The Confederate States of America {history revised}

[susanann]

The northerners in my family like to call it the war of Southern Succession.

A civil war is when 2 different factions fight each other to take over the government. This was not the case. The south never intended to take over the entire country - they just wanted to succeed and start their own country. Not a civil war at all.

 

[MikeMcK]

Thank you! I have been trying to tell the guy that, but apparently he is too frickin' hard-headed to understand. Either that or he's a bitter yankee that's doing his best to try to make us look as wrong as possible. I vote the latter.

I doubt he meant to be that way. He's probably just a public school student who wasn't taught any better.

I just saw a terrific show on HBO last night with comedian, Robert Whul (sp?), about how so much of what we know as historical fact really isn't. I'm planning to use it in my classes in the future.

 

[Agrippa]

I doubt he meant to be that way. He's probably just a public school student who wasn't taught any better.

Public school? *Laughs* My history education consisted of "a civil war happened, it ended, then nothing happened until the Great Depression." My real history education came from university classes and books.

Still waiting to hear about why the founders of the Confederacy decided to lie in the Declarations of the Causes of Secession.

 

[moonkitty]

I think everyone agrees that if the south had won, we all would have more personal liberty, and our federal government could not have gotten so powerful as it is today - so we all would be better off.

Please explain how blacks would be better off under the confederates?

 

[Autumnleaf]

Please explain how blacks would be better off under the confederates?

I wonder.

Would their families be as decimated as they are now from fourty years of endemic welfare use which pays mothers to be single moms and have lots of kids?

Would there even still be slavery as technology would still have advanced more or less the same; thus, eliminating the need for slavery?

I really don't know if we'd be better off or not but I do know the South was doomed to fail for many reasons.

 

[moonkitty]

I wonder.

Would their families be as decimated as they are now from fourty years of endemic welfare use which pays mothers to be single moms and have lots of kids?

Would there even still be slavery as technology would still have advanced more or less the same; thus, eliminating the need for slavery?

I really don't know if we'd be better off or not but I do know the South was doomed to fail for many reasons.

I know very few black families on welfare. I know many working poor blacks who do not receive welfare. I think the worse decimation of the black American families was how many of them were separated during slavery—children, husbands and wives being sold away from each other. If the south had won, while slavery most likely would have been abolished by now, it would have continued for several more decades after the war—if the south had won. So how would that have helped the black American family?

And who is to say that welfare causes women to be single moms? I think what causes single moms are men who will not shoulder their responsibility.

I was thinking more along the lines of racism—we are 140+ years after the civil war and there is still blatant racism today. How would that have been any better under a nation that was founded on a belief that the white man had the God given right to own another man.

 

[susanann]

If the south had won, while slavery most likely would have been abolished by now, it would have continued for several more decades after the war—if the south had won. So how would that have helped the black American family?

Because you never would have had Reconstruction, and the reactions to it, which led to the hating of blacks in Reconstrution states, i.e.: the KKK, lynchings, burning of black churches, segregation, etc.

It was Reconstruction, and the extreme backlash which it caused, which was so harmful to blacks for a century.

The Confederate Constitution was identical with the United States Constitution in regards to slavery, blacks, etc. There is no reason why blacks in Georgia would be treated any differently than blacks in New York if the south had won.

If the south had won, there would be no Reconstruction, and slavery would have become obsolete and eventually ended as technology and inventions made slavery too expensive, as it did in many, but not all, of the northern states. Slavery was phasing out all over the continent as machinery became more efficient.

The prejudice against blacks if the south had won would have been no different (then or now) than how people treated aisans, indians, latins, and arabs.

 

[moonkitty]

Because you never would have had Reconstruction, and the reactions to it, which led to the hating of blacks in Reconstrution states, i.e.: the KKK, lynchings, burning of black churches, segregation, etc.

It was Reconstruction, and the extreme backlash which it caused, which was so harmful to blacks for a century.

The Confederate Constitution was identical with the United States Constitution in regards to slavery, blacks, etc. There is no reason why blacks in Georgia would be treated any differently than blacks in New York if the south had won.

If the south had won, there would be no Reconstruction, and slavery would have become obsolete and eventually ended as technology and inventions made slavery too expensive, as it did in many, but not all, of the northern states. Slavery was phasing out all over the continent as machinery became more efficient.

The prejudice against blacks if the south had won would have been no different (then or now) than how people treated aisans, indians, latins, and arabs.

Have you read both the U.S. Constitution and the Confederate Constitution? While they are very similar there are certain key difference in their statements do to slavery:

Article I section IX of the Confederate Constitution states:
“No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves SHALL BE PASSED”

I don’t know about you, but I never saw that in the U.S. Constitution. I also think it’s pretty clear that the confederate nation was going to be a nation set up solely to allow the states to keep NEGRO slavery legal.

