In the early morning New Orleans removes Confederate monuments...

[AuH20]

The Civil War obviously had the slavery component, but the larger context and economic picture is ignored. Lincoln stated that he was not interested in eliminating slavery where it already existed, so then why did he so aggressively go after the South? It's because the south had the raw materials and the wealth needed by the north. The South leaving the Union and the Union demanding the South stay is strong evidence that the South did not need the North, but the North needed the South.

Lincoln also aggressively attempted to unjustly vilify southerners who had no interest in his personal aims. He labeled neutral Kentucky residents as "treasonous" after the war started because Kentucky did not join the union. Furthermore, four states seceded after the start of the war. North Carolina, for example, was largely prompted by geography, with surrounding S. Carolina and Virginia already having left.

Don't forget the IWMA's (cosigned by Marx) Letter To Lincoln:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/iwma/documents/1864/lincoln-letter.htm

We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?

When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the annals of the world, "slavery" on the banner of Armed Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago the idea of one great Democratic Republic had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued, and the first impulse given to the European revolution of the eighteenth century; when on those very spots counterrevolution, with systematic thoroughness, gloried in rescinding "the ideas entertained at the time of the formation of the old constitution", and maintained slavery to be "a beneficent institution", indeed, the old solution of the great problem of "the relation of capital to labor", and cynically proclaimed property in man "the cornerstone of the new edifice" — then the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders' rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to the good cause.

While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.

The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.

Signed on behalf of the International Workingmen's Association, the Central Council:

 

[Origanalist]

 

[Origanalist]

I'd plus rep you 5 times if I could- awesome stuff!

Put in one for you. (and me)

 

[Dr.No.]

What do you mean so many? There were only four states that cited causes in declarations. There were nine states that issued ordinances, statements that did not even cite causes.

The states also cited broader economic reasons other than slavery numerous times in many documents. This is from Georgia:

Five states. But those declarations are peppered with mentions of slavery. You use the declaration from Georgia...the vast majority of it is concerned with slavery, talking about how the North and abolitionists were against their culture and had grown too powerful. I mean, the very paragraph you quote has it in the first part: "While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact. But a distinct abolition party was not formed in the United States for more than half a century after the Government went into operation. "

And afterwards, this:

" Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation and demanded the prompt and efficient exercise of this power to that end. This insulting and unconstitutional demand was met with great moderation and firmness by the South. We had shed our blood and paid our money for its acquisition; we demanded a division of it on the line of the Missouri restriction or an equal participation in the whole of it. These propositions were refused, the agitation became general, and the public danger was great. The case of the South was impregnable. The price of the acquisition was the blood and treasure of both sections-- of all, and, therefore, it belonged to all upon the principles of equity and justice."

Slavery dominates the dialogue.

Think about what the VP (Jefferson Davis) of the Confederacy said:

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions--African slavery as it exists among us--the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution [...] The general opinion of the men of that day [Revolutionary Period] was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution [slavery] would be evanescent and pass away [...] 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."

Again, what do you mean by so many? Many northern newspapers and their readers had no interest in war. They were all too willing to let the south go. They many times cited reasons of economics, the tariff, and or constitutional issues. Here are just four of them:

I'm talking about the southern newspapers.

Through cronyism. The government simply subsidized the northeast. The biggest example was subsidies granted to a shipbuilding industry in a northeast that was getting too crowded, running out of jobs, and running out of farmland.

American made ships legally paid a much lower duty when sailing back from Europe than any foreign made ship. That meant the south was on the hook for any goods received from Europe by foreign manufactured ships. The north added insult to injury by helping to create a triangle of chicanery. It was the New York harbor boats that sailed to southern ports to carry goods back and forth from Europe, not the foreign vessels. Boats, by the way, that were built with the south's raw materials.

This doesn't make sense; can you give me a source that has more detail? The North had a much stronger economy than the South...something like 95% of tariffs was collected at Northern ports. The South wasn't really an import economy as it hadn't developed to that point. The North definitely received many federal subsidies (it also paid those tariffs).

