The USA Civil War

I was not certain where to start this thread, as the other threads in "History" did not seem fitting with this topic, and here in my USA the old Civil War is still and forever a hot political topic, so this board seems the most fitting in my view - so if the Moderators move it then that is not up to me.
 
The real reason that I am putting this thread on this forum is because this forum has a section called "Letters from America" where it does not allow me to post a comment, and I found one thread there very objectionable called "The Emancipation Proclamation" where it declares wrongfully that the US Civil War was not fought about the issue of slavery - when in fact it certainly was, and it says that our President Abe Lincoln was not originally for the ending of slavery - which again is not true.
 
That section of the forum is controlled and written by the co-Administrator "Shirina" and if her avatar is truly a picture of herself then she is one hot babe, but I must speak like a gentleman to her even if that is not her picture, but I still object to her words there.
 
The US Civil War was prompted after the creation of the U.S. Republican Party who were widely known to be the anti-slavery Party, and its 1860 Presidential candidate Abe Lincoln was known (or considered) to be an abolitionist.
 
The southern brutes felt the challenge, if not an outright threat, to their Institution of African slavery and that is the one and only thing which started the traitorous rebellion which is commonly called the US Civil War.
 
FYI.
 

JP Cusick wrote:I was not certain where to start this thread, as the other threads in "History" did not seem fitting with this topic, and here in my USA the old Civil War is still and forever a hot political topic, so this board seems the most fitting in my view - so if the Moderators move it then that is not up to me.

So they moved it to "History" faster then I thought.

Here in the USA the Civil War really is American Politics - but who cares?

this forum has a section called "Letters from America" where it does not allow me to post a comment

 
Each blog has a feedback board, where you can either put comments on an existing thread, or if it seems necessary, start a new one:-
 
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t531-feedback-on-letter-from-america

If you wish to make comments about the moderation and/or organisation of our boards, please put them in a personal message to one of the three members of the administration team. Thanks.

Ivan wrote:Each blog has a feedback board, where you can either put comments on an existing thread, or if it seems necessary, start a new one:-
 
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t531-feedback-on-letter-from-america

If you wish to make comments about the moderation and/or organisation of our boards, please put them in a personal message to one of the three members of the administration team. Thanks.

I did read and see that "Feedback" before I started this thread, and I saw that as extremely inadequate, so then I decided to start a discussion with my own thread.

If anyone wishes to discuss this topic?

It might be helpful if a "blog" was recognisable as such in the listing of recent posts.

It might be helpful if a "blog" was recognisable as such in the listing of recent posts.

 
May I refer you to the home page? It consists of:-
- Welcome
- The Heavy Stuff
- Other Matters
- Leisure Interests
- Links and Affiliations
- Blogs
 
The most recent post on each blog or its feedback is shown on the right hand side under ‘last posts’.
 
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/
 
It might also be helpful if members would adhere to this rule:-
 
"The discussion threads are not to be used to air grievances about the administration and moderation of this forum. Any complaints must be submitted by personal message to one or more of the administration team."
 
https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/t18-posting-rules
 
If the feedback on a blog is considered "inadequate", starting a thread about the American Civil War is quite in order, but it clearly belongs on the history board. Now please stick to the topic.

What we British know of the American Civil War has mostly been acquired from Gone with the Wind and Dances with Wolves. Birth of a Nation was before my time.

I was taught at school that the American Civil War was fought by the north to preserve the Union, whereas the southern states wanted to secede from the Union so that they could continue to have slavery. When the north won, the slaves were freed. A large number of freed slaves then became cattlemen, dispelling the myth that all cowboys were ‘regular white guys’ who looked like John Wayne. Then the days of the open range came to an end with the invention of barbed wire, and the need for cattle drives was eliminated by the development of refrigeration.
 
I look forward to that over-simplification being duly corrected by one or more of our American members!

oftenwrong wrote:What we British know of the American Civil War has mostly been acquired from Gone with the Wind and Dances with Wolves.  Birth of a Nation was before my time.

I suppose that is one big reason that I feel very objectionable to the claims made concerning the Civil War in my USA being so contrarily reported here on this UK forum.



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

JP Cusick wrote:The US Civil War was prompted after the creation of the U.S. Republican Party who were widely known to be the anti-slavery Party, and its 1860 Presidential candidate Abe Lincoln was known (or considered) to be an abolitionist.

The southern brutes felt the challenge, if not an outright threat, to their Institution of African slavery and that is the one and only thing which started the traitorous rebellion which is commonly called the US Civil War.

President Lincoln wore the Quakers' beard, picture, and even if many people today do not understand what that beard symbolized - back in 1860 then everyone knew what the Quakers' beard meant.

Runaway slaves were told that if they get lost or sidetracked while running away then to look out for any man wearing the Quakers' beard as that was a sign of a friend to trust, as it was a sign of an abolitionist.

Plus for the whites who wore that beard it was a sign of their honesty, because the whites who did help the runaway slaves often were forced to be dishonest or even to lie to the law enforcement and to the slave catchers, so that beard told the truth and it gave witness to the unspoken truth, and everyone in those times knew it.

When President Lincoln grew his own Quakers' beard (just directly after he was elected) then he was purposely telling everyone that he might have to hide his true feelings but his real truth was there in front of him for everyone to see.

FYI.

It's one thing to be anti-slavery, but it doesn't necessarily follow that you're prepared to go to war against your fellow countrymen over it, does it?

