[BRussell]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

Of course they just declared it unilaterally. Why would they need to ask permission to leave a voluntary association?

It was a voluntary association, but when it was agreed to, it became legally binding. If I voluntarily agree to a legally binding contract, I am now a party to that contract and can't just back out because I feel like it. If both parties agree to dissolve the contract, that's different, but this was unilateral.

This wasn't some federal/state powers (i.e., 10 Amendment) issue like commerce or this recent medicinal marijuana issue. This was about the very existence of the union. In my view, it was treason, pure and simple, and it was treason based on the most evil motive imaginable.

[vmarks]

The importance of considering history in its context should not be lost on you.

Is slavery (that is, denying people maximal freedom) evil? Yes. But at that time, those people were considered property. Evil though it was, this was a 10th Amendment issue.

Your notion that it is impossible to sever a voluntary arrangement is the "Nationalist" or "Strong Compact" concept. Madison in his later years adopted this position.

Treason, it was not. Treason has a very specific definition:
From the Constitution:
Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The act of secession was not an act of war. The act of war was when Lincoln decided to bring the states exercising their right back into the union by force. So, seceding was not treason. Responding to the war brought against the Confederate states was both self-defense and could be framed as treason. Judah P Benjamin, former US Congressman and CSA Atty General, Secretary of State, ended up living out his life in England and France because he was certain that he could never get a fair trial in the US following the loss of the war.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

It was a voluntary association, but when it was agreed to, it became legally binding. If I voluntarily agree to a legally binding contract, I am now a party to that contract and can't just back out because I feel like it.

That's a matter of unfulfilled obligations. You can in fact get out of a contract by fulfilling its terms. This is more like me deciding that because you came into my house, I can do whatever I like to you and you can't leave until we both agree to it. You haven't actually made a commitment to stay for that long — I'm just deciding that you made one based on the fact that you entered.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by peeb 

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

While the D of I is in no way a document with any legal standing, this is absolutely why there is justification for secession. TJ and the founders would have considered that right fundamental to the social contract—the right to give the finger to one social contract and establish another one. But TJ is right, here: if you're gonna do that, you'd better have a damned good reason.

To complicate matters, here's this little tidbit:

If states have the right to secede from the union, then the qualification for reunification after the war—ratification of the 13th and 14th amendments—makes no sense, as you cannot ratify an amendment unless you are a state. The South, then, is technically an occupied territory.

But if, as this seems to imply, the South could not have legally seceded, what if the Southern states had not ratified those amendments?

[Macrobat]

Not to mention that the victorious Union also unilaterally destroyed the constitutions of the Southern states after the war and REWROTE them, themselves. You know, as if we wrote Iraq's Constitution then told them - "this is the law, live by it."

Lincoln suspended Habeas Corpus, imprisoned without trial and executed HUNDREDS of people who disagreed with his policies IN THE NORTH.

The war was losing popularity in the Union and indeed - the Union was LOSING the war until Lincoln seized upon the "hook" of freeing the slaves, then conscripted Irish immigrants fresh off the boats to fight for the Union, in other words, more than HALF the soldiers fighting on the Union side weren't even citizens OF the Union.

The position that the war was fought to free the slaves is a complete and utter lie. As has been pointed out multiple times, Lincoln was MORE than happy to allow the South to keep its slaves if they remained in the Union.

Again - the central issue was the North attempting to DICTATE economic policy to the South and FORCE the South to live on their terms monetarily.

BTW, in those days, GEORGIA was the economic powerhouse, which is why Sherman paid "special attention" to it.

The "Civil War" actually WORSENED the plight of African-Americans in creating the resentment in the South that lead to Segregation for all those years. History bears out that, had no war been fought and slavery been allowed to die its natural death, there never even would have been anything like the KKK and Segregation.

Oh, and the KKK was originally formed during Reconstruction to fight the Yankee occupation. Federal troops were stationed in occupation mode and each of the states were joined in military governorships, their legislatures abolished and their governments declared outlaw, dictated to by Washington directly.

THIS is why all the resentment in the South, NOT because of losing the war. Hell it took the North 4 years, 50 times the manufacturing capacity and 20 times the manpower to pull it off, and were LOSING for 3 years out of the 4 - the South did pretty damned good in that scuffle.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The "Civil War" actually WORSENED the plight of African-Americans in creating the resentment in the South that lead to Segregation for all those years.

I'm all for a little Southern apologetics, but this is a ridiculous, despicable claim that I've heard often in discussions like this. The notion that someone who is free and enfranchised was better off being disenfranchised, legal property is an utterly contemptible way of deflecting blame for white racism after the 13th and 14th amendments were ratified—it is hardly freed slaves' fault that white folks acted like absolute bastards for so long.