Your point about ships going from Europe to NY and then to the South makes no sense as the cotton and raw goods were shipped directly from Southern ports according to governmental records. Why wouldn't ships with imported goods come at those ports as well? Moreover, we know that pre-civil war, the North mostly traded with the South in a one-way fashion; the North purchased Southern goods (mostly raw materials). The production of the Northern economy mostly when to its own citizens and foreigners, not the South. So the South wasn't directly importing many goods from Europe, and the North wasn't sending a lot of goods down South anyway. This is further evidenced by the economic numbers during the civil war. The North did not suffer at all losing the South as a purchasing base, and Southern purchases of European goods continued to be very low. If what you were saying is accurate, you would see the South importing a lot more from Europe as New York boats would no longer send goods Southward, and/or you would see the Northern economy suffer from having fewer people to buy their goods. You see the reverse in terms of Southern exports, where the North and Europe (after the embargo) had to find other sources of raw materials.

 

[AuH20]

Lincoln wanted war to recondition the South to the Yankee's way of doing things. War was not incited by accident.

https://www.americancivilwar.com/au...ln-Instigated-War/The-Buried-Fact-Record.html

Doris Kearns Goodwin, in her 2005 biography of Abraham Lincoln, Team of Rivals, gives the standard story that has been told by history teachers to students, for generations. In between informing us what Lincoln ate for breakfast, how well he slept at night, and how often he exercised, Goodwin lays down the story that Lincoln bungled his plan to reinforce Fort Sumter with troops, ammunition and provisions. In her brief reference that leaves it a mystery what Lincoln’s actual plan was, Goodwin writes, “Lincoln had failed to peruse the orders carefully and inadvertently assigned the Powhatan (a 2,000 ton side wheel steamer carrying 20 guns) simultaneously to (both expeditions planned for) [forts] Pickens and Sumter."[1] Goodwin supports her conclusion by claiming “it was not unusual for Lincoln to sign documents from Seward without reading them." (See, Team of Rivals at pp. 340-346)

Goodwin dismisses the contrary assertion that Lincoln didn’t bungle anything, that he had caused the expedition to Sumter to be carried out just as he had intended. “Critics" she writes,[2] “later claimed that Lincoln had maneuvered the South into beginning the war. In fact, he had simply followed his inaugural pledge that he would `hold’ the properties belonging to the government, `but beyond what may be necessary’ to accomplish this, `there will be no invasion—no using force.’ . . . Had Lincoln chosen to abandon the fort, he would have violated his pledge to the north. Had he used force in any way other than to `hold’ government properties, he would have breached his promise to the South."

 

[givemeliberty2010]

And in case you've never seen the insincere and racist quotes of Lincoln:


"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."


“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.”


"And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”


“There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…”





And the key quote where Lincoln had no slavery interest, at least in the context he so insincerely promoted later:


“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”



Lincoln simply tapped into the slavery card to sell it to Europe.

The Southerners were also concerned about slavery in the territories and the extension of slavery to the runaway slaves in the free states.

 

[devil21]

Not sure how this is relevant. One anecdote about destroyed records...plus, this happened well AFTER the civil war. How did the North steal the South's land/production, as claimed, prior to the war?

I was referring to how it was stolen during and after the war. The article was a recent example of the rush to destroy records that would likely show the claimed owners of land in the wake of the war to be nothing more than dirty, thieving pirates.

And for everyone talking about how slavery was the reason for the war, the truth is that the 13th Amendment abolished slavery of black people (after replacing the original 13th Amendment which barred lawyers from holding public office) and the 14th Amendment enacted slavery for everyone. So as usual, the historical stated reason for a war was simply a cover story for bigger conquest. Don't get me started on who the actual slave traders were. They turned out to be of the same (ahem) persuasion as the carpetbaggers. And they apparently like to build museums...