Article IV sections Section III of the Confederate Constitution also reinforces this:

“The Confederate States may acquire new territory….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.”


The Missouri Compromise was to for the exclusion of slavery from public territory acquired since the adoption of the Constitution, and also as a clear recognition that Congress has no right to impose upon a state asking for admission into the Union conditions which do not apply to those states already in the Union. And yes I am familiar with the Dread Scott v. Sanford case that ratify the Compromise’s proposition that persons of African descent could not be U.S. citizens. (which of course is why the Missouri Compromise help lead the US into a civil war.)

Do you think hatred of Blacks was not common in before the civil war? My family has several letters from our ancestors of that time clearly stating the hate and distrust of blacks. Slavery is a form of hatred, the most serious and intense form of hatred there is. If a black person’s right as a human being could be denied under the law—how can that make the blacks better off? How can a country set up to deny justice and freedom for one race make that race better off? It was not a constitution set up to enslave Asians or anyone else other than blacks. So yes, I do feel that black Americans today would have be worse off if the Confederates had won.

I feel that if the south had won the U.S. states would still have passed the Civil Rights acts of the 1960's while I highly doubt that such Civil Right acts would have been passed in a Confederate nation whether or not slavery would have continued.

 

[susanann]

1. Do you think hatred of Blacks was not common in before the civil war?


2. My family has several letters from our ancestors of that time clearly stating the hate and distrust of blacks.


3. How can a country set up to deny justice and freedom for one race make that race better off?


4. So yes, I do feel that black Americans today would have be worse off if the Confederates had won. I feel that if the south had won the U.S. states would still have passed the Civil Rights acts of the 1960's while I highly doubt that such Civil Right acts would have been passed in a Confederate nation whether or not slavery would have continued.

1. Hatred of blacks was not common, at least not any more so than today. Yes it existed back then, and it still does exist. So does hatred of whites. So does hatred of asians. Hatred of jews. Hatred of arabs. Hatred of other races has always existed, and will continue to exist until heaven. The civil war did not eliminate hatred of other peoples - and if anything, amplified it with backlash feelings and Reconstruction penalties of whites.


2. I am sorry your family ancestors hated blacks. I have done many geneologies and looked at other letters where whites and blacks(slaves) lived and worked together with mutual respect, love, and affection. Not only that, but slaves were expensive and their health and welfare was a priority for most families who did own slaves. It was an exception and a rare thing for someone to pay out most of their savings to buy a family of slaves and then mistreat and harm them. Just did not make any sense. A horse was much cheaper than a family of slaves, and most people cared for their horses. Only crazies beat their horses or their slaves. It was an oddity for a slave to be mistreated - not the norm.


3. The confederacy was NOT set up for that purpose. The confederacy was set up mainly for economic freedom. Even president Lincoln said the civil war had nothing to do with slavery.

Furthermore, you are ignoring all the slaves in nothern states. At least 5 yankee states had slavery during the civil war: West Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, Washington DC. etc.


4. YOu can believe whatever you want, but you will be wrong. No corporation, let alone any individual, can afford to have one, or several families of slaves - they just cost too much and take up too much maintenance. A John Deere farm machine is much cheaper to buy, to own, and to maintain.

Since blacks would have been set free voluntarily without bloodshed and without a war, and without the gestapo techniques of Reconstruction, there would not have been any of the bad feelings and repercussions which did happen because the south lost. If the south had won, it would have been a peaceful transition for blacks to get their rights instead of the actual battles that were caused by the south losing the war.

 

[moonkitty]

1. Hatred of blacks was not common, at least not any more so than today. Yes it existed back then, and it still does exist. So does hatred of whites. So does hatred of asians. Hatred of jews. Hatred of arabs. Hatred of other races has always existed, and will continue to exist until heaven. The civil war did not eliminate hatred of other peoples - and if anything, amplified it with backlash feelings and Reconstruction penalties of whites.


2. I am sorry your family ancestors hated blacks. I have done many geneologies and looked at other letters where whites and blacks(slaves) lived and worked together with mutual respect, love, and affection. Not only that, but slaves were expensive and their health and welfare was a priority for most families who did own slaves. It was an exception and a rare thing for someone to pay out most of their savings to buy a family of slaves and then mistreat and harm them. Just did not make any sense. A horse was much cheaper than a family of slaves, and most people cared for their horses. Only crazies beat their horses or their slaves. It was an oddity for a slave to be mistreated - not the norm.


3. The confederacy was NOT set up for that purpose. The confederacy was set up mainly for economic freedom. Even president Lincoln said the civil war had nothing to do with slavery.

