progress. Fast forward to 2021 and I'm not so sure we can and should go further with instituting policy with the sole purpose of advancing black people. If America is so overrun with prejudice, how is it that Barrack Obama became president ( who I thought was a great president,btw)? How is it that we have a black woman as VP? Maybe because they rolled up their sleeves, got to work and earned it? How is it that Mike Tomlin is still the coach for the Pittsburgh Steelers in a league that supposedly discriminates black coaches? Maybe because he's a good, successful coach? There have been several black coaches hired around the league but some have been fired. Why? Could it be because they weren't successful? And how come most players in the NBA are black? Shouldn't we be instituting policy to hire more white players? Could the discrepancy have anything at all to do with talent level? Now we have "systemic racism". A smoky theory used to enhance the white guilt experience. There may be some merit to the theory, but not enough imo to regard it as anything more than one of lifes obstacles in this day and age. Yes, get over it. I sat in school next to black kids who had the same teacher I did. Played on the same football team with the same coaches. We won championships together and considered ourselves equal as teammates. I didn't see anybody forced to pick cotton or any black/white water fountains. Didn't get the job because the rich white CEO hired his nephew? Neither did I. I don't have have an uncle whose a CEO either. Bottom line is this: life presents obstacles. Being black is one of them. I don't deny this. So is being poor, not blessed with superior intelligence, being handicapped, too fat, too short. Buck up and get past it like Obama, Tomlin and so many other black americans have done. I mean what's the goal of BLM? To end racism completely? Not gonna happen. There's always gonna be some idiot in Tennessee who'd just as soon shoot the black man than look at him, regardless of any laws instituted against this. Just like there's always gonna be serial killers and rapists despite the fact that we have laws to deter this. We jsut have to lock up the criminals as they present. A cop just got sentenced to jail and a day later we have a white cop who killed a black girl. So did that sentence imposed actually send a message that would deter cops from shooting a suspect? Apparently not. And in this instance, it might've changed the landscape had the cop froze because of this movement and allowed the victim to continue stabbing someone to death. How about black lives not create a chaotic scene of five people running around trying to stab each other? Nothing gets said about that- might detract from the movement. And nothing ever gets mentioned when a cop shoots a white person. Not the hot topic/flavor of the month so not newsworthy.
I admit that I'm not entirely up to speed with all of this. I could have some racism in me that I'm not aware of, but it would have to be pointed out. Some would call me racist for the things I've said above, but I don't think so. And I will admit that if an opportunity gets presented to me that is not detrimental to anyone, I'm not gonna stop and ask myself would a black man (or anyone else forthat matter) get this same opportunity. I'm going to take advantage of the opportunity. And I'd suggest that any black man would do the same if the roles were reversed.
I'll also admit that I got an eye opener when I recently watched ESPNs 30/30 documentary on Micheal Vick. Watching that I started thinking, "well, yeah, there's a legitimate example of systemic racism". Sheesh, threw the man in jail and ruined his life and career. I remember thinking it was BS back then and still do. I'm not saying what he did wasn't wrong, and I would also believe he knew it was wrong. But I also believe he probably thought if he got caught, the punishment would fit the crime. Which would be something like a 10K fine and social work with PETA. Not a ridiculous jail sentence. You could see from the documentary that racism was involved, but then, Vick was facing a double-whammy. He also had the "dog people" against him, who can be equally as rabid because they're under the illusion that dogs are people, or at the very least should be treated as such.
I'm not saying we shouldn't acknowledge and deter racism, and I'm not completely against BLM. I just think with today's media competing for and needing stories to sell advertising, that any "movement" that currently has legs is going to get overexaggerated and blown out of proportion prompting hordes of lemmings who are more interested in being a part of something than the cause to jump on board. I think it's obvious as we look back that the we're moving in the right direction, especially as inter-racial marraiges become more prominent. It just takes time. Some day, probably not in our lifetime or even the next, skin color won't be an issue. Of course that won't end prejudice. Humans always need a reason to choose up sides so we'll probably have a prejiduce against people with a certain eye-color, or hair color, or from what part of the country you're from etc...

Wanna hear something ironic?

I actually have an uncle that's a CEO several times over, and a millionaire several times over. Know what it got me?

Zip. I doubt I'm even in his will.

People are idiots when it comes to the very rich. He was handed nothing, came out of one of the poorest towns I've ever been too, he has 3 older brothers....two who did well but no one would call rich, and one who is dirt poor.

He worked overtime, all the time, sacrificed time with his family and friends....put in 80+ hour weeks. Climbed the ladder by working harder than everyone else, got pretty high up.

He was offered a job to take over a failing business in the same field and he leveraged their desperation to take a huge bonus in company stock. It was worthless. It was very risky, not a safe move. He reduced the value of the company to nearly nothing, bought a ton more stock, rebuilt it from the ground up, and retired at 45 a multimillionaire.

Since then he only came out of retirement to be the CEO of various companies if they were willing to pay millions. 3 times I think....and only for 2 or 3 years.

People have weird ideas about the very rich. He's the only one I personally know, and his kids have had the advantage of better schools....but none are anywhere near his success. Realistically, his success could amount to little in 3-4 generations. It's not like the movies where some monopoly man passes wealth onto wealth onto wealth generation after generation.

That doesn't really happen often.