Ivan wrote:I was taught at school that the American Civil War was fought by the north to preserve the Union, whereas the southern states wanted to secede from the Union so that they could continue to have slavery. When the north won, the slaves were freed.

The thing that seems to always get left out of that is that the southern traitors are the ones who started their rebellion which we call as our Civil War.
 
The so-called "North" (the USA federal gov) fought back because they were attacked.
 
This is similar to World War II in that the USA entered that war because we were attacked when Japan bombed our Pearl Harbor in Hawaii, so those that start the wars are the ones who establish the reason for their wars.
 
In the USA the southern traitors started their rebellion because they wanted to preserve and expand the inhuman Institution of slavery.
 
It was later that President Lincoln made so the end of that rebellion included the end of the war's cause.
 

Ivan wrote:It's one thing to be anti-slavery, but it doesn't necessarily follow that you're prepared to go to war against your fellow countrymen over it, does it?

It is almost certain that Abe Lincoln did not want any war, plus he could not be certain that he would win such a war if it did happen, and he won the election with just 40% because the vote was severely divided between 4 candidates, so Lincoln did not want a war.
 
It is reasonable to believe that Lincoln only wanted a legal process for ending the slavery.
 
The people who wanted slavery definitely were prepared to go to war against their fellow Countrymen, and that was well known at those times.
 
Those that wanted slavery had the violent mentality in great supply.
 
There were also some white abolitionists who were willing for violent warfare, as like the famous John Brown, and I respect him.
 

JP Cusick. Thank you for that interesting and detailed reply. I was wondering why you wrote previously:-
 

here in my USA the old Civil War is still and forever a hot political topic

I have of course noticed that on a political map of the USA, the east and west coast states are more enlightened than the mid-West 'Bible belt' states, which seem to be dominated by the Republicans. Is there still a north-south divide? Are there still people in the south who would like a separate nation? (I get the impression that at least some Texans consider themselves independent!)

Ivan wrote:I have of course noticed that on a political map of the USA, the east and west coast states are more enlightened than the mid-West 'Bible belt' states, which seem to be dominated by the Republicans. Is there still a north-south divide? Are there still people in the south who would like a separate nation? (I get the impression that at least some Texans consider themselves independent!)

It is tough to say whether whether any of them really want to divide the USA, but the old North-South divide has never ended and it is only the south that keeps talking and bragging about how great and wonderful their south really was.

The real issue is NOT about dividing the USA, as it is the old issues of white-superiority, as the southern whites are racist and they are suppressed only by the brute force of federal laws.

The southern white racist accepted that they lost the war, but they still today refuse to accept any equality with the African American people.

After the Civil War the southern racist created the infamous "Jim Crow Laws" which lasted another 100 years until the federal gov stopped it, along with the famous Civil Rights marchers lead by Martin Luther King Jr.

Of course now us whites are forced to concede lots of rights to the African Americans, but it is only done by the brute force of the laws.

So now today we have lots of racist code-words, as like whites say inner-city which means the black people, and welfare means black people even though there are more whites on welfare, and the "Tea Party" is a white racist Party trying to reclaim the white superiority of old - but of course they can not say that or the federal law would stop it.

And really it goes much deeper than that, as the white racist glamorize the old slave Plantations as "Historical markers" instead of the trash that they truly are, along with racist music (mostly in the so called Country music = Example), and lots more as the white racist are proud of their bigotries.

The State of Texas is ready to become its own independent Country any chance they get.

 

History has always been recorded by the Victors.

North America is not an exception.

JP Cusick wrote:where it declares wrongfully that the US Civil War was not fought about the issue of slavery - when in fact it certainly was, and it says that our President Abe Lincoln was not originally for the ending of slavery - which again is not true.

"If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." -- Abraham Lincoln in a letter to Horace Greeley, August 22nd, 1862

Whatever Lincoln's personal feelings were about slavery, as President of the United States, his paramount goal was to preserve the Union -- with or without slavery. Sure, we can argue about whether Lincoln was an abolitionist, etc. but one cannot always pursue a personal agenda when acting as Commander in Chief.

And no, the war was NOT fought over the issue of slavery. It was fought over the issue of states' rights and the sovereignty of state governments over the federal government in all matters save war and interstate commerce. The South believed that the individual states had the right to choose whether or not to ban slavery and the federal government should not have the authority to make it illegal across the entire nation irrespective of what the states want.

It wasn't until the Emancipation Proclamation was signed in 1863 when the war became a slave issue -- which was the whole point of that document in the first place. It was to put slavery on display for the rest of the world to see; it was to show the international community -- especially Britain -- that fighting for the South meant you would be fighting for slavery. Lincoln knew that the British people would never tolerate a war against the North on behalf of slavery when Britain had just outlawed slavery 30 years prior.

JP Cusick wrote:but I must speak like a gentleman to her even if that is not her picture, but I still object to her words there.

Gentlemanly behavior is always appreciated.  

JP Cusick wrote:The US Civil War was prompted after the creation of the U.S. Republican Party who were widely known to be the anti-slavery Party, and its 1860 Presidential candidate Abe Lincoln was known (or considered) to be an abolitionist.

See above. Whether Lincoln was an abolitionist or not is irrelevant given his letter to Horace Greeley.