[BRussell]

Have you heard a lot of this stuff before, midwinter? I find the level of defense of the confederacy here really surprising. My impression is that Lincoln is the number one candidate for "best president in history" on just about every historian's list, and most people see the confederacy as a Bad Thing™. But apparently there's a group of - perhaps mostly conservative - southerners say that the confederacy was all about liberty. Is this a common thing, to your knowledge? I lived in Atlanta for some time, but was never aware of these crazy attitudes.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Have you heard a lot of this stuff before, midwinter? I find the level of defense of the confederacy here really surprising.

Some of it may be a bit overly-defensive (IE: the Civil War certainly didn't worsen the plight of African Americans in any way comparable to the continuation of slavery), but most of it is just a recognition that the realities of history aren't anywhere near as simple as your "Good Guys" and "Bad Guys" comic-book world view.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Have you heard a lot of this stuff before, midwinter? I find the level of defense of the confederacy here really surprising. My impression is that Lincoln is the number one candidate for "best president in history" on just about every historian's list, and most people see the confederacy as a Bad Thing™. But apparently there's a group of - perhaps mostly conservative - southerners say that the confederacy was all about liberty. Is this a common thing, to your knowledge? I lived in Atlanta for some time, but was never aware of these crazy attitudes.

Yes. Very common. I would imagine (although I'm not sure) that the claim really doesn't emerge all that clearly or consistently until the 1960s, since it made it easier to be a racist pigdog when you could scream "Whooyuh thank yuh ah, violatin' mah states' rahts bah tellin' me who ah cayun'n'cayun nawt uhpress!!!"

Must be more common in Mississippi than in your elists ivory towers (Emory?) there in Hotlanta.

[tie]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The "Civil War" actually WORSENED the plight of African-Americans in creating the resentment in the South that lead to Segregation for all those years. History bears out that, had no war been fought and slavery been allowed to die its natural death, there never even would have been anything like the KKK and Segregation.

Your whole post is rather unbelievable, but I especially liked this part. Another thing that people forget too often is that slavery wasn't entirely a bad thing. It formed the whole basis for the Southern economy, and eliminating it was essentially a form of economic terrorism. Would we have Al Qaeda today if not for Lincoln?

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by midwinter 

Yes. Very common. I would imagine (although I'm not sure) that the claim really doesn't emerge all that clearly or consistently until the 1960s, since it made it easier to be a racist pigdog when you could scream "Whooyuh thank yuh ah, violatin' mah states' rahts bah tellin' me who ah cayun'n'cayun nawt uhpress!!!"

Must be more common in Mississippi than in your elists ivory towers (Emory?) there in Hotlanta.

It was when I was younger and my parents lived there. Newt, after he beat Cooter, was our rep.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by midwinter 

I'm all for a little Southern apologetics, but this is a ridiculous, despicable claim that I've heard often in discussions like this. The notion that someone who is free and enfranchised was better off being disenfranchised, legal property is an utterly contemptible way of deflecting blame for white racism after the 13th and 14th amendments were ratified—it is hardly freed slaves' fault that white folks acted like absolute bastards for so long.

Please feel free to point out where I said they were "better off." Reading comprehension - investigate it. I said that the "Civil War" worsened the later plight of African Americans. Nowhere did I claim they were better off as slaves.

My point was that an armed conflict, followed by the rampant corruption of Reconstruction, were responsible for alot of the anger directed against Blacks, whereas slavery had just about reached the end of its natural life and would soon go away.

Tell me this. Virtually EVERY nationality, race, and creed on this planet has been held in slavery by SOMEONE in the history of this planet. Just why is it that the slavery of African Americans (one of the SHORTEST in duration, btw) is so egregious compared to all the rest?

I am of Germanic descent, Germanics were held as slaves by the Roman Empire for more than 1000 years (more than TWICE as long as the American slavery mistake), yet no one seems up in arms about that. Maybe I should demand a Lamborghini Murcielago from the Italians as reparation?

Clue running over there - go catch it.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

Have you heard a lot of this stuff before, midwinter? I find the level of defense of the confederacy here really surprising. My impression is that Lincoln is the number one candidate for "best president in history" on just about every historian's list, and most people see the confederacy as a Bad Thing™. But apparently there's a group of - perhaps mostly conservative - southerners say that the confederacy was all about liberty. Is this a common thing, to your knowledge? I lived in Atlanta for some time, but was never aware of these crazy attitudes.