 

[Ender]

I was referring to how it was stolen during and after the war. The article was a recent example of the rush to destroy records that would likely show the claimed owners of land in the wake of the war to be nothing more than dirty, thieving pirates.

And for everyone talking about how slavery was the reason for the war, the truth is that the 13th Amendment abolished slavery of black people and the 14th Amendment enacted slavery for everyone. So as usual, the historical stated reason for a war was simply a cover story for bigger conquest. Don't get me started on who the actual slave traders were. They turned out to be of the same (ahem) persuasion as the carpetbaggers. And they apparently like to build museums...

Yep.

The article below, although lengthy is a good summation of black slave owners and the conditions of blacks in the South, before the war.

DIXIE'S CENSORED SUBJECT
BLACK SLAVEOWNERS

By Robert M. Grooms

In an 1856 letter to his wife Mary Custis Lee, Robert E. Lee called slavery "a moral and political evil." Yet he concluded that black slaves were immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially and physically.

The fact is large numbers of free Negroes owned black slaves; in fact, in numbers disproportionate to their representation in society at large. In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.

The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).

In the rare instances when the ownership of slaves by free Negroes is acknowledged in the history books, justification centers on the claim that black slave masters were simply individuals who purchased the freedom of a spouse or child from a white slaveholder and had been unable to legally manumit them. Although this did indeed happen at times, it is a misrepresentation of the majority of instances, one which is debunked by records of the period on blacks who owned slaves. These include individuals such as Justus Angel and Mistress L. Horry, of Colleton District, South Carolina, who each owned 84 slaves in 1830. In fact, in 1830 a fourth of the free Negro slave masters in South Carolina owned 10 or more slaves; eight owning 30 or more (2).

According to federal census reports, on June 1, 1860 there were nearly 4.5 million Negroes in the United States, with fewer than four million of them living in the southern slaveholding states. Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city.

To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters.

The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.

In 1860 there were at least six Negroes in Louisiana who owned 65 or more slaves The largest number, 152 slaves, were owned by the widow C. Richards and her son P.C. Richards, who owned a large sugar cane plantation. Another Negro slave magnate in Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern white men was $3,978 (4).

In Charleston, South Carolina in 1860 125 free Negroes owned slaves; six of them owning 10 or more. Of the $1.5 million in taxable property owned by free Negroes in Charleston, more than $300,000 represented slave holdings (5). In North Carolina 69 free Negroes were slave owners (6).

In 1860 William Ellison was South Carolina's largest Negro slaveowner. In Black Masters. A Free Family of Color in the Old South, authors Michael P. Johnson and James L. Roak write a sympathetic account of Ellison's life. From Ellison's birth as a slave to his death at 71, the authors attempt to provide justification, based on their own speculation, as to why a former slave would become a magnate slave master.

At birth he was given the name April. A common practice among slaves of the period was to name a child after the day or month of his or her birth. Between 1800 and 1802 April was purchased by a white slave-owner named William Ellison. Apprenticed at 12, he was taught the trades of carpentry, blacksmithing and machining, as well as how to read, write, cipher and do basic bookkeeping.

On June 8, 1816, William Ellison appeared before a magistrate (with five local freeholders as supporting witnesses) to gain permission to free April, now 26 years of age. In 1800 the South Carolina legislature had set out in detail the procedures for manumission. To end the practice of freeing unruly slaves of "bad or depraved" character and those who "from age or infirmity" were incapacitated, the state required that an owner testify under oath to the good character of the slave he sought to free. Also required was evidence of the slave's "ability to gain a livelihood in an honest way."

Although lawmakers of the time could not envision the incredibly vast public welfare structures of a later age, these stipulations became law in order to prevent slaveholders from freeing individuals who would become a burden on the general public.

Interestingly, considering today's accounts of life under slavery, authors Johnson and Roak report instances where free Negroes petitioned to be allowed to become slaves; this because they were unable to support themselves.

