A Reason for A War

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

It must not be forgotten that the North invaded and conquered the South, including committing plenty of the crimes that invading armies commit, and causing horrible and unnecessary suffering. THIS is why great numbers of the Southerners came to hate the Yankees, an attitude that still persists in certain degrees in some cases. It certainly is the reason why the South as a people rejected bitterly the North's self-righteous claim to the moral high ground, based on the narrative of the crusade against slavery, and it is why they still reject it. History has been revised as necessary in an attempt to deny the cruel invader any shred of the moral superiority they claimed.

.

Regardless, when the dust is settled, whoever free the slaves have moral
superiority.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

It must not be forgotten that the North invaded and conquered the South, including committing plenty of the crimes that invading armies commit, and causing horrible and unnecessary suffering. THIS is why great numbers of the Southerners came to hate the Yankees, an attitude that still persists in certain degrees in some cases. It certainly is the reason why the South as a people rejected bitterly the North's self-righteous claim to the moral high ground, based on the narrative of the crusade against slavery, and it is why they still reject it. History has been revised as necessary in an attempt to deny the cruel invader any shred of the moral superiority they claimed.

I tend to think that history has been revised from both ends of the spectrum.

The freeing of the slaves was the only positive attribute achieved by the whole sordid affair. Although they would have been freed regardless, probably sooner than later...slavery was dying. I suppose we could also consider saving the union as a possible, although debatable attribute, which would have been unnecessary if the fire breathers on both sides had been held in check.

Machiavelli pointed out that there is nothing more dangerous than to change the nature of things. Perhaps he should have amended that to change the nature of things "quickly", as the nature of things will change regardless.

When moving a delicate load, constant pressure is always preferable to abrupt force.

I still maintain that the Civil War was fought for the same reasons all wars are fought...political influence and economic advantage. At that time, the slaves were simply a commodity...both morally and legally. And I can't help but think that had the slaves been freed in a more deliberate manner, perhaps a lot of the racial hatred we are experiencing yet to this day would have been eliminated.

Just a few thoughts on the issue, like it much matters at this point.

Chas

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

.

Regardless, when the dust is settled, whoever free the slaves have moral
superiority.

Of course eliminating slavery is morally superior. You won't get an argument from me.

But would it have not been better to educate and attempt to acclimate them to freedom first, instead of just kicking their asses out the door and saying "Go for it"?

Even Jefferson, a slave owner opposed slavery, only he was unsure as to go about eliminating it. The abolitionists operated on the same, and correct moral plane as Jefferson...only they never considered the consequences of what would happen if the slaves were unconditionally freed.

Chas

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by Charles

Of course eliminating slavery is morally superior. You won't get an argument from me.

But would it have not been better to educate and attempt to acclimate them to freedom first, instead of just kicking their asses out the door and saying "Go for it"?

Chas

Charles, can you think of the great force against educating the slave in that time. Remember the slaves were the economic foundation of the South.
They were viewed as working animals.

Even after official slavery, laws were passed to tie Blacks to the South and great violence was administered on those who tried to educate them.

If any attempt to wait for a propitious or to create the right condition to free the slaves they would never be free.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

It must not be forgotten that the North invaded and conquered the South, including committing plenty of the crimes that invading armies commit, and causing horrible and unnecessary suffering. THIS is why great numbers of the Southerners came to hate the Yankees, an attitude that still persists in certain degrees in some cases. It certainly is the reason why the South as a people rejected bitterly the North's self-righteous claim to the moral high ground, based on the narrative of the crusade against slavery, and it is why they still reject it. History has been revised as necessary in an attempt to deny the cruel invader any shred of the moral superiority they claimed.

Oh, Boo-Fuckin'-Hoo. The Confederacy made it pretty far north before the tide turned against them, so don't give me that southern victimhood shit, Don. They provoked the fight and got what they deserved, IMO. I've lived in the South since 1986....These people are no more saintly than anyone else and I'm sure it wasn't much different in that regard 150 years ago.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Charles

Of course eliminating slavery is morally superior. You won't get an argument from me.

But would it have not been better to educate and attempt to acclimate them to freedom first, instead of just kicking their asses out the door and saying "Go for it"?

Even Jefferson, a slave owner opposed slavery, only he was unsure as to go about eliminating it. The abolitionists operated on the same, and correct moral plane as Jefferson...only they never considered the consequences of what would happen if the slaves were unconditionally freed.

Chas

Sure, it could have been done better. But, how many years passed between Jefferson and Emancipation, Chas? At some point claiming to be cautous turns into foot dragging and procrastination. At that point, you stop putting up with the bullshit and lay down the law.

Dave

[donquixote99]

My post was just to explain how it looks to the Southerners. I'm not in the justification business. I really don't give a shit who's more 'justified.' But if you want to know why the South just couldn't stand the North's 'noble crusade' narrative, that's it.

[BlueStreak]

Yeah, okay. Whatever, man.

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Look, I'm sorry if I get rude when it comes to discussions of the Civil War, it's just that I live so near the former capitol of the Confederacy and I've heard enough cockamamie crapola about how pristine, honorable and Godly the Confederates "really" were to last a lifetime.

The truth is that had that happened anywhere but here, the defeated would have been hung or beheaded after the war. In fact, I seem to remember reading that Pres. Andrew Johnson once reminded them of that.

They got off easy.

Dave

[Charles]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

Charles, can you think of the great force against educating the slave in that time. Remember the slaves were the economic foundation of the South.
They were viewed as working animals.

Even after official slavery, laws were passed to tie Blacks to the South and great violence was administered on those who tried to educate them.

If any attempt to wait for a propitious or to create the right condition to free the slaves they would never be free.

The slaves were the economic foundation of the South, along with a few Northern states.

Not only was it legal at the time, that's the way is WAS at the time.

This is an never ending argument. So let's try to look at this from a wealthy slaveowner's viewpoint...who BTW owned the legislature much as the industrialists from the North did.

Another quick point I would like to make...who treated their people better? The slaveowner who could easily invest 1K in a single slave, or the factory owners from the North, who had nothing tied up in the Mick, Eyetie, or Chinaman he was working to death?

Back to my query. If you had invested thousands in slaves, which was legal at the time, and were being skinned alive by tariffs which not only punished you on the goods you bought, but on the goods you sold. Not to mention the Radical Republicans were working on removing your primary investment in machinery (slaves), wouldn't you be a little miffed too?

Face it, things were tough back then. And there were no Knights in Shining Armor.

Besides that, slavery isn't dead, it's evolved.

Am I making any sense?

Chas