Lincoln's domestic policies and egregious disregard for the Constitution were FAR worse than GWB's, yet you consider him a candidate for best president ever? Here's a clue - Lincoln actually had political dissenters imprisoned and executed - without trial.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by tie 

Your whole post is rather unbelievable, but I especially liked this part. Another thing that people forget too often is that slavery wasn't entirely a bad thing. It formed the whole basis for the Southern economy, and eliminating it was essentially a form of economic terrorism. Would we have Al Qaeda today if not for Lincoln?

You find alot unbelievable, yet can be counted on to ALWAYS exaggerate and try to bring the current world problems into virtually EVERY thread.

I never espoused slavery, I never said slavery was a good thing. I simply said that slavery was a FACT and that slavery had just about run its course completely when the war was fought and that the war actually lengthened and worsened the recovery period from slavery.

Feel free to read some other thing I did NOT say into this post.

[peeb]

nmd

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Lincoln actually had political dissenters imprisoned and executed - without trial.

I've never hear that before. Reference?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

The "Civil War" actually WORSENED the plight of African-Americans in creating the resentment in the South that lead to Segregation for all those years. History bears out that, had no war been fought and slavery been allowed to die its natural death, there never even would have been anything like the KKK and Segregation.

Yes, and I only beat my wife because my mother beat me as kid.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Yes, and I only beat my wife because my mother beat me as kid.

Yes, in fact a lot of people do become assholes as a result of psychological scars. This doesn't absolve them of responsibility, but I think it's unreasonable to absolve their abusers of responsibility for starting the chain.

[lpkmckenna]

I agree. However, such a chain of reasoning in political discourse is sophistry.

[Dakar the Fourth]

What psychological scars? This happened almost 150 years ago.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I've never hear that before. Reference?

Lincoln's Abuse Of Power During The American Civil War
03/19/02 - Lincoln And The War On Terror: A Conservative Reappraisal
American America History - Abraham Lincoln's Abuse of Power
Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War
Ex parte Merryman and Abraham Lincoln’s Suspension of Habeas Corpus by Andrew Young
http://www.csulb.edu/~crsmith/lincoln.html


There's more, if you need it.


If you feel like a more in-depth read:

101 Things You Didn't Know About ... - Google Book Search

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Lincoln's Abuse Of Power During The American Civil War
03/19/02 - Lincoln And The War On Terror: A Conservative Reappraisal
American America History - Abraham Lincoln's Abuse of Power
Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War
Ex parte Merryman and Abraham Lincoln’s Suspension of Habeas Corpus by Andrew Young
http://www.csulb.edu/~crsmith/lincoln.html

I scanned thru your links. I didn't see a single reference to an executed political dissenter. Fail.

If you feel like a more in-depth read:

101 Things You Didn't Know About ... - Google Book Search

No thanks, you've wasted enough of my time.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I scanned thru your links. I didn't see a single reference to an executed political dissenter. Fail.


No thanks, you've wasted enough of my time.

Then I suggest you look again. Military commanders were encouraged to round up dissenters and many were hanged. And Lincoln considered even Congressmen who spoke against his policies to be traitors.

"Lincoln’s policy was to have treasonous federal lawmakers arrested and tried before military tribunals, and exiled or hanged if convicted," Waller announces. He quotes Lincoln as saying that "Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs who should be arrested, exiled or hanged." Lincoln "spoke forcefully of the need to arrest, convict and, if necessary, execute congressmen who by word or deed undermined the war effort."

Of course, Lincoln defined a "saboteur" as virtually anyone who disagreed with his politics and policies and subsequently ordered the military to arrest literally tens of thousands of Northern political opponents, including dozens of opposition newspaper editors.

Lincoln even deported dissenters:

Lincoln completely intimidated Congress by boldly deporting his chief critic. The message was clear: criticize the administration and this could happen to you. He also thumbed his nose at the Supreme Court by literally issuing an arrest warrant for Chief Justice Roger B. Taney after he issued an opinion that only Congress could constitutionally suspend habeas corpus. Lincoln simply ignored the Court and effectively destroyed the doctrine of separation of powers during his entire administration.

The Neocon Case for Imprisoning and Executing Congressional War Opponents by Thomas J. DiLorenzo
I suggest you actually READ links before spouting next time.

