All Things Doug Phillips & VF, Including Lourdes's Lawsuit

[formergothardite]

What is your solution to ending slavery and making it illegal? Buying slaves and giving plows isn't doing that and wasn't practical. The South was not going to give up their slaves without a fight and I'm not sure why you think they would.

[Olive Plant]

What is your solution to ending slavery and making it illegal? Buying slaves and giving plows isn't doing that and wasn't practical. The South was not going to give up their slaves without a fight and I'm not sure why you think they would.

Exactly. Let's see… Go into the south with enough money to buy every single slave alive, pat the newly freed slaves on the head, and depart. Two weeks later, when 3/4 of these former slaves' free papers have mysteriously disappeared and a thriving black market to re-sell them to owners newly flush with cash has sprung up, come back and repeat the process.

You've seen the (almost entirely biographical) "12 years a slave" right? Free black man kidnapped and sold, as was common? Yeah.

[CloakNDagger]

Exactly. Let's see… Go into the south with enough money to buy every single slave alive, pat the newly freed slaves on the head, and depart. Two weeks later, when 3/4 of these former slaves' free papers have mysteriously disappeared and a thriving black market to re-sell them to owners newly flush with cash has sprung up, come back and repeat the process.

You've seen the (almost entirely biographical) "12 years a slave" right? Free black man kidnapped and sold, as was common? Yeah.

It would have had to start with an acknowledgement that the original Constitution was wrong in the 2/3 compromise and that all men were truly created equal. Then, there would have to be a way to transition. I truly don't believe that the blood shed on both sides was the answer.

[formergothardite]

There was already blood being shed heavily on the South's side. And if you think them being told "Hey, the Constitution was wrong! Black people are equals to you. No more slavery!" would have solved it all you are living in a dream world. Where in the world are you getting the idea that the South would have given up slavery without a fight?

This is what the Confederacy was founded upon:

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

This is the Cornerstone Speech from the VP of the Confederacy.

It also says this:

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. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right

What was the immediate cause of them leaving the Union? State rights? No. It was slavery. It is the Confederate constitution that he is speaking of. And it was the one that put to rest the idea that black people had any place in civilization other than as a slave. No, telling them that the United States constitution was wrong about black people and they needed to transition out of slavery would not have worked.

[samurai_sarah]

It would have had to start with an acknowledgement that the original Constitution was wrong in the 2/3 compromise and that all men were truly created equal. Then, there would have to be a way to transition. I truly don't believe that the blood shed on both sides was the answer.

Interesting, how your compassion only seems to extend to the people who fought, and not those who lost their lives, families and dignity, to an oppressive system that made humans chattel. Because they committed the sin of being black.

[debrand]

The same southern soldiers who returned home after fighting the Civil War were the same people who enacted laws that segregated African Americans and made it harder for them to vote. Don't forget the terrorist organization called the Klu Klux Klan.

Because I am from NC, I have to mention the The Wilmington Coup d'Etat of 1898 but there were other incidents in which newly freed slaves were not allowed to take part in the political process that was their right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilmington ... on_of_1898

Sorry to link to Wikipedia but the information is the same that I have read elsewhere

How can anyone believe that southern white slaveholders would have voluntarily surrender their right to own slaves?

[formergothardite]

Has anyone else read parts of those books Jefferson Davis wrote after the Civil War? It is called something like The Complete History of the Confederacy. It will make your blood boil when he describes slavery. Anyway, it is pretty clear from it that Davis was a bitter loser and that telling him that the South needed to transition out of slavery would have had a snowballs chance in hell of working.

[debrand]

If the northern states had bought the slaves, it would have made selling human being profitable which meant that more individuals would have wanted to get into the business.

NDREW NAPOLITANO: Look, the numbers are equivocal because you're trying to talk about it in modern terms. But in 1860 terms, I'll agree with the number $3 billion dollars. Less than half of what it cost to fight the Civil War and rebuild the South.

JON STEWART: Professor Foner, what's the bill for freeing everybody?

ERIC FONER: The $3 billion is correct...

ANDREW NAPOLITANO: Thank you, professor.

ERIC FONER: ... but it should be noted that if you wanted to buy all the factories, railroads, and banks in the country at that time, it would have only cost you $2.5 billion. In other words, the slaves were by far the largest concentration of property in the country. They didn't have the money to buy up $3 billion dollars worth of slaves. And more to the point, the South was not willing to sell their slaves.

[debrand]

I find it interesting that one of the reasons that some use for criticizing the Civil War is the loss of soldiers' lives. Of course, I don't want to down play the deaths during the Civil War but it is extremely offensive that , to some, the death of Africans seems to not even be a consideration. In their mind only white male are important enough to notice.