Black Confederates and Afro-Yankees in Civil War Virginia (University Press of Virginia-1995) was written by Ervin L. Jordan Jr., an African-American and assistant professor and associate curator of the Special Collections Department, University of Virginia library. He wrote: "One of the more curious aspects of the free black existence in Virginia was their ownership of slaves. Black slave masters owned members of their family and freed them in their wills. Free blacks were encouraged to sell themselves into slavery and had the right to choose their owner through a lengthy court procedure."

In 1816, shortly after his manumission, April moved to Stateburg. Initially he hired slave workers from local owners. When in 1817 he built a gin for Judge Thomas Watries, he credited the judge nine dollars "for hire of carpenter George for 12 days." By 1820 he had purchased two adult males to work in his shop (7). In fewer than four years after being freed, April demonstrated that he had no problem perpetuating an institution he had been released from. He also achieved greater monetary success than most white people of the period.

On June 20, 1820, April appeared in the Sumter District courthouse in Sumterville. Described in court papers submitted by his attorney as a "freed yellow man of about 29 years of age," he requested a name change because it "would yet greatly advance his interest as a tradesman." A new name would also "save him and his children from degradation and contempt which the minds of some do and will attach to the name April." Because "of the kindness" of his former master and as a "Mark of gratitude and respect for him" April asked that his name be changed to William Ellison. His request was granted.

In time the black Ellison family joined the predominantly white Episcopalian church. On August 6, 1824 he was allowed to put a family bench on the first floor, among those of the wealthy white families. Other blacks, free and slave, and poor whites sat in the balcony. Another wealthy Negro family would later join the first floor worshippers.

Between 1822 and the mid-1840s, Ellison gradually built a small empire, acquiring slaves in increasing numbers. He became one of South Carolina's major cotton gin manufacturers, selling his machines as far away as Mississippi. From February 1817 until the War Between the States commenced, his business advertisements appeared regularly in newspapers across the state. These included the Camden Gazette, the Sumter Southern Whig and the Black River Watchman.

Ellison was so successful, due to his utilization of cheap slave labor, that many white competitors went out of business. Such situations discredit impressions that whites dealt only with other whites. Where money was involved, it was apparent that neither Ellison's race or former status were considerations.

In his book, Ervin L. Jordan Jr. writes that, as the great conflagration of 1861-1865 approached: "Free Afro-Virginians were a nascent black middle class under siege, but several acquired property before and during the war. Approximately 169 free blacks owned 145,976 acres in the counties of Amelia, Amherst, Isle of Wight, Nansemond, Prince William and Surry, averaging 870 acres each. Twenty-rune Petersburg blacks each owned property worth $1,000 and continued to purchase more despite the war."

Jordan offers an example: "Gilbert Hunt, a Richmond ex-slave blacksmith, owned two slaves, a house valued at $1,376, and $500 in other properties at his death in 1863." Jordan wrote that "some free black residents of Hampton and Norfolk owned property of considerable value; 17 black Hamptonians possessed property worth a total of $15,000. Thirty-six black men paid taxes as heads of families in Elizabeth City County and were employed as blacksmiths, bricklayers, fishermen, oystermen and day laborers. In three Norfolk County parishes 160 blacks owned a total of $41,158 in real estate and personal property.

The general practice of the period was that plantation owners would buy seed and equip~ ment on credit and settle their outstanding accounts when the annual cotton crop was sold. Ellison, like all free Negroes, could resort to the courts for enforcement of the terms of contract agreements. Several times Ellison successfully sued white men for money owed him.

In 1838 Ellison purchased on time 54.5 acres adjoining his original acreage from one Stephen D. Miller. He moved into a large home on the property. What made the acquisition notable was that Miller had served in the South Carolina legislature, both in the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate, and while a resident of Stateburg had been governor of the state. Ellison's next door neighbor was Dr. W.W. Anderson, master of "Borough House, a magnificent 18th Century mansion. Anderson's son would win fame in the War Between the States as General "Fighting Dick" Anderson.