Oh, and for our Brit cousins, Lincoln's Republican Party is not the same as today's Republican Party. Today, Lincoln's party would be Democrat. Often we call the Democrats of the 1800's "Dixiecrats" to distinguish between the "then and now" Democratic party.

JP Cusick wrote:The southern brutes felt the challenge, if not an outright threat, to their Institution of African slavery and that is the one and only thing which started the traitorous rebellion which is commonly called the US Civil War.

Nope, it was states' rights, not slavery specifically that got the Civil War going. Slavery just happened to be the issue that challenged the sovereignty of the states, but the war wasn't fought to keep slaves, per se.

JP Cusick wrote:It is tough to say whether whether any of them really want to divide the USA, but the old North-South divide has never ended and it is only the south that keeps talking and bragging about how great and wonderful their south really was.

This is more or less true, but there ARE those who want to divide the USA. Keep in mind that several southern states, including Texas, filed petitions to secede from the union after Obama was elected. They just couldn't tolerate a black man at the helm. Fortunately, those petitions never gained enough signatures to make a significant political impact. What I thought was hilarious, though, was that the city of Houston filed their own petition, saying they were going to secede from Texas if Texas seceded from the USA. LOL! You can't make this stuff up.

JP Cusick wrote:The real issue is NOT about dividing the USA, as it is the old issues of white-superiority, as the southern whites are racist and they are suppressed only by the brute force of federal laws.

Yes, white-superiority does play a role. Bill O'Reilly, one of the many racist and ultra right-wing talking heads on Fox News said upon Obama's re-election, "This is the end of the white establishment." Yeah, he said that on national television.

One thing that should be noted about the Southern USA, though. With the demise of the manufacturing sector, millions of northerners have been flocking to the south for the last 20 or so years. A combination of bad weather, lack of jobs, and economic depression has caused a population drain on many northeastern cities. The result is that good ole Dixie, the old Confederacy, is becoming inundated by northerners who are bringing their more liberal northern mores along with them. In short, the Southern mentality, which I find to be primitive and benighted, is becoming diluted by "ex-pat" northerners who have moved to the south. I hope it continues.

Hi Shirina,
I read through your post below before replying to it here, and as such I am now happy that I was not very cross with you since you appear to be rather enlightened after all, even if not quite perfect.

Shirina wrote:"If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." -- Abraham Lincoln in a letter to Horace Greeley, August 22nd, 1862

Whatever Lincoln's personal feelings were about slavery, as President of the United States, his paramount goal was to preserve the Union -- with or without slavery. Sure, we can argue about whether Lincoln was an abolitionist, etc. but one cannot always pursue a personal agenda when acting as Commander in Chief.

Many people get this wrong by defining the purpose of the Civil War based on the words of President Lincoln, and that is not fair nor accurate.

That would be like using the words of President Roosevelt for attacking Japan in the 2nd World War, because both President Roosevelt and President Lincoln were attacked and they were both being defensive.  

Lincoln did not start the Civil War, so Lincoln is not giving any reason for that rebellion, and so Lincoln's purpose was to end the war and end the rebellion.

We need to go to Jefferson Davis and the rebel leaders to see why the rebellion was fought and why it was started, and the southern traitors started their rebellion and they fought to preserve and to spread the African slavery throughout the USA and to keep it forever, as is declared in their rebel constitution, see here below:

Article 4 section 3 line 3, which reads in part:

" In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; " Link HERE.

That would have created a never-ending slavery by the force of law, and it directly declares a racist slavery of only "negro" and that was the intention of the traitors of the USA.

Shirina wrote:
And no, the war was NOT fought over the issue of slavery. It was fought over the issue of states' rights and the sovereignty of state governments over the federal government in all matters save war and interstate commerce. The South believed that the individual states had the right to choose whether or not to ban slavery and the federal government should not have the authority to make it illegal across the entire nation irrespective of what the states want.

That is wrongfully white-washing the reality, and I really say the biggest of evidence that it was only about their white racism is seen in the next 100 years of "Jim Crow Laws" and their continuing racism against African Americans today.

The south was and still is happy to be a part of the USA, as their fight was only for their white-supremacy then as now.

If there were no issue of slavery then there would not have been any issue or war over States' rights.

Shirina wrote:
It wasn't until the Emancipation Proclamation was signed in 1863 when the war became a slave issue -- which was the whole point of that document in the first place. It was to put slavery on display for the rest of the world to see; it was to show the international community -- especially Britain -- that fighting for the South meant you would be fighting for slavery. Lincoln knew that the British people would never tolerate a war against the North on behalf of slavery when Britain had just outlawed slavery 30 years prior.

I can not see why you would say such a horrible thing as this, and this type of white-lie is why I started this thread.

You (as does lots of white southerners) paint Abe Lincoln as if he were some dishonest charlatan who had the only purpose of using the issue of slavery for his political purposes which is not true.

Now Lincoln might well have known and intended the Emancipation Proclamation to be a political tool to use against the south and to keep the British out of the war, but Abe Lincoln was from the Republican Party who had its creation based on the anti-slavery platform. See here = The GOP.  

What you are saying above is a horrible slander against Lincoln which he does not deserve.

Shirina wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:but I must speak like a gentleman to her even if that is not her picture, but I still object to her words there.

Gentlemanly behavior is always appreciated.  

You are very welcome.

Even some of us Yankee sympathizers have a few manners.