[lpkmckenna]

Maybe you should read those links again yourself. Waller quotes Lincoln, but do we know the names of any of these executed political dissenters? The utter lack of specifics eliminates any credibility in Waller's statements - in other words, it's unproven hearsay.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Maybe you should read those links again yourself. Waller quotes Lincoln, but do we know the names of any of these executed political dissenters? The utter lack of specifics eliminates any credibility in Waller's statements - in other words, it's unproven hearsay.

hearsay only in your mind. You wanted references, they were supplied, now you want to move the goalposts and demand names. Okay, I'll research it and and see if I can GET you names in a format that can be posted here, then you will want to see copies of their birth certificates. In the meantime:

James G. Randall documented Lincoln's assault on the Constitution in "Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln." Lincoln unconstitutionally suspended the writ of habeas corpus and had the military arrest tens of thousands of Northern political opponents, including dozens of newspaper editors and owners. Some 300 newspapers were shut down and all telegraph communication was censored. Northern elections were rigged; Democratic voters were intimidated by federal soldiers; hundreds of New York City draft protesters were gunned down by federal troops; West Virginia was unconstitutionally carved out of Virginia; and the most outspoken member of the Democratic Party opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio, was deported. Duly elected members of the Maryland legislature were imprisoned, as was the mayor of Baltimore and Congressman Henry May. The border states were systematically disarmed in violation of the Second Amendment and private property was confiscated. Lincoln's apologists say he had "to destroy the Constitution in order to save it."

The abuses are WELL documented and are most definitely NOT "hearsay" to anyone other than perhaps you.

Let's put myths to rest

The draft protests were even featured in the movie "Gangs of New York."

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Please feel free to point out where I said they were "better off."

Here is what you wrote:

Originally Posted by Macrobat

The "Civil War" actually WORSENED the plight of African-Americans

What you are saying is that the conditions in which black people/slaves existed (presumably in the South) were made worse by the Civil War. This means that the conditions in which they existed before the Civil War must have been better. Otherwise they could not have been worsened. Before the Civil War (better) they were slaves. After the civil war (worse) they were free.

Did the Civil War create a climate of resentment and hostility? Yes. Did it make life horrifically difficult for black folks in the South? Absolutely. Did it make their lives worse? No.

[Macrobat]

No, what I said was that if slavery had been able to die a natural death, things would have probably been better for blacks post-slavery. English must not be your first language. Nice try at cherrypicking PART of a sentence,. Wait - oh no it's not.

Let me see if I can use smaller words this time for you.

See the "Civil War" and Reconstruction made the social climate really bad for post-slavery blacks in the South, so the resentment (those bad feelings) led to Segregation. Had the institution of slavery been allowed to die a natural death, the society would have had a chance to adjust, and those institutions would quite probably have never come about.

I didn't say one damned word about anyone being better off under slavery, what I said was that it would have been better if the war and subsequent actions had never occurred.

You get it that time?


And lpmckenna, I have found the references in some old copies of Civil War Times Illustrated magazine, will have to figure out how to get pre-internet text to you, probably scan and .pdf them.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

See the "Civil War" and Reconstruction made the social climate really bad for post-slavery blacks in the South, so the resentment (those bad feelings) led to Segregation. Had the institution of slavery been allowed to die a natural death, the society would have had a chance to adjust, and those institutions would quite probably have never come about.

Sorry Macrobat, but midwinter is right- this argument is ridiculous. First off, segregation existed in many forms, pretty much nationwide- it's another of those things that's actually not just the South's problem, but a symptom of common racist attitudes. Blacks in general being treated as second class citizens was a national (heck, global) problem that the lack of a US Civil War would have done nothing to address.

I think it's naive to believe slavery would have just "ended itself" without some horrific 'final solution' to get rid of all the former slaves.

Just letting slavery die on its own, in a society that's been taught to believe in people as their property, and non-human, isn't very conductive to those same people just magically, on their own, accepting that there former 'chattel' are now human beings, and in fact, their equals. Those combinations of beliefs don't generally end well on their own. There's an entire racist mindset behind slavery, segregation and truly believing you can own other humans, that wouldn't have just gone away, war or no war, and that the Civil War isn't to blame for existing in the first place, or unfairly exacerbating.

[Chuckit]

I guess that would be why the KKK has such a strong presence in England, France and everywhere else that slavery was ended without a civil war?

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Wait, would you happen to be referencing Europe- the BIRTHPLACE of the term 'final solution'?

And once again,all those 'innocent' European nations like England and France that *ahem* ended slavery by going to Africa, taking over the ENTIRE continent, shooting, killing, raping, enslaving, committing genocides against the native populations... but hey, they didn't bring it back home, so no harm no foul.

Yes, racism- just a Southern 'KKK' thing.

[Macrobat]

Hate to break it to you, but as I said earlier EVERY race, creed, nationality and color has been seen as property by someone at one time or another, only ONE is treated with kid gloves.