 

[Pommer]

I believe if they had supported the buildup of the Unions military and paid fair share in taxes Lincoln would have left well enough alone and address the slavery issue later.

What if “later” had been, say, 1967?
Another link, on the house!

 

[Pommer]

My point, many things have been changed to remain politically correct, and not offend someone's overly sensitive feelings.

I get that “things ain’t what they used to be we have to have standards and if they keep changing then why have standards at all?” sentiment, but things do change, even standards of behavior in society.
What’s the sense of having a collective free-will if we don’t allow ourselves to, you know, CHOOSE what standards are “in”?

Don’t worry, in fifty years the homosexuals will be deep back in the closet.

 

[Pommer]

I do feel sorry for the blacks that lived through the injustices and discrimination for so long.

See, here’s the thing, for a significant percentage of black folks, it’s still bad!
That’s why they complain about it.
If we make things better for them somehow?, then they won’t complain about being treated unjustly.
Win-win.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I get that “things ain’t what they used to be we have to have standards and if they keep changing then why have standards at all?” sentiment, but things do change, even standards of behavior in society.
What’s the sense of having a collective free-will if we don’t allow ourselves to, you know, CHOOSE what standards are “in”?

Groupthink is slow death....and you don't actually hold standards.

 

[Ana the Ist]

See, here’s the thing, for a significant percentage of black folks, it’s still bad!
That’s why they complain about it.
If we make things better for them somehow?, then they won’t complain about being treated unjustly.
Win-win.

Why?

If complaining about a problem, real or not, got you free goods, opportunities, whatever....why would you stop complaining?

In fact, you'd probably be making things up. Does Jussie Smollett ring a bell?

 

[Pommer]

Groupthink is slow death....and you don't actually hold standards.

Societies loosen and tighten social norms in cycles for a reason, usually that reason is religious fervor that “things need to be a certain way and that’s that!”
The Country has gotten away from religious and took a hard turn to the libertine some time ago.
It’ll go back to a societal lock down, soon enough, no need to pine for it to happen.

 

[Pommer]

Why?

If complaining about a problem, real or not, got you free goods, opportunities, whatever....why would you stop complaining?

Oh! THAT’S why they’re doing this all?
For “free” stuff?
Yeah, why don’t they just work for justice!?

In fact, you'd probably be making things up. Does Jussie Smollett ring a bell?

I love it when you flail!

 

[Ana the Ist]

With regards to the reasons for wanting to leave the union, wouldn't it make more sense to trust the words of the people actually wanting to leave, rather than someone from the North?

Prominent figures within the confederacy were very clear on why they wanted to leave. See the Cornerstone speech I posted above from Confederate VP Alexander Stephens.

Excerpt:
The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

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.

Calling the idea that "the negro is not equal to the white man; and slavery is his natural condition" the Foundation and Corner-stone of their new government would indicate it's the primary driver.


When unfair taxation policies are the cause of wanting to break away and form a new nation, you have quotes like:

"no taxation without representation" (sort of like with the American Revolution)
...and not...

"the negro's natural condition is slavery, and our new country will be founded on that great truth"


A president simply saying a belligerent's "reason for engaging in a conflict was XYZ", isn't always grounded in reality.

We once had a president who told the nation that we were attacked because "the terrorists hated our freedom", that wasn't an accurate assessment either.



As far as an accurate historical analysis:
Causes Of The Civil War | History Detectives | PBS

What led to the outbreak of the bloodiest conflict in the history of North America?

A common explanation is that the Civil War was fought over the moral issue of slavery.

In fact, it was the economics of slavery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict.

A key issue was states' rights.

The Southern states wanted to assert their authority over the federal government so they could abolish federal laws they didn't support, especially laws interfering with the South's right to keep slaves and take them wherever they wished.

Another factor was territorial expansion.

The South wished to take slavery into the western territories, while the North was committed to keeping them open to white labor alone.

Meanwhile, the newly formed Republican party, whose members were strongly opposed to the westward expansion of slavery into new states, was gaining prominence.

The election of a Republican, Abraham Lincoln, as President in 1860 sealed the deal. His victory, without a single Southern electoral vote, was a clear signal to the Southern states that they had lost all influence.

Feeling excluded from the political system, they turned to the only alternative they believed was left to them: secession, a political decision that led directly to war.

Regardless of which other proxy issues get cited, they all have a line that can be drawn back to the institution of slavery and the south's desire to preserve it.

I think the colonial reasons for independence are simplified a bit by the whole taxation thing.

It was a good argument to rally behind.

I think the real reason is a little more abstract....they simply didn't see themselves benefitting from the empire. The saw the empire benefitting from them.

Last I checked, taxes weren't overly high on the American colonies.

The bigger problem came from being embroiled in British politics that had little to do with colonial happenings.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Oh! THAT’S why they’re doing this all?
For “free” stuff?
Yeah, why don’t they just work for justice!?

Name the injustice.

 

[Pommer]

Name the injustice.

That’s not my call.
It’s theirs.
You should listen to them, not me.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That’s not my call.
It’s theirs.
You should listen to them, not me.

They can't answer either.

 

[Pommer]

The bigger problem came from being embroiled in British politics that had little to do with colonial happenings.

One of the things was a lack of coin from Mother England, the endless wars with the French kept specie away from Vespucciland, and we only had our internal monies that wasn’t accepted on the world market.
It was strangling our economy so we took our economy out of George’s hands.