Shirina wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:The US Civil War was prompted after the creation of the U.S. Republican Party who were widely known to be the anti-slavery Party, and its 1860 Presidential candidate Abe Lincoln was known (or considered) to be an abolitionist.

See above. Whether Lincoln was an abolitionist or not is irrelevant given his letter to Horace Greeley.

It does matter, as Lincoln was opposed to the slavery long before he ran to be President, and that letter to Greeley came after the south had committed to violent rebellion.

Lincoln never wanted any war, but Lincoln always wanted an end to the slavery.

Shirina wrote:Oh, and for our Brit cousins, Lincoln's Republican Party is not the same as today's Republican Party. Today, Lincoln's party would be Democrat. Often we call the Democrats of the 1800's "Dixiecrats" to distinguish between the "then and now" Democratic party.

To this I agree, and I am happy that you see that and acknowledge it.

My belief is that the southern racist whites simply viewed the Republican Party as being stronger - meaning physically brute strength stronger, and since that mentality values brute force then they gravitated to take over the Republican Party.

Shirina wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:The southern brutes felt the challenge, if not an outright threat, to their Institution of African slavery and that is the one and only thing which started the traitorous rebellion which is commonly called the US Civil War.

Nope, it was states' rights, not slavery specifically that got the Civil War going. Slavery just happened to be the issue that challenged the sovereignty of the states, but the war wasn't fought to keep slaves, per se.

I find it sickening that you make that ugly claim, and it is not correct.

The issue and conflict and hostility that surrounded the reality of the racist form of slavery was NOT a thing which "just happened to be" as that was the gigantic huge issue that hung over everything, including hanging over the Presidential election.

If Abe Lincoln as a Republican Party candidate viewed as the anti-slavery winner had NOT won - THEN then the rebellion would not have happened, because the slavery was the issue and any other issue or grievance was subordinate to that gigantic issue of slavery.

It is reprehensible that you would say or believe otherwise.

Shirina wrote:Keep in mind that several southern states, including Texas, filed petitions to secede from the union after Obama was elected. They just couldn't tolerate a black man at the helm.

That is what I have said too - that the subject is still political today as it was long ago - but that political subject is still racist.

And those petitions were not done for any States' rights but simply because we voted a black Man into the White-House.

Shirina wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:The real issue is NOT about dividing the USA, as it is the old issues of white-superiority, as the southern whites are racist and they are suppressed only by the brute force of federal laws.

Yes, white-superiority does play a role. Bill O'Reilly, one of the many racist and ultra right-wing talking heads on Fox News said upon Obama's re-election, "This is the end of the white establishment." Yeah, he said that on national television.

I am surprised that you say this, and impressed by the words.

Barack Obama is also the reason for the racist "Tea Party".

Shirina wrote:One thing that should be noted about the Southern USA, though. With the demise of the manufacturing sector, millions of northerners have been flocking to the south for the last 20 or so years. A combination of bad weather, lack of jobs, and economic depression has caused a population drain on many northeastern cities. The result is that good ole Dixie, the old Confederacy, is becoming inundated by northerners who are bringing their more liberal northern mores along with them. In short, the Southern mentality, which I find to be primitive and benighted, is becoming diluted by "ex-pat" northerners who have moved to the south. I hope it continues.

I hope so too.

Some people say that the "Tea Party" was the last dying attempt at raising the white superiority again, and it did not succeed - thank God.

I find it shameful that my white brethren are still clinging to that same old white trash now into the 21st century - but they do.

Shirina wrote:
"If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." -- Abraham Lincoln in a letter to Horace Greeley, August 22nd, 1862  

I have done some more thought about that letter as it troubled me from yesterday, and the date given of August 22, 1862 means that it was a year before that letter that the Civil War was already started because the hostilities began on April 12, 1861, with Fort Sumter, and that means that the letter from Lincoln to Geeley was talking about possible ways of ending (of ENDING) the rebellion, as it is NOT a letter explaining why Lincoln went to war.

And just because Lincoln wanted to end the rebellion by appeasement then that does not mean that Lincoln was no longer anti-slavery.

CP Cusick wrote:even if not quite perfect.

If you thought I was perfect, I would worry that you were in love with me.  

JP Cusick wrote:Many people get this wrong by defining the purpose of the Civil War based on the words of President Lincoln, and that is not fair nor accurate.

Actually, I wasn't using Lincoln's words to define the cause of the Civil War, per se, but to demonstrate that once Lincoln became the Commander in Chief, his goal was to preserve the Union irrespective of the slavery issue. He may or may not have been an abolitionist prior to his election, but once he was elected and the South seceded, freeing the slaves took a distant back seat to keeping the country together.

JP Cusick wrote:That would have created a never-ending slavery by the force of law, and it directly declares a racist slavery of only "negro" and that was the intention of the traitors of the USA.

I can guarantee you that despite what the Confederate constitution said about slavery, it was a doomed institution (thankfully) and wouldn't have lasted another 50 years (and probably not even that long).

JP Cusick wrote:I can not see why you would say such a horrible thing as this, and this type of white-lie is why I started this thread.