[peeb]

Help me understand why you think that "EVERY race, creed, nationality and color has been seen as property by someone at one time or another" - perhaps you'd care to rephrase that - since it's such obvious nonsense.

[nonhuman]

Name one that hasn't been.

[peeb]

Well, I think that the onus is on the person who made the claim to show that it is true.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Hate to break it to you, but as I said earlier EVERY race, creed, nationality and color has been seen as property by someone at one time or another, only ONE is treated with kid gloves.

This point is a totally separate issue to that of the Civil War ending slavery, and whether or not that was a good thing for blacks.

I'm not arguing that all races haven't at one time or another been enslaved. Heck, part of my argument is that whoever it is that pretends to be 'above it' or responsible for some phony 'end' to the enslavement of other human beings, is virtually always 100% full of ****. Nobody comes up clean in this regard. Unfortunately, the enslavement of humans by other humans (whether in the name of the Confederacy, or a bunch of euro-weenies yapping about white man's burden and how the sun never sets on their friggen empires) has been one of mankind's rules, not its exceptions. And right up to current times.

But even if every other white person on earth was enslaved, it's not any excuse for the racism behind slavery and segregation in the south. It's patently ridiculous to try and argue that in the south we're talking about, that whites weren't the ones held up as superior- and therefore doing the enslaving, and blacks as inferior.

It's nonsensical to suggest that the Klan would never have evolved if not for the Civil War. In the whites=superior / blacks= non-human society, whenever or however blacks would have demanded equal rights and equality, and looked to their government (that claimed to be 'for the people) or anyone else to help them out, they'd have met with mobs of angry whites ready to kill and destroy what they viewed as their inferiors getting uppity. To not acknowledge this, and actually blame the actions of vicious racists entirely on the Civil War, or Lincoln, is just naive in the worst extreme.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Well, I think that the onus is on the person who made the claim to show that it is true.

Probably more up to you to use your common sense. Every single race on this planet has been held in slavery by someone else. Tell ya what, read the Bible, the Koran, and religious text, notice how many times the word "slave" is used. Read any world history text.

Or read this:
Slavery: A World History - Google Book Search

Stop being obtuse, just for a reason to post.

As nonhuman said - name ONE race that hasn't been held in slavery.

Slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


And CRASH, you're just plain wrong. EVERY single other place where slavery has been abolished WITHOUT armed conflict, there is no animus and never was, you argument fails on its face.

And NO, it is NOT nonsensical to suggest a non-formation of the KKK, since the KKK was formed to fight the perceived excesses of Reconstruction. See, no war = no Reconstruction.

People didn't appreciate being dictated to as far as what they could and could not do. Southerners were FORCED to accept conditions that he North was not, as a conquered people. This LEAD to the formation of the KKK.

A Brief History of Ku Klux Klan and Their Flag of Hate by Jeffrey Todd McCormack

The original Klan, as a single united group, existed from shortly after the war, till it was officially ended in 1877. While today's modern Klan groups are fighting for a goal that is a far cry from what the original Klan fought for, I believe if you have a better understanding of exactly what was going on during Reconstruction, that just about any race of man today, if put in their shoes, would have joined such a group. They had a purpose, and they came out to fight for it. Once their job was done, they closed shop. The Klan today have no such purpose as they did (at least not one that is so obviously abusive), and their actions today have different intents and outcomes.

Try to imagine yourself in the late 1860's, after the war, living in the South. The Yankees have invaded, and had went across the land stealing and destroying just about all of your family belongings, digging up graves for treasure items, jewelry, etc. Many of these ruthless Yankees have raped and killed your wives, your daughters, and slaves. They have poured oil all over your fields, so you will have no crops for many years. They have stolen every sign of food to be seen around. They have stolen everything dear to you, burned down your house, and have left you out on the street in the middle of winter. You must now return to try to get back to life.

If that was not bad enough, you now find that all sense of State government that you are used to, has been destroyed and replaced by armed soldiers in and around your neighborhoods, in your homes, strictly enforcing their views upon you. They come and go as they please, continuing the abuse of you and your family, continuing the abuse of your wife and daughters. They will not allow any white southerner to vote for anything. All voting is granted only to the un-educated former slaves who they have forced to now make it on their own, and they are only allowed to vote if they vote for the party in charge; otherwise they are cut off. An example to be made, is that of a banner displayed in Georgia voting booths during the 1868 presidential campaign, that states "Every man [Negro] that didn't vote the Radical [Republican] ticket, this is the way we want to serve him: hang him by the neck." If they refuse, of course they are abused and even killed. So in essence, the voting process is just game playing, as you have no choice.