Furthermore, you are ignoring all the slaves in nothern states. At least 5 yankee states had slavery during the civil war: West Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, Washington DC. etc.


4. YOu can believe whatever you want, but you will be wrong. No corporation, let alone any individual, can afford to have one, or several families of slaves - they just cost too much and take up too much maintenance. A John Deere farm machine is much cheaper to buy, to own, and to maintain.

Since blacks would have been set free voluntarily without bloodshed and without a war, and without the gestapo techniques of Reconstruction, there would not have been any of the bad feelings and repercussions which did happen because the south lost. If the south had won, it would have been a peaceful transition for blacks to get their rights instead of the actual battles that were caused by the south losing the war.

Hatred of blacks was not common? How is not allowing a person to have personal freedom not hatred? Yes there were slaves and masters who had some affection for each other, but how many of those slave owners would have allowed their male slaves (who they had affection for) to marry a white woman? How many of those kind, loving slave owners would have allowed their slaves to vote for a government official? How many of those kind, decent slave owners would have their slaves to own a gun (a right protected by Constitution)? How many of those kind, compassionate slave owners would have allowed their slaves to pack up and leave any time they wanted too? Just because a person is well fed and not beaten, doesn’t mean that they are loved and given mutual respect. Anything less is hatred and if it’s based on a person biological heritage then its RACISM.

Slavery is HATE; it’s the worse kind of hate. How can you tell a person they have no rights as a human and not see if as a form a hate?

 

[susanann]

Hatred of blacks was not common? How is not allowing a person to have personal freedom not hatred? Yes there were slaves and masters who had some affection for each other, but how many of those slave owners would have allowed their male slaves (who they had affection for) to marry a white woman? How many of those kind, loving slave owners would have allowed their slaves to vote for a government official? How many of those kind, decent slave owners would have their slaves to own a gun (a right protected by Constitution)? How many of those kind, compassionate slave owners would have allowed their slaves to pack up and leave any time they wanted too? Just because a person is well fed and not beaten, doesn’t mean that they are loved and given mutual respect. Anything less is hatred and if it’s based on a person biological heritage then its RACISM.

Slavery is HATE; it’s the worse kind of hate. How can you tell a person they have no rights as a human and not see if as a form a hate?

YOu asked a lot of questions.

Women did not have personal freedom, does that mean they were not loved? Even today, women still do not have equal rights under the Constitution, and the ERA, to finally give women the same freedoms that black men have had for over 100 years, was hotly opposed.

Allowing blacks to marry whites, had nothing to do with slavery. Such a thing was also virtually prohibited all thru the nation, in Yankee states, in the west, in the mid-west, in states where slavery never existed at all. That is a bogus question.

Same thing with voting. Black men got the vote long before women got the vote. If you consider voting to be an issue, then women were held in slavery much longer than black men since most states did not allow women to vote until 1920 - 50 years after southern black men got the vote. Most white men, particularly poor white men who did not own any land, did not get the vote either until almost the mid 1800's.


Lots of slaves had guns. Many slaves hunted to put meat on their tables. Probably not very many slaves owned guns, but that was more due to the fact that they could not afford guns and ammo - not that they were not "trusted". Slaves lived and worked around the barn and households, slaves helped raise white children, cook food for whites, and certainly blacks had access to firearms if they had a mind to it, or could poison the family, or beat the family in their sleep if they had evil intentions or were mal treated.

Most slaves were not on large plantations, or kept in chains, separated by an electric wire fence and prohibited from coming into the white household. In fact, the typical situation, is that most slaves were a family or two, living on a small farm with one white family, working together in the fields with white folks. A white family who owned a black family to help farm the land, was in no position to beat his slaves, mistreat them, keep them in chains, and hire security guards to keep the black slaves from killing them in the nite. YOu watch too much tv.


As far as allowing them to leave - first there was no place to go. Slaves had no real trade or ability to support themselves. Secondly, slaves were valuable property, they cost a lot of money, and when President Lincoln (as a congressman) introduced legislation to try to round up all the blacks in America and send them all back to Africa/Liberia, he was unsuccessful, mainly because he could not raise the money to reimburse the slave owners who had paid money, some of them their life savings, to buy slaves. We find that after the civil war, many blacks were WORSE off, because they had no place to go, no income, no home, no trade, no money, no food, no job, and no future. I am not even sure any of them would have wanted to return to Africa.


Slavery is NOT hate - it is an economic system, not unlike what American manufacturers are currently doing with communist chinese laborers - except that American corporations are now doing WORSE than our old slavery, employing slave labor in china are providing no medical benfits to chinese workers, no pension, nor retirement, no home, no medical care, all of which WERE given to slaves in the south.