By 1847 Ellison owned over 350 acres, and more than 900 by 1860. He raised mostly cotton, with a small acreage set aside for cultivating foodstuffs to feed his family and slaves. In 1840 he owned 30 slaves, and by 1860 he owned 63. His sons, who lived in homes on the property, owned an additional nine slaves. They were trained as gin makers by their father (8). They had spent time in Canada, where many wealthy American Negroes of the period sent their children for advanced formal education. Ellison's sons and daughters married mulattos from Charleston, bringing them to the Ellison plantation to live.

In 1860 Ellison greatly underestimated his worth to tax assessors at $65,000. Even using this falsely stated figure, this man who had been a slave 44 years earlier had achieved great financial success. His wealth outdistanced 90 percent of his white neighbors in Sumter District. In the entire state, only five percent owned as much real estate as Ellison. His wealth was 15 times greater than that of the state's average for whites. And Ellison owned more slaves than 99 percent of the South's slaveholders.

Although a successful businessman and cotton farmer, Ellison's major source of income derived from being a "slave breeder." Slave breeding was looked upon with disgust throughout the South, and the laws of most southern states forbade the sale of slaves under the age of 12. In several states it was illegal to sell inherited slaves (9). Nevertheless, in 1840 Ellison secretly began slave breeding.

While there was subsequent investment return in raising and keeping young males, females were not productive workers in his factory or his cotton fields. As a result, except for a few females he raised to become "breeders," Ellison sold the female and many of the male children born to his female slaves at an average price of $400. Ellison had a reputation as a harsh master. His slaves were said to be the district's worst fed and clothed. On his property was located a small, windowless building where he would chain his problem slaves.

As with the slaves of his white counterparts, occasionally Ellison's slaves ran away. The historians of Sumter District reported that from time to time Ellison advertised for the return of his runaways. On at least one occasion Ellison hired the services of a slave catcher. According to an account by Robert N. Andrews, a white man who had purchased a small hotel in Stateburg in the 1820s, Ellison hired him to run down "a valuable slave. Andrews caught the slave in Belleville, Virginia. He stated: "I was paid on returning home $77.50 and $74 for expenses.

William Ellison died December 5, 1861. His will stated that his estate should pass into the joint hands of his free daughter and his two surviving sons. He bequeathed $500 to the slave daughter he had sold.

Following in their father's footsteps, the Ellison family actively supported the Confederacy throughout the war. They converted nearly their entire plantation to the production of corn, fodder, bacon, corn shucks and cotton for the Confederate armies. They paid $5,000 in taxes during the war. They also invested more than $9,000 in Confederate bonds, treasury notes and certificates in addition to the Confederate currency they held. At the end, all this valuable paper became worthless.

The younger Ellisons contributed more than farm produce, labor and money to the Confederate cause. On March 27, 1863 John Wilson Buckner, William Ellison's oldest grandson, enlisted in the 1st South Carolina Artillery. Buckner served in the company of Captains P.P. Galliard and A.H. Boykin, local white men who knew that Buckner was a Negro. Although it was illegal at the time for a Negro to formally join the Confederate forces, the Ellison family's prestige nullified the law in the minds of Buckner's comrades. Buckner was wounded in action on July 12, 1863. At his funeral in Stateburg in August, 1895 he was praised by his former Confederate officers as being a "faithful soldier."

Following the war the Ellison family fortune quickly dwindled. But many former Negro slave magnates quickly took advantage of circumstances and benefited by virtue of their race. For example Antoine Dubuclet, the previously mentioned New Orleans plantation owner who held more than 100 slaves, became Louisiana state treasurer during Reconstruction, a post he held from 1868 to 1877 (10).