It's not at all a "white-lie" if you really think about it. For one thing, signing the Emancipation Proclamation in the middle of the war only ensured that the South would never return to the Union without the use of military force -- i.e. it guaranteed that the Civil War would have to be fought to its bloody conclusion and forfeited any attempt at a cease fire or diplomatic efforts. Secondly, the Emancipation Proclamation directly contradicts Lincoln's own words to Horace Greeley. There is only one logical reason for the sudden change of heart and that is to stave off British involvement in the Civil War. In addition, the Emancipation Proclamation never freed a single slave -- it was a completely useless document when taken at face value. Lincoln had no jurisdiction over the Confederacy. In fact, the Emancipation Proclamation carried as much legal authority in the Confederacy as it would if Lincoln had tried to free slaves in Japan or Zimbabwe. So why sign it? Why would Lincoln guarantee a long bloody war by signing a completely useless document that carried no weight in the CSA? Well ... like I said in my original blog post:  It was to prevent WWI from happening 50 years sooner than it did and on American soil.

I don't see every event in US history through the lens of race relations.

JP Cusick wrote:Lincoln never wanted any war, but Lincoln always wanted an end to the slavery.

Which may be true, but once he became president and the South seceded, slavery had to be shunted to the background in order to keep the Union together. Slavery only came to the forefront as a political maneuver to keep Britain, France, and possibly even Russia from intervening.

JP Cusick wrote:I find it sickening that you make that ugly claim, and it is not correct.

I'm sorry that you find my claim to be "ugly," but then again, history isn't always pretty. Many upper echelon Confederates knew that slavery was doomed even before the war began. The ideology of people as property was fast fading in a world that was becoming more enlightened with each passing day. The CSA would have been a pariah, an orphan in the international community and pressure to free the slaves would undoubtedly have come from all sides.

General Longstreet said toward the end of the war, "We should have freed the slaves THEN fired on Fort Sumter."  Longstreet understood that the CSA could not survive in a changing world while still holding on to something as barbaric as slavery; he also understood that no nation would come to the aid of the CSA while slavery was still in effect. In a letter to his wife in 1856, General Lee wrote, "Slavery is a moral and political evil." It is quite obvious to me that the war wasn't fought to maintain an institution that was doomed either way, an institution that the greatest generals of the Civil War themselves opposed (the only reason why Lee fought for the South was because he was from Virginia and he couldn't bear to "raise his hand against his own family." It has nothing to do with defending slavery.)

Now, having said that, I'm not trying to claim that the South wasn't racist because many there most certainly were -- and 150 years later, that racism is still there. All of the Southern states voted against the 13th Amendment which really freed the slaves (not the Emancipation Proclamation). Yet I still maintain that the primary issue was not slavery but state sovereignty. Remember that it wasn't until after the Civil War when we began calling this nation "The United States." Before, it was always called "These United States." Some in the South still call the USA by that name. This was a HUGE issue then (as it is now to Tea Party knuckleheads who know less about history than the average 8 year-old). Slavery was merely the match that lit the powderkeg. Slavery wasn't the actual powderkeg. Most of the Southerners who fought in the Civil War ... didn't even own slaves. Do you really think that all of those men fought and died to protect the interests of the rich plantation owners? Of course not. They fought to maintain their state sovereignty.

JP Cusick wrote:I find it shameful that my white brethren are still clinging to that same old white trash now into the 21st century - but they do.

Unfortunately, it is the same generational hatred -- passed down from generation to generation -- that we see in Middle Eastern nations. I really don't know how to stop it.  

Shirina wrote:If you thought I was perfect, I would worry that you were in love with me.  

So yes I have fallen in love with you, and it is not necessary to be perfect.

Shirina wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:Many people get this wrong by defining the purpose of the Civil War based on the words of President Lincoln, and that is not fair nor accurate.

Actually, I wasn't using Lincoln's words to define the cause of the Civil War, per se, but to demonstrate that once Lincoln became the Commander in Chief, his goal was to preserve the Union irrespective of the slavery issue. He may or may not have been an abolitionist prior to his election, but once he was elected and the South seceded, freeing the slaves took a distant back seat to keeping the country together.

That is being unjust and unfair to such a distinct reality going on at the time.

As in example: A police swat team approaches a hostage situation and the police want to rescue the hostages, BUT THEN the criminal starts shooting their AK47 at the police - so then the police have to change their priority in that the police must protect them selves from the person shooting at them and they have to find a way to take out the shooter because that reality is forced onto the police by the kidnapper(s), and that does NOT mean that the police have then lost all concern for the hostages, and the police have to control their retaliation based on not harming the hostages while they fight against the kidnapper.

President Lincoln represented the police and he was the law enforcement trying to deal with armed violent criminals who were holding the African slaves as their prisoners, and those whites were threatening to kill the slaves before surrendering. That letter to Greeley was Lincoln trying to find a way to appease the criminals and save the hostages at the same time.

And Abe Lincoln was anti-slavery whether anyone wants to claim he was not a completely bonified "abolitionist" or not, and Lincoln was anti-slavery long before he was elected as there is no "maybe" about it.

Shirina wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:That would have created a never-ending slavery by the force of law, and it directly declares a racist slavery of only "negro" and that was the intention of the traitors of the USA.

I can guarantee you that despite what the Confederate constitution said about slavery, it was a doomed institution (thankfully) and wouldn't have lasted another 50 years (and probably not even that long).

I see nothing to base that on.

Old Rome had slaves for over 500 years and that slavery continued long after the death of Rome.

And I realize that many people want to claim that the African slavery in the USA was only about economics, but that is not true, as it was a race-based slavery directed against a person's color and even a white person could be held as a slave if one had a drop of black blood in either of their parents, so there was a white hatred against black people and that has never ended even today in the 21st century.