[formergothardite]

Presenting the North as the aggressor who caused so much blood shed and saying that was their responsibility to not have a war really falls back on the mindset that this was The War of Northern Aggression and not The War Where White Men Wanted to Form Their Own Country So They Could Keep Black People as Slaves. CnD might not even realize he is doing this, but he keeps putting the blame on the North. The South was the one who started it all by wanting to keep enslaving people, wanting the states that did not support slavery to return any escaped slaves, allow slave owners to travel in those states with slaves, and expanding slavery to the newer states. If the South had been willing to give up slavery there would have been a hell of a lot less blood shed and it wouldn't just be the blood of soldiers that was saved.

[nelliebelle1197]

And if CnD's solution was a solution, then why was Reconstruction so HAAARD for some people?

[RosyDaisy]

CnD, the south never really dealt with the problem until the Civil Rights Era, asshole! I live in Alabama. I've heard and read the stories of Jim Crow laws, separate but equal, Brown vs Board of Education, and the late Alabama Gov. George Wallace boasting "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever", and all that racist shit. It wasn't until great men like Martin Luther King, Jr. and great women like Rosa Parks came along that slavery really ended in the south. Oh sure, on paper they were free, but not really. Many blacks in the south were targets for just about everything, and did not have the same rights as whites, especially in the judicial system. They were rounded up, hanged, and beaten to death. Law enforcement didn't give a damn and were usually part of the lynch mobs. Blacks still toiled away in fields like slaves and did not have the same educational opportunities as whites. Oh, and "sun down towns". In many towns blacks were not allowed on the streets after sunset. This is all fact, not fiction.

To be perfectly honest, the south still hasn't dealt with the problem. That became very apparent when President Obama was elected. Do you know why people really hate President Obama? Do you? I'll give you a hint. It has nothing to do with is politics. I suggest you sit your fundie, racists ass down and do some research from real books, not watered down fundie approved ones. Like it or not, and believe it or not, you still come across as an ass kisser to DPIAT! Grow the fuck up, and know of what you speak before you begin spewing your ignorance here.

Sorry for the long wall of text, but I needed to get this off my chest.

[CloakNDagger]

Um, no. You guys don't understand what you are saying either. You just stated that the "value" of the slaves was 3b or something like that while all of the Northern industry was worth 2.5 and the war's cost 1.5b NOT counting the lives lost. Allegedly less than 5% of those Southerners actually owned slaves according to some data ( maybe I am wrong on that) so it was more than just "my slaves", or my brother's slaves that motivated men to fight and die. I think that the average foot soldier really did feel that it was a direct threat not only to the slave owners, but to the entire society. Wrong though it was, a thoughtful person should still recognize that something that was part of your grandparents or great grandparents generation handed down is going to take some effort to overcome, as evidenced by the KKK and other things that happened after these people had already lost the war.

The solution needed to be ideological, theological, and somewhat gradual (but as quick as possible) and targeted at the larger, more powerful slave owners starting with those that had already begun thinking about freeing slaves such as the Lee family. It would probably have required a 5-10 year process, but in the end would probably have worked better than War IMO. Also, if you could convince the "working class" that the slave owners were the equivalent and worse of the corporate slave drivers that caused the unions in the North I think less of the common people would have felt threatened with financial, social, and cultural upheaval and there would have been many fewer people to fight in the defense of the institution. I think that over the top sentiments from both sides made the war inevitable because the commoners felt threatened as well Especially in the South and were effectively persuaded by the ruling class. This was already a fear after the incident with John Brown and that violence played directly into the Southern leaders hands. War might still have been the solution in the end, but I feel it should have been a second or third step in line behind something along those lines. The continued survival of this stuff in the South and of the Kinists in the church is proof enough for me that the war was less than persuasive for the attitudes in the country to change. Heart change was what was needed and they went to war instead which virtually guaranteed that it would remain an issue.

[CloakNDagger]

If I'm Lincoln, I let the Southern States go and let them know that they cannot vacation in the Northern States with their slaves and that since they are now a separate country, escaping slaves will be treated as immigrants and refugees and economically the North could impose sharp tariffs on anything that a slave touches in the South. I reach out to England to convince them to take the moral high ground and encourage the end of it as well.

[ladyamylynn]

If I'm Lincoln, I let the Southern States go and let them know that they cannot vacation in the Northern States with their slaves and that since they are now a separate country, escaping slaves will be treated as immigrants and refugees and economically the North could impose sharp tariffs on anything that a slave touches in the South. I reach out to England to convince them to take the moral high ground and encourage the end of it as well.

Wait! Now you're Lincoln? I thought you were Batman... Either way, nice fantasy, bro.