On top of all of this, you have scalawags and carpetbaggers coming down and holding secret meeting, teaching the ex-slaves how to best go back now and take vengeance on their former masters. They are armed and taught how to kill, rape and destroy, and then sent out in the night to do so. On top of the Yankee atrocities already having taken place, you now have this rebellion going on behind the scenes. Masses of former slaves are going about raping, killing, burning, and destroying just about anything they can find; so the torture continues well after the war.

As mentioned above, flooding into the South, came Northern troops and men with hostile ideas. They brought heavy taxation and more abuse. Along with them, came the Union League - supported by a new militia of ex-black Union soldiers. They moved right into the plantations, cities, towns and villages, looking for the ex-slaves. The illiterate, simple minded freedman became easy prey for their political agenda. Hate the whites, hate your masters, and vote for us. We will divide the spoils of the South with you. The Union League and militia constantly insulted the whites, in front of the ex-slaves, giving them the illusion that they had great power and superiority. By telling them they would soon acquire the land of their former masters, these newly freed blacks had false expectations and were furnished with a disincentive to work.

Secret clubs were established with the intent of raising the ex-slaves into political power over the Southern Whites. It soon became almost "anything-goes," with the ex-slaves abusing and threatening whites at every turn, causing the beaten down Southern whites to live in much fear. The Union League, militia and ex-slaves patrolled all the streets, harassing and threatening everyone, especially all the wives and daughters of the towns.

In the beginning, the Klan was organized by a small group of men, to have fun, and provide some "comic relief" for a beaten down people

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

And CRASH, you're just plain wrong. EVERY single other place where slavery has been abolished WITHOUT armed conflict, there is no animus and never was, you argument fails on its face.

As I've said before, this is a FALSE premise. Slavery wasn't abolished as cleanly and simply as people are led to believe, it simply changed it's face. Europeans realized that the old practice of actually going abroad, loading up ships full of people, and shipping them elsewhere to use as slaves was never going to win any popularity awards. They 'abolished' that practice, and changed it into: go abroad, TAKE OVER the nation where you were formerly exporting slaves, turn the whole place into one big plantation with you as the colonial 'masters' and then profit from the spoils- food, sugar, rubber, diamonds, gold, silver, precious stones, raw materials, silk, spices, etc. etc. etc...

In other words, WHY even go through all of the hassle to ship the slaves back home to produce product- leave the slaves where they ARE, become their 'masters' ON SITE, and ship the product back home. It's a deviously simple shift in practice that just simply makes more business sense, plain and simple, and appears to most fools as more moral. Call it 'in-sourcing'.

If 10 million+ or so people died in the process (see the Belgian Congo for one of the most horrific examples) then so be it.

Slavery was never really abolished, and sure as hell not anytime before the 20th century- it was turned into an imperial enterprise and kept 'out of sight, out of mind'. It clearly was such a good ruse, that it fools people even to this day into believing the practice of "humans enslaving other humans" was ever truly 'abolished' by anyone, and history's WORST offenders (most European colonial powers) least of all.

At the heart of all of it, was racism. The belief that if non-whites are inferior, there's nothing wrong with using them as basically nothing more than pack animals. It matters very little if you do it on your home turf, or just take over the place where the slaves are from. Both are the result of a mindset of white superiority.

None of this is ancient history- most African nations didn't even achieve independence until the 1960's, and the South African apartheid regime was the lingering result of racist European colonization of Africa that was still going strong up until very recently.

And NO, it is NOT nonsensical to suggest a non-formation of the KKK, since the KKK was formed to fight the perceived excesses of Reconstruction. See, no war = no Reconstruction.

All I can say, is you truly have rose-colored glasses on, and are overly-apologetic as charged.

You completely miss the point.

Whether or not an actual organization called 'the KKK' with men in white sheets would have formed matters not a hill of beans. What you're completely missing, is that the racism behind the Klan, was PRESENT and accounted for already. It was the result of the mindset that allowed the concept of whites owning blacks in the first place. That same racism would have clashed with blacks wanting to be treated as equals NO MATTER WHAT. How you can fail to understand that, and dismiss it, is quite frankly, an amazing display of naivety.

Blacks in the south demanding equality would have met resistance from the entirety of white society that thought of them as non-human NO MATTER WHAT.

Basically, blacks were screwed by the entire world at the time which saw all blacks as nothing more than chattel, and the nations where they came from as objects of conquest and enslavement. It's just simply naive to pretend otherwise.