After the slavery was ended the whites created the "Jim Crow Laws" for another 100 years and even then that too had to be stopped by using the brute force of Union troops.

So no, it was not going to end without using force against the white bigots.

Shirina wrote:... signing the Emancipation Proclamation in the middle of the war

There is only one logical reason for the sudden change of heart and that is to stave off British involvement in the Civil War. In addition, the Emancipation Proclamation never freed a single slave -- it was a completely useless document when taken at face value. Lincoln had no jurisdiction over the Confederacy.  
Slavery only came to the forefront as a political maneuver to keep Britain, France, and possibly even Russia from intervening.

There are other "logical reasons" as like Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, and the Emancipation Proclamation did indeed have a huge jurisdiction over the south under the direct authority of the United States Army who was entering the south to enforce those laws including enforcing that same Emancipation Proclamation. Without that proclamation then General Sherman could not have rescued a single slave while the whites racist would have been free to murder any slave as their own legal property. That same "Emancipation Proclamation" empowered the Union Army and it weakened the southern resistance.

And if the British or France had entered the Civil War then we would have fought them too, as reports tell me that by 1865 the Union Army was 2 million soldiers strong with many of them being volunteers, and so we would have run out any British or French army that dared land on our territory.

Shirina wrote: I don't see every event in US history through the lens of race relations.

I do not like the sad reality that race is inside all of our US history, and particularly white racism against everyone who is not white, but that is just the way it is.

Shirina wrote:General Longstreet said toward the end of the war, "We should have freed the slaves THEN fired on Fort Sumter."  Longstreet understood that the CSA could not survive in a changing world while still holding on to something as barbaric as slavery; he also understood that no nation would come to the aid of the CSA while slavery was still in effect. In a letter to his wife in 1856, General Lee wrote, "Slavery is a moral and political evil." It is quite obvious to me that the war wasn't fought to maintain an institution that was doomed either way, an institution that the greatest generals of the Civil War themselves opposed (the only reason why Lee fought for the South was because he was from Virginia and he couldn't bear to "raise his hand against his own family." It has nothing to do with defending slavery.)

That means they were hypocrites who betrayed their own feelings just to fight against their own Country, and they fought for the single most inhuman cause ever recorded anywhere in the entire history of humanity.

As to that letter you say Lee wrote claiming the war was not fought to maintain the institution of slavery - the date which that letter is given is 1856 which would be four (4) years before the rebellion started, and it would be near 9 years before the rebellion ended, so your source is presented as a fraud - FYI.

Shirina wrote: Most of the Southerners who fought in the Civil War ... didn't even own slaves. Do you really think that all of those men fought and died to protect the interests of the rich plantation owners? Of course not. They fought to maintain their state sovereignty.

There really are other sides to that.

The rich Plantation owners hired the poorer whites to run the slaves, and to supply the plantation, so very often the entire town of whites were directly connect to the one big Plantation in their town.

Plus the whites who rebelled did not need so much to fight to preserve the slavery but to preserve their white superiority.

Cause even a low down dirty rotten drunken white bum could cheer on their ego by clinging to their white skin making them into a superior person, and for that they would fight and die in their own rebellion which we call the Civil War.

The idea that some uneducated southern bumpkin would fight a war to maintain some vague ideal of "States' rights" or State sovereignty is just absurd.

Shirina wrote:Unfortunately, it is the same generational hatred -- passed down from generation to generation -- that we see in Middle Eastern nations. I really don't know how to stop it.   

You could help that process by starting to get your research more accurate, and you could stop making excuses for them.

JP Cusick wrote:President Lincoln represented the police and he was the law enforcement trying to deal with armed violent criminals who were holding the African slaves as their prisoners, and those whites were threatening to kill the slaves before surrendering.

This is all idle speculation since we will never know for sure. Remember that secession was a process. Several events happened that pushed the South ever closer to leaving the Union - the Dred Scott decision, the Wilmot Proviso, the Compromise of 1850, etc. Lincoln's election was simply the final straw, resulting in six states seceding. But if the South had come to Lincoln with a compromise that would prevent secession and war, would have Lincoln abided by his sentiments in his letter to Greeley? Would Lincoln have allowed some slavery, or perhaps a changed system of slavery, if it would keep the USA intact? Who knows?

To further your analogy, it would be like the police letting the criminals take some of the hostages with them but freeing some of them, as well. Sacrifices such as those have often been made throughout history - such as Churchill's refusal to evacuate Coventry during WWII in order to not alert the Nazis that their Enigma code had been broken. Or when Jefferson C. Davis reached Ebenezer Creek and prevented hundreds of freed slaves from crossing with the army.

JP Cusick wrote:I see nothing to base that on.

There's plenty to base it on. The rest of the world was shedding slavery like a dog sheds fur in the summer. The morality of governments was evolving, changing, and finally seeing that slavery was evil. It would only be a matter of time before European governments refused to do business with a nation that used slaves to manufacture the goods being bought. Think of today's outrage againt sweatshops or blood diamonds. Think of the pressure put on South Africa during Apartheid. Today that kind of pressure is ineffective due to a global economy and multi-national mega-corporations, but in the 1800's, if Europe stopped trading with you, you were done.

JP Cusick wrote:Old Rome had slaves for over 500 years and that slavery continued long after the death of Rome.

Well, you can't really compare the 1800's with the 300's.