[bea]

I gotta ask, CnD, are you even reading the replies to your posts? People with academic and personal interests in the topic have addressed all your arguments and given an excellent rundown of where these arguments fall apart.

This isn't a theological or philosophical question, where everything is open to interpretation and we're quibbling over ideas. These are actual provable historical facts and figures. The facts are either correct, or incorrect. When someone with an MA in the very subject under discussion, who's read thousands of original sources and written a several hundred page thesis on this topic says (politely) "Your belief is incorrect and your arguments don't hold water, and here's why," the reaction of most people would be re-examining the belief and arguments.

You're still here, making those same arguments. So either you're totally uninterested in the actual facts, or you're enjoying the fact that this thread involves a lot of people being forced to point out that the sky is blue to someone who keeps insisting it's chartreuse because of his beliefs - which would be a totally legitimate argument, except for the part where what you believe has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. This particular topic, being whether or not the genesis of the Civil War was slavery, is about historically documented facts, not an issue of the weird soft-focus lens some people view that war through, or a nebulous and unsupported belief that the Union could have figured out another way to convince the Confederacy to give up this whole "owning people" thing.

Frankly, I think you're just getting off on the attention.

[thekate]

It would have had to start with an acknowledgement that the original Constitution was wrong in the 2/3 compromise and that all men were truly created equal. Then, there would have to be a way to transition. I truly don't believe that the blood shed on both sides was the answer.

I believe you mean the 3/5 Compromise.

Signed, History teacher who can't stand letting easily verifiable errors remain

[formergothardite]

I'm getting the feeling that CnD is one of those people who is emotionally invested in seeing the North as the bad guy in the Civil War.

[CloakNDagger]

I'm getting the feeling that CnD is one of those people who is emotionally invested in seeing the North as the bad guy in the Civil War.

I see that the war didn't solve the basic problem of racism... Which again shows the hypocrisy of those involved.

It also destroyed a lot of lives of those who had no slaves and I would not be surprised to learn that nearly as many blacks died postwar due to racism and KKK type stuff as did under their masters and deepened the resentment and wounds more than a different effort would have.

And yes, I meant the 3/5 compromise. Wrote that late and should have fact checked before going off a tired brain.

Here's my question for you:

If it could be proven hypothetically that Mexico was keeping Chinese as prostitutes / slaves and not other "races" would you think that reason enough for President Obama to declare war on them? At what point do we become war hawks? Where does it cross the line to be really time to shed blood?

[formergothardite]

And the fact that the South continued to murder black people is blamed on the North by you? Not the fact that the South made a decision to remain racists and lynch black people?

I'm assuming from your last post that you believe the southern states had the right to secede and form their own country based around the idea that black people should not only be slaves but making them anything else would be against the constitution? And that the North was wrong for fighting this?

A better comparison would be, if lets say NC and SC decided to form their own country tomorrow. This is based on the cornerstone idea that black people are not equal to anyone else and are only happy when we enslave them. Treating black any other way would be illegal. You do not think President Obama should fight this? You can switch this to any group that is hated in these states. Muslims, gay people, even Hispanics in some areas. But since we have a history of enslaving black people, I thought I would go with them. But you would respect this as a separate country with not a single war?

[milkncookies76]

Um, no. You guys don't understand what you are saying either. You just stated that the "value" of the slaves was 3b or something like that while all of the Northern industry was worth 2.5 and the war's cost 1.5b NOT counting the lives lost. Allegedly less than 5% of those Southerners actually owned slaves according to some data ( maybe I am wrong on that) so it was more than just "my slaves", or my brother's slaves that motivated men to fight and die. I think that the average foot soldier really did feel that it was a direct threat not only to the slave owners, but to the entire society. Wrong though it was, a thoughtful person should still recognize that something that was part of your grandparents or great grandparents generation handed down is going to take some effort to overcome, as evidenced by the KKK and other things that happened after these people had already lost the war.

The solution needed to be ideological, theological, and somewhat gradual (but as quick as possible) and targeted at the larger, more powerful slave owners starting with those that had already begun thinking about freeing slaves such as the Lee family. It would probably have required a 5-10 year process, but in the end would probably have worked better than War IMO. Also, if you could convince the "working class" that the slave owners were the equivalent and worse of the corporate slave drivers that caused the unions in the North I think less of the common people would have felt threatened with financial, social, and cultural upheaval and there would have been many fewer people to fight in the defense of the institution. I think that over the top sentiments from both sides made the war inevitable because the commoners felt threatened as well Especially in the South and were effectively persuaded by the ruling class. This was already a fear after the incident with John Brown and that violence played directly into the Southern leaders hands. War might still have been the solution in the end, but I feel it should have been a second or third step in line behind something along those lines. The continued survival of this stuff in the South and of the Kinists in the church is proof enough for me that the war was less than persuasive for the attitudes in the country to change. Heart change was what was needed and they went to war instead which virtually guaranteed that it would remain an issue.

