-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Union goon threatens Republicans (don't look for reporting of this story)...
- Thread starter rbell
- Start date
- Status
I would suppose the question would be - who is making it an emotional issue.
I have lived down South for many years, and I believe that they have made big strives. However, sometimes I think those in the North do not share that view and thus are judgmental.
Of course you are satisfied, the North won - and its not "all in the North" as I am Yankee born
and that is part of the problem - you think the WBTS was ONLY fought over slavery - the main issue was States Rights.
And do you know what the Constitution of the CSA said about slaves?
Many thnk that Lincoln was the great saviour of the slaves - Well look at this quote from the 16th POTUS:
"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." Two years later, President Lincoln wrote: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it;
Here is the link for the entire article
Last edited by a moderator:
No, and I don't CARE. IT'S ANCIENT HISTORY! The only thing about the whole episode that has any relevance now is that pre-war our African-American brothers and sisters were not considered fully human, and post-war they had the same rights as the rest of us. I have no reason to believe the CSA would ever have abolished slavery, since it was an integral part of the southern economy. As far as I am concerned, if you don't like the way the Civil War turned out, you want slavery to have stayed legal. And yes, people like me who love other people regardless of color DO get emotional about that sometimes, such as when Southerners cry about how it wasn't about slavery, it was about states rights. Yes, but the state right that was in dispute was SLAVERY. They are not separate issues, they are parts of the same thing. So as long as southerners keep expressing how they wish the Civil War had turned out differently, people like me who DON'T wish slavery had continued are going to react negatively to it. If you don't like that reaction, LET THE RESULT OF THE CIVIL WAR GO AND ONCE AND FOR ALL MOVE ON!!
I would disagree - as I am sure there are some very old seniors who had the opportunity to talk to their grandfathers who fought in the war
Of course you have the right to have a closed mind
I have never said I believe in slavery or that I wanted it to stay legal
Last edited by a moderator:
FR7 Baptist
Active Member
The CSA constitution gave the states less rights. For example, it took away their rights to extend voting rights to non-citizens and to outlaw slavery. It also barely limited federal powers.
You are absolutely right
Click here for the Constitution of the CSA
Actually there are some sections I wish were in the US Constitution
But it was the part that caused the CSA to be formed in the first place. These people act like slavery was just this peripheral matter when in fact it was the center of the whole dispute. 'States rights' is a legitimate issue, but people who don't like how the Civil War turned out hide behind that issue to try to avoid facing the REAL issue, which was 'Should some human beings be treated as the property of other human beings?' If someone's answer to that question is 'yes' (and if they think the South should have won the Civil War, that IS their answer), they should have the honesty to just admit their bigotry, instead of trying to hide it behind 'states rights.'
You do realize that many Northerners also had slaves - don't you?
Yes, I wish the South had won - but NO,NO,NO, I am not a bigot!
Just wondering why you have such a bigoted attitude against the South. Have you ever lived down there?
:godisgood:
Walguy- Are you also aware that the vast majority of southerners did not own slaves?
The automatic title of bigot bestowed on someone who wishes the War turned out differently is unfair. The reason for the wish is what must be looked at.
Walguy- Are you also aware that the vast majority of southerners did not own slaves?
The automatic title of bigot bestowed on someone who wishes the War turned out differently is unfair. The reason for the wish is what must be looked at.
That's really interesting, as I was born and raised in the South and never in all my forty-four years heard anyone say that slavery should be legal. Perhaps you should be more specific. Who, specifically, have you heard say that slavery should be legal?
So then, I guess you don't believe that Jim Crow or the Civil Rights Movement ever happened.
Actually, it wasn't. In fact, slavery was already starting to come to a slow and gradual close by the time the war began. It was economically untenable and most historians believe it would have faded out altogether on its own by 1880.
Out of curiousity, do you have any idea how childish that makes you sound?
Actually, it was about far more than that. There was also the issue of the federal government attempting to intimidate the Southern states with unweildly tarrifs and regulations that would have crippled industry and railroads throughout the South.
You keep saying that. I think it's interesting that you have to keep repeating that in every breath. I wonder if you're not a closet racist and you're just trying to convince us (or perhaps, yourself) that you're not. Methinks thou doth protest too much.
Arbo said:
...or that a significant number of free slaves fought for the Confederacy?
Salty said:
It's interesting to note that, after Charleston, the three biggest entry points for slaves being brought into the country were Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Boston, all Northern cities. It's also interesting to note that slavery was legal in New York as late as 1848, a mere twelve years before the start of the war.
Last edited by a moderator:
You know what's really ironic is that I grew up in Alabama in the late 60s and 70's and never really saw any personal racism. I saw some traces of leftover institutional racism, but I didn't really know any real racists (and by "real racists", I mean people who have a sincere hatred of others based on skin color).
But then I moved to New Jersey and I never heard the "N" word thrown around so much in all my life.
I'll tell you what I did see, though. I saw my mom going into black churches to help register voters (actually, I heard about that more than I saw it because most of that happened before I was born) and I saw my dad going into the poorest parts of Birmingham and Bessemer to establish mentoring programs for inner city black children (or, at least, as "inner city" as Bessemer got).
We had black friends, our parents had black friends, my nanny when I was a child was black (Her name was Miss Eloise. She taught me how to whistle. I loved her like she was my second mama.) we were taught to treat blacks with respect and dignity.
Ironically, the only time race was ever even an issue for us was when it was brought up as part of the never ending campaign of cartoons and comic books trying to teach us not to notice race (I remember Little Lotta was big about this and there was a "Christian" themed comic book I think was called Wee Kids or something like that that was always talking about race and bigotry).
My theory is that these efforts probably produced more racism than it solves. If a child isn't a bigot and doesn't know what a bigot is, then constantly telling him not to be a bigot has to create at least some validity of bigotry in his mind.
When I first moved to New Jersey in the 70's, it was stunning how many people just assumed I must be a racist, for no other reason than that I have a Southern accent.
Even today, I'll still run into the occasional person of the "Well, you're from the South. You know how them colored are" variety.
Slavery died a natural death in the industrialized nations because theoretically free workers (industrial serfs) are more economical. Free workers don't have to be fed when business is slow. As long as there is a labor surplus low labor bid gets the job, a fight to the bottom of the food chain.
Scab workers in S. Carolina are willing to underbid union workers in Washington but complain about illegal aliens underbidding them. If the illegals are eliminated the scab workers will ultimately assume the standard of living of the illegals. Getting rid of the illegals will not erase the race to the bottom.
In the 1950's one male worker could pay the rent and food bill leaving the wife for child care. Now days most families have two working people. (In S. Dak. it is 2.8 working people). As expenses rise and pay falls the choice is giving up the house and moving to an apartment near one's work or putting the teenage kids to work to pay the food bills instead of buying gas for their own cars.
Buy bicycle stock!
Scab workers in S. Carolina are willing to underbid union workers in Washington but complain about illegal aliens underbidding them. If the illegals are eliminated the scab workers will ultimately assume the standard of living of the illegals. Getting rid of the illegals will not erase the race to the bottom.
In the 1950's one male worker could pay the rent and food bill leaving the wife for child care. Now days most families have two working people. (In S. Dak. it is 2.8 working people). As expenses rise and pay falls the choice is giving up the house and moving to an apartment near one's work or putting the teenage kids to work to pay the food bills instead of buying gas for their own cars.
Buy bicycle stock!
JohnDeereFan said:
On a related note:
What's ironic about this is that Reconstruction policies created a sharecropper system that wasn't much better for blacks than slavery.
- Status