JP Cusick wrote:And I realize that many people want to claim that the African slavery in the USA was only about economics

Nope, I never said that it was ONLY about economics or even ONLY about states' rights. I'm very well aware that racism was involved, as well.

JP Cusick wrote:There are other "logical reasons" as like Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, and the Emancipation Proclamation did indeed have a huge jurisdiction over the south under the direct authority of the United States Army who was entering the south to enforce those laws including enforcing that same Emancipation Proclamation.

The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the states under the control of the Union. Since slavery was already outlawed in the North (though ironically it was still legal in Washington DC), the Emancipation Proclamation was redundant. Within the Confederate States of America, which WAS its own independent country (which is why I feel "civil war" is a misnomer), the Emancipation Proclamation had no authority there.

JP Cusick wrote:that by 1865

But what if the Brits and the French came into the fight in 1862? That would have been a completely different ballgame.

JP Cusick wrote:That means they were hypocrites who betrayed their own feelings just to fight against their own Country

In those days, their "country" was their home state, not the United States. If Lee had fought against Virginia, for instance, THAT would be fighting against his own country. At least from Lee's perspective. Of course not all Southerners felt the same way and some stayed in the Union army.

JP Cusick wrote:so your source is presented as a fraud

Um, no. I'm quite certain that the letter is authentic.

JP Cusick wrote:Plus the whites who rebelled did not need so much to fight to preserve the slavery but to preserve their white superiority.

More so than simply white supremecy, they were terrified of slave revolts i.e. Nat Turner and John Brown. Of course, one cannot forget about the heavy influence of that sleazy, disgusting entity known as "religion" that came right out and said that an "attack on slavery is an attack on the Holy Bible." Because the Old Testament sanctioned slavery. It's one of the reasons why I reject wholeheartedly using the Bible, God, or religion as a source of morality.

JP Cusick wrote:The idea that some uneducated southern bumpkin would fight a war to maintain some vague ideal of "States' rights" or State sovereignty is just absurd.

LOL! I'd pit any 19th Century uneducated southern bumpkin against any 21st Century southern bumpkin in a contest to determine who knows more about politics in their respective eras. People today are stupidly ignorant of politics and have only the vaguest notion of what the Constitution says, how our government operates, or the truth behind the bills being passed by Congress. You'd be surprised how politically astute people were in the 1800's because back then there wasn't this malaise of political apathy that we see today. I mean, seriously, the bumpkins of today think Obama's birth certificate is the real politics and still think God is written into the Constitution.

JP Cusick wrote:You could help that process by starting to get your research more accurate, and you could stop making excuses for them.

I see history for what it is, not through a specific lens such as racism. I'm not out to score points for an agenda nor to prove or disprove anything. I'm simply stating accurate facts. I think you and I mostly agree, but where we differ is that you see ONLY racism whereas I see a situation far more complex.

I have been trying without success to recall a Civil War that actually improved anything, unless you count the women in Aristophanes' drama of 410 BC which he entitled Lysistrata.

Well, the US Civil War did, in fact, eliminate slavery in America, so I would think that improved things.

Shirina wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:President Lincoln represented the police and he was the law enforcement trying to deal with armed violent criminals who were holding the African slaves as their prisoners, and those whites were threatening to kill the slaves before surrendering.

This is all idle speculation since we will never know for sure.

That is not speculation, because we know that the threat was real and Lincoln knew that threat to be real, and the southern whites were afraid that free slaves might kill the whites.

You might claim some "speculation" as to whether any of it might ever actually happening or not - but the threat was real and the threat was no speculation, and people have a right to react based on a threat, including Lincoln had to react to that threat.

Shirina wrote:There's plenty to base it on. The rest of the world was shedding slavery like a dog sheds fur in the summer. The morality of governments was evolving, changing, and finally seeing that slavery was evil. It would only be a matter of time before European governments refused to do business with a nation that used slaves to manufacture the goods being bought. Think of today's outrage againt sweatshops or blood diamonds. Think of the pressure put on South Africa during Apartheid. Today that kind of pressure is ineffective due to a global economy and multi-national mega-corporations, but in the 1800's, if Europe stopped trading with you, you were done.

That is your self here spreading SPECULATION while the evidence declares otherwise.

The rebel constitution declares this here in Article 4 section 3 line 3, which reads in part:

" In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress and by the Territorial government; " Link HERE.

That would have created a never-ending slavery by the force of law, and it directly declares a racist slavery of only "negro" and that was the intention of the traitors of the USA.

There is no speculation in that.

Shirina wrote:The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the states under the control of the Union. Since slavery was already outlawed in the North (though ironically it was still legal in Washington DC), the Emancipation Proclamation was redundant. Within the Confederate States of America, which WAS its own independent country (which is why I feel "civil war" is a misnomer), the Emancipation Proclamation had no authority there.

That is not true and not accurate.

The Emancipation Proclamation declares these words = " all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; " See it HERE.

It did not apply to Washington D.C. as it ONLY (only) applied to the rebel States.

Plus the south was NEVER an independent Country as it was just a bunch of criminal traitors to their own flag, and the "Emancipation Proclamation" ordered by their own President Lincoln became the law of the south enforced by the United States army and that is fact.

Shirina wrote: But what if the Brits and the French came into the fight in 1862? That would have been a completely different ballgame.

Again - that is your speculation, and it is unfitting.