The Civil War obviously didn't end the suffering of blacks- that suffering was guaranteed to continue for at least the next 100 years that it took for the society to change, but it certainly was better that the slave trade was ended, rather than continued. To try and argue that, is just to be an apologist for southern racism, no matter what spin you want to try and put on it.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

Probably more up to you to use your common sense. Every single race on this planet has been held in slavery by someone else. Tell ya what, read the Bible, the Koran, and religious text, notice how many times the word "slave" is used. Read any world history text.

Again, that's a bold claim that I would like to see evidence for. Perhaps when you wrote that "EVERY race, creed, nationality and color has been seen as property by someone at one time or another" you meant that individuals from every race etc had at one time been seen as property? A claim that still requires some evidence, but which is a little more plausible.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by Macrobat 

No, what I said was that if slavery had been able to die a natural death, things would have probably been better for blacks post-slavery.

Here is your comment in its entirety:

Originally Posted by Macrobat

The "Civil War" actually WORSENED the plight of African-Americans in creating the resentment in the South that lead to Segregation for all those years. History bears out that, had no war been fought and slavery been allowed to die its natural death, there never even would have been anything like the KKK and Segregation.

There are actually several things going on here:

1) You claim, as I pointed out, that the CW makes life worse for black folks. The logic is simply inescapable then that they were better off as slaves than they were after the CW.

2) You claim, as I did not bother to point out, that the "resentment in the South" after the CW was worse than being a slave. If their lives were "worse" after the CW because of the "resentment," they were better off before it, when they were slaves.

3) Your last sentence (which is actually possibly two, since it has a comma splice) is a separate claim and is actually unprovable. We do not know, nor can we, what would have happened to race relations without the CW.

Nice try at cherrypicking PART of a sentence,. Wait - oh no it's not.

The rest of the sentence is irrelevant. You can whine and make insinuations about my facility with English all you want (it gives me a good chuckle, actually).

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

I guess that would be why the KKK has such a strong presence in England, France and everywhere else that slavery was ended without a civil war?

There's a fairly long history of racism (both institutionalized and otherwise) in England—not just against black folks there and in Africa or Indians or later Pakistanis, but also the Irish, whose whiteness was deeply troubling to English racist ideologies that hinged in the 19th century on the fervent belief that the white Englishman was, quite simply, the greatest thing on earth.

The modern iteration of the KKK there, of course, is the British National Party. Recent discussions (as in the last week or so) about defining "Britishness" in the UK school systems are absolutely fueled by a belief that Britishness is being somehow lost or diffused by all of the immigration happening. Same discussions are taking place in Ireland, last I was there. Same discussions took place in the 1880s and 1890s. I mean, hell, what do you think Dracula is if not a novel about illegal immigrants from eastern Europe coming to steal good, white, British girls?

My point is that just because there wasn't a CW to end slavery in Britain (there never really was all that much, as the Brits were pretty cagey about it, outlawing the owning of slaves ON BRITISH SOIL in the late c18 but being perfectly OK with owning slaves in the Carribbean [see Jane Austen's Mansfield Park or even Dickens's comments about the Jamaican uprising in 1865]), racist attitudes persisted until, as someone pointed out upthread, they just started conquering people where they were—using the rhetoric of civilizers or liberators—and then occupying, as in the case of Iraq (which the British created) for decades.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by midwinter 

1) You claim, as I pointed out, that the CW makes life worse for black folks. The logic is simply inescapable then that they were better off as slaves than they were after the CW.

2) You claim, as I did not bother to point out, that the "resentment in the South" after the CW was worse than being a slave. If their lives were "worse" after the CW because of the "resentment," they were better off before it, when they were slaves.

You're completely misinterpreting what he said. No one is claiming that 'the resentment of the South was worse than being a slave'. The claim is that the resentment of the South made being a freed slave worse than it would otherwise have been. It has nothing to do with conditions pre-emancipation, it's about how post-emancipation conditions would have been different and quite likely better.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

You're completely misinterpreting what he said. No one is claiming that 'the resentment of the South was worse than being a slave'. The claim is that the resentment of the South made being a freed slave worse than it would otherwise have been. It has nothing to do with conditions pre-emancipation, it's about how post-emancipation conditions would have been different and quite likely better.

If that's what he meant, that's what he should have said. But that's not what he said. He said, very clearly, this:

The "Civil War" actually WORSENED the plight of African-Americans in creating the resentment in the South that lead to Segregation for all those years.

If the plight of African Americans is worsened by the CW, then it must have been better, earlier. That's what the sentence says.

Either way, there is simply no way of knowing that, had there been no CW, slavery would've just ended like a fad and that, despite having been in the habit of owning people and not paying them for work, the South would now be an Eden of racial harmony.