First of all, I'd LOVE to know where you got you PhD in American History from. And I'd also LOVE to see a citation for the 5-10 years thing.

Second of all, really? You're just going to say, "hey, sorry slaves. It's not right that you're getting whipped and raped and murdered and having your children sold and being treated like cattle, but, ya know, you're just gonna have to hang tight for a decade or so until we can change the social structure. I mean, that's if you're still alive, cuz you'll probably only live till you're 21, or 22, but we must avoid war at all fricking costs."

[CloakNDagger]

And the fact that the South continued to murder black people is blamed on the North by you? Not the fact that the South made a decision to remain racists and lynch black people?

No, I said that if that was what they were trying to fix, they didn't... they failed miserably.

I'm assuming from your last post that you believe the southern states had the right to secede and form their own country based around the idea that black people should not only be slaves but making them anything else would be against the constitution? And that the North was wrong for fighting this?

New York also retained the right to secede in it's acceptance of the Constitution...

From: http://www.etymonline.com/cw/secession2.htm

A little-known fact of the Constitution is that two of the largest states -- Virginia and New York -- made the right to withdraw from the union explicit in their acceptance of the Constitution. And in such an agreement between parties as is represented by the Constitution, a right claimed by one is allowed to all.

Their REASON for secession is deplorable, but not the act in and of itself. If you think secession is wrong, then we should go back to England as our ruling body, or those in Texas should be returned to Mexico, if not to the Native American tribes.

A better comparison would be, if lets say NC and SC decided to form their own country tomorrow. This is based on the cornerstone idea that black people are not equal to anyone else and are only happy when we enslave them. Treating black any other way would be illegal. You do not think President Obama should fight this? You can switch this to any group that is hated in these states. Muslims, gay people, even Hispanics in some areas. But since we have a history of enslaving black people, I thought I would go with them. But you would respect this as a separate country with not a single war?

I would be for fighting it by other means first, like we did against Japan before WWII over the Rape of Nanking. I WOULD treat it as a separate country, but not respect it...

[CloakNDagger]

First of all, I'd LOVE to know where you got you PhD in American History from.

I don't have one. So only PHD's have there right to discuss this? I mean, I have found this a productive learning experience. I DID grow up in this culture you know.

And I'd also LOVE to see a citation for the 5-10 years thing.

First off, it took waay more than 5 years to change people's minds, but it took 4 years to fight the war, so 5-10 years is probably not seriously more hardship than it already was. Economically, you have a chance to make a transition and try to change the hearts and minds in the process.

Second of all, really? You're just going to say, "hey, sorry slaves. It's not right that you're getting whipped and raped and murdered and having your children sold and being treated like cattle, but, ya know, you're just gonna have to hang tight for a decade or so until we can change the social structure. I mean, that's if you're still alive, cuz you'll probably only live till you're 21, or 22, but we must avoid war at all fricking costs."

The alternative is to dump them out on the streets in a hostile environment where people still think them inferior?

[formergothardite]

So that is why you blame the North. You think the South was in the right to be able to start their own country and keep people enslaved. This is why you continue to blame the North for all the blood shed while ignoring that the South was drenched in blood, because in your eyes the South should have been able to do this. It makes sense now.

It wasn't the North's job to "fix" the South's racism. It was the South's job. They failed miserably because they simply didn't want to do so. Until they wanted to do so, nothing the North did could have changed them. Letting them start their own country where they got to continue slavery without much of a fight would have done nothing to encourage that change. Most likely people in the North would have gotten tired of paying more for things from the South, they would have voted in politicians who would have gotten rid of the high tariffs on slave made products and slavery would have been just an accepted way to get cheap products, much like it is today. When the labor unions in the North started demanding fair treatment, the factories that could move probably would have moved to the South so that they wouldn't have to deal with that. They could work slave children all day in the factories and if they protested they could just beat them into submission. But just letting them go and not trying to preserve the Union and make slavery illegal would have not helped end the underlying racism. You are living in a dream world if you think it would have.

[Coco]

CnD this is for you :D have fun!

The Bible Against Slavery uses the differences between the context of ancient Israel and the context of then modern-day America to denounce the practice of slavery. Through passages from the Bible and much comparison to the Canaanites, Weld argues the politics of religion in the direction of Abolition.

Read book here

Source: deila.dickinson.edu/slaveryandabolition/title/0182.html