A truer picture of the Old South, one never presented by the nation's mind molders, emerges from this account. The American South had been undergoing structural evolutionary changes far, far greater than generations of Americans have been led to believe. In time, within a relatively short time, the obsolete and economically nonviable institution of slavery would have disappeared. The nation would have been spared awesome traumas from which it would never fully recover.

https://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

 

[Dr.No.]

Yep.

The article below, although lengthy is a good summation of black slave owners and the conditions of blacks in the South, before the war.




https://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

Those numbers are patently off. Lies created by southern revisionists who know they are catering to a captive audience who will not bother to check the facts:

https://deadconfederates.com/2011/0...xas-confederate-soldiers-never-owned-a-slave/

31% of Southern households owned slaves. Not to mention people stood to inherit those slaves.

Considering how that article got the facts wrong, I am very suspicious about the anecdotes about black slaveholders. Moreover, you can see in the paramount paragraph "But many former Negro slave magnates quickly took advantage of circumstances and benefited by virtue of their race" what his bias is....that blacks have somehow benefited from their race since slavery has ended. Again, I'm not sure how the existence of black slaveholders nullifies the idea that the civil war was primarily about slavery.

 

[euphemia]

It's all verifiable. All those Census images are online and have been for years.

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

Let's erase history because it offends some people...

I can't believe how pussified the sheeple of USA have become...

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

God please!!

 

[ChristianAnarchist]

Good, the Confederacy was anti-liberty and anti-capitalist. Their trash belongs in a museum.

What you say is true in that ALL goonerments are anti-liberty. The current goons especially so. The point is that we should be LEARNING from the past, not trying to erase it. I'm sure these monuments could be donated to a private party to put on a private area that could be opened for those who wish to see them. What is happening to them? Where will they go??

I'm hoping for a day when there are no goonerments to goon us daily and all monuments will be on display in proper context to show lessons we should have or did learn from past mistakes. When goonerments are gone we can truly have liberty and you can have whatever associations you want and others can have the associations they want. The best associations will result in the best trade and prosperity. Those who hold bad associations will not prosper as well as they could but they will have the liberty to keep their bad associations (or maybe they will change).

Using force to try to change people never works -- haven't we at least learned that yet??

 

[Ender]

Those numbers are patently off. Lies created by southern revisionists who know they are catering to a captive audience who will not bother to check the facts:

https://deadconfederates.com/2011/0...xas-confederate-soldiers-never-owned-a-slave/

31% of Southern households owned slaves. Not to mention people stood to inherit those slaves.

Considering how that article got the facts wrong, I am very suspicious about the anecdotes about black slaveholders. Moreover, you can see in the paramount paragraph "But many former Negro slave magnates quickly took advantage of circumstances and benefited by virtue of their race" what his bias is....that blacks have somehow benefited from their race since slavery has ended. Again, I'm not sure how the existence of black slaveholders nullifies the idea that the civil war was primarily about slavery.

Especially since the North were also slave owners and were known to treat their slaves much worse than The South.

At the outbreak of the War to Prevent Southern Independence there was a vigorous secession movement in what were known then as the Middle States — Maryland, Pennsylvania, Delaware, New York, New Jersey. During the war there were thousands of Northern "peace Democrats" who opposed Lincoln and his Yankee cabal. These people, who were essentially Jeffersonians, had one thing in common with the Southern Confederates: they despised the arrogant, pushy, greedy, and insufferably self-righteous Yankees. They were ruthlessly censored and imprisoned by the tens of thousands by the Lincoln government. When they rioted over military conscription, the Yankee army shot them dead in the streets by the hundreds if not thousands (See Iver Bernstein, The New York City Draft Riots).

The idea of Yankee moral superiority was carefully crafted almost from the time of the Pilgrims. By 1861, New England Yankees and their Midwestern cousins had concocted the myth of a free, white, and virtuous New England that, by virtue of its moral superiority, had a right to remake all other sections of the U.S. in its own image, creating a Heaven on Earth (i.e., the New England-ization of North America). A corollary of this myth was the notion of the morally corrupt, slave-owning South.