[CRASH HARDDRIVE]

The Civil War didn't cause segregation- that's ludicrous and ignorant.

The south, and much of the entire country was already segregated at the time, and long thereafter. Some people seem to think we had the Civil Rights Acts of 1864, not 1964. To try and blame 100+ years of racism on the reconstruction is just DUMB. There's no other way of putting it.

The KKK had it's strongest resurgence in Illinois- last time I checked, that wasn't a southern state crawling with Yankee carpet baggers. The Klan clearly can and DID form and thrive outside of the reconstruction period South.

Look at a list of white against black race riots in this country some time: New York City, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, East St. Louis, Boston, Scranton, etc. etc. etc... none of them deep south.

Racism, segregation, and intense anti-black sentiment was common in America- ALL OF America at the time of the Civil War, and for long thereafter.

[subego]

Originally Posted by midwinter 

Either way, there is simply no way of knowing that, had there been no CW, slavery would've just ended like a fad...

I'm sure everyone will jump at the chance to point out if I'm wrong, but I always assumed that what killed slavery in the North was that an industrialized economy makes it cheaper (and more efficient) not to own someone.

You have to feed and take care of a slave. In the North the "free peoples" took care of themselves at a fraction of the cost.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by subego 

I'm sure everyone will jump at the chance to point out if I'm wrong, but I always assumed that what killed slavery in the North was that an industrialized economy makes it cheaper (and more efficient) not to own someone.

You have to feed and take care of a slave. In the North the "free peoples" took care of themselves at a fraction of the cost.

I don't know much about the ins and outs of the American economy in the 19th century as it relates to slavery, but I'd imagine that the absence of cotton fields in the North was a factor, as well.

Of course, Marx and all the other mid-19th century labor folks would point out that industrial economies just exchanged one form of slavery for another....

[subego]

Originally Posted by midwinter 

I don't know much about the ins and outs of the American economy in the 19th century as it relates to slavery, but I'd imagine that the absence of cotton fields in the North was a factor, as well.

No doubt. What I'm saying though is that unlike whether the South would have ended slavery for some high-minded reason (which you accurately point out is conjecture) I don't really think it's conjecture to say the South would have industrialized on its own, even without a CW

Originally Posted by midwinter 

Of course, Marx and all the other mid-19th century labor folks would point out that industrial economies just exchanged one form of slavery for another....

While I would have some major issues with the conclusions Marx would draw, the observation seems accurate for the part of the population we're talking about.

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by subego 

I don't really think it's conjecture to say the South would have industrialized on its own, even without a CW

Has it really industrialized yet in terms of the stat-by-state economies? Driving around my hometown, I see more farms than factories (even though Toyota is putting in a massive factory soon). When I was in college, I used to drive almost the entire length of MS when I drove home, and it was mostly farmland. I honestly don't know what the measure of agrarian versus industrial economies is, and I freely admit I haven't lived in MS in almost 20 years. But I will say this: it doesn't look like Pittsburgh. Parts of Birmingham do, of course. The stinky side of Baton Rouge does. I'd imagine parts of Georgia do as well. But did these states ever really industrialize?

While I would have some major issues with the conclusions Marx would draw, the observation seems accurate for the part of the population we're talking about.

Marx wasn't alone in making such claims about the enslavement of workers, nor was it a claim limited to the socialists. It's difficult to disagree with them when they're describing factories that don't hire literate people and don't allow clocks inside—so the workers don't know how long they've been there. Hell, just consider this: the Ten Hours Act in Britain was put in place to limit the number of hours a THIRTEEN YEAR OLD could work in a day to TEN.

[subego]

Originally Posted by midwinter 

But did these states ever really industrialize?

Compared to the North? No. Compared to itself during the CW? Surely.

Originally Posted by midwinter 

It's difficult to disagree with them

Didn't I say that?

[midwinter]

Originally Posted by subego 

Compared to the North? No. Compared to itself during the CW? Surely.

I'm sure. But it's an interesting question, I think, to ask what degree of industrialization results in this magical absence of human bondage.

Didn't I say that?

I was waxing rhetorical, cut me some slack!

[subego]

Originally Posted by midwinter 

I'm sure. But it's an interesting question, I think, to ask what degree of industrialization results in this magical absence of human bondage.

I'd guess that for the South, that point would have been centered around the large-scale mechanization of agriculture. Ballpark 20-40 years post CW. Though (and this is pure conjecture on my part) I would have to guess that the CW did a lot for the development of the steam engine, an obvious requirement for large scale mechanization.

Originally Posted by midwinter 

I was waxing rhetorical, cut me some slack!

It's all good.