But the notion of a morally superior New England Yankee nation is all a myth, as is explained in great detail by Joanne Pope Melish in her book, Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and Race in New England, 1780—1860 (Cornell University Press, 1998). Professor Melish, who teaches at the University of Kentucky, documents how New England propagandists rewrote their own history, not unlike how the Soviets rewrote Russian history, to say that slavery in that part of the country was only very brief and very benevolent.

The truth of the matter is that slavery existed in New England for more than 200 years (beginning in 1638) and it was every bit as degrading and dehumanizing as slavery anywhere. In mid eighteenth century Rhode Island slaves accounted for as much as one third of the population in many communities. Newport, Rhode Island, and Boston, Massachusetts, were the two biggest hubs of the transatlantic slave trade. Many slaves worked in the shipping industry in New England. Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island were the three biggest Northern slave-owning states.

Virtually all of the household and farm labor of New England’s aristocracy was done by slaves, Professor Melish shows. "These servants performed the dirty, heavy, dangerous, menial jobs around the household, or they acted in inferior roles as valets and maids to masters and mistresses of the upper class" (p 17).

Professor Melish documents the pervasive sexual abuse of slaves by their New England slave masters. The famous New England cleric Cotton Mather advised his fellow Yankees to Christianize their slaves so that they will become even better slaves. "Your servants will be the Better Servants," Mather preached, "for being made Christian servants" (p. 32). Christianize your slaves, and they will be "afraid of speaking or doing any thing that may justly displeasure you." All of this history has been whitewashed and hidden by politically-correct, Northern historians for generations.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/02/thomas-dilorenzo/the-yankee-myth/

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Five states.

Four states.

This doesn't make sense; can you give me a source that has more detail? The North had a much stronger economy than the South....

You say the north had a stronger economy than the south and then tell me what I am saying does not make sense? If the north's economy was so strong, then why did they continue protections decades after these nascent northern industries should have been established? Furthermore, if they north's economy was so strong, then why did they endeavor to keep the south? Moreover, if the southern economy was so weak, then why did they break away from the north?

No, you need to provide sources. I have never seen anybody on this forum throw out so much unsupported opinion, including in this thread.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Lies created by southern revisionists who know they are catering to a captive audience who will not bother to check the facts:

The revisionism is happening today. One simple example is the subject of this article. Another is revisionists that downplay economic issues. The United States had grown into three distinctly recognized regions after the War of 1812. Subjects such as the tariff were ongoing and deep. Denying that in favor of one aspect is the epitome of revision.

 

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

...who will not bother to check the facts:

Well, I do check facts. Your article is written by some guy from The Atlantic Magazine. He expresses his evidence and doubt of numbers with words like "Bullshit." He makes up some chart with slavery numbers and then cites population density maps that have nothing to do with charts. His original source even says to click "gently" on those maps to find the information. Guess my mouse is not gentle enough.

I know the numbers. I don't need a lesson from some fluffy magazine writer who makes up things and cites pretty colored pictures that have nothing to do with what he claims. What is in contention is revisionists who downplay anything and everything other than slavery.

 

[GunnyFreedom]

Intarwebz chatter seems to predict a bloody armed confrontation between alt-right and antifa today (Sunday) over the removal of confederate monuments in New Orleans.

 

[tod evans]

Intarwebz chatter seems to predict a bloody armed confrontation between alt-right and antifa today (Sunday) over the removal of confederate monuments in New Orleans.

Who's taking bets?

 

[nobody's_hero]

I was thinking about this last night, and while Confederate monuments might have a bad connotation to some people, I don't think we should erase that era from our history. We can't treat history as if some things never happened. Sometimes wrong decisions and wrong motives should be captured and exposed as a reminder that we don't want to go back to that kind of thinking.

I think we have gotten so caught up in the illusion of perfection as power that we don't want to see any scars or reminders that bad things happened, and I think that's a big mistake.

Erase the past and you'll repeat it. +rep