If the Brits and or the French had joined or supported the rebellion then they would have aligned themselves with an evil cause, and then they would have found them selves in opposition to God = "His Truth is Marching on".

Shirina wrote:In those days, their "country" was their home state, not the United States. If Lee had fought against Virginia, for instance, THAT would be fighting against his own country. At least from Lee's perspective. Of course not all Southerners felt the same way and some stayed in the Union army.

That is rubbish, because George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both came from Virginia, and Lee's wife was even the great granddaughter of Martha Washington, so Virginia was instrumental in the very creation of the USA, and as such Lee betrayed his own Virginia forebears by becoming a traitor to his Country and a traitor to his ancestors.

The USA was Lee's factual perspective, but that was twisted by Lee's racist intentions to fight a war for the preservation of the African slavery and for his own white superiority.

Shirina wrote:Um, no. I'm quite certain that the letter is authentic.

I looked up the letter myself, linked here = Lincoln to Greeley Aug 22, 1862.

What you did was leave out the last sentence which declares this:

" I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free. " Yours, A. Lincoln.

His wish was for ALL MEN to be free, and "men" means both male and female - see Genesis 1:27

Shirina wrote: Because the Old Testament sanctioned slavery. It's one of the reasons why I reject wholeheartedly using the Bible, God, or religion as a source of morality.

That really is just a matter of interpretation, as white people have always wanted to see excuses for our evils, but we were wrong.

The old Testament word for slavery was equivalent to the modern word of employee, and the word was not equivalent with our idea of slavery today.

Shirina wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:The idea that some uneducated southern bumpkin would fight a war to maintain some vague ideal of "States' rights" or State sovereignty is just absurd.

LOL! I'd pit any 19th Century uneducated southern bumpkin against any 21st Century southern bumpkin in a contest to determine who knows more about politics in their respective eras.
You'd be surprised how politically astute people were in the 1800's because back then there wasn't this malaise of political apathy that we see today. I mean, seriously, the bumpkins of today think Obama's birth certificate is the real politics and still think God is written into the Constitution.

I agree that the bumpkins of today are reprehensible.

But if you are correct about the knowledge of the Civil War southern soldiers then that has to mean that they were smart enough to know that they were fighting to preserve the slavery, and the soldiers were not going to be politically correct by calling it as States' rights.

There is also a notable accounting that when Abe Lincoln won a second (2nd) term as President then the Union army voted a majority for Lincoln, as the Union army had its own informed soldiers =  History - Nov 8, 1864.

Shirina wrote: I think you and I mostly agree, but where we differ is that you see ONLY racism whereas I see a situation far more complex.

I say we appear to mostly agree too.

My guess is that you do not want to see the racism, while I believe we whites need to repent of it, and to make our amends for it today or as soon as possible, and it needed to have been done a long time ago.

Shirina wrote:Well, the US Civil War did, in fact, eliminate slavery in America, so I would think that improved things.

So you say something like this and I am forced to admire your words.

I prefer an adversary that I can trample under ground - but no - as you just will not let me do it.

"If the Brits and or the French had joined or supported the rebellion then they would have aligned themselves with an evil cause, and then they would have found them selves in opposition to God"

When you run out of argument, invoke God.

He is unassailable, but if all else fails, draw a comparison with Hitler.

Shirina wrote:Well, the US Civil War did, in fact, eliminate slavery in America, so I would think that improved things.

One has to be so careful. I intended to query whether any Civil War has ever improved things for THE COMBATANTS. Eliminating slavery was clearly an improvement for the Afro-American slaves, who had not actually, as a Group, participated in the American Civil War.

The Jews might similarly be said to have acquired a collateral advantage from WW2. (Not itself of course classified as a Civil War. Hitler never originally intended to make an enemy of Britain, whose Royal Family was undeniably German in origin.)

oftenwrong wrote: I intended to query whether any Civil War has ever improved things for THE COMBATANTS.  Eliminating slavery was clearly an improvement for the Afro-American slaves, who had not actually, as a Group, participated in the American Civil War.

In that case if you mean the combatants who started their own rebellion (the Civil War) then they were improved by being defeated.

That might be hard for some to understand, but the southern traitors fought for an immoral cause, and if they had succeeded then the entire world would have turned into a worse place, and their own intentions were so tightly ingrained into their mentality that it was better for everyone whenever any one of those racist immoral trashy white people died.

If the other ones who lost but survived were able to learn that they were corrupt and degenerate then they too were improved - if only slightly.

For the victors they have the self evident improvement.

Redemption.

JP Cusick wrote:You might claim some "speculation" as to whether any of it might ever actually happening or not - but the threat was real and the threat was no speculation, and people have a right to react based on a threat, including Lincoln had to react to that threat.

What I'm saying is that it would be speculation as to how Lincoln would have reacted if the Southern leadership approached Lincoln and offered a deal that would keep slavery but also bring the South back into the Union. I don't know what type of deal that would be, but the details of it are irrelevant. I personally think that Lincoln would allow slavery if it preserved the unity of the country - and later he would work on freeing the slaves. Drafting a carte blanche document like the Emancipation Proclamation would only force the South to secede again, so there would have to be a compromise between slavery and unity. Lincoln would have gone for unity over freedom.

JP Cusick wrote:That is your self here spreading SPECULATION while the evidence declares otherwise.

Actually, evidence is in my favor. Historical precedent says that the South could NOT maintain the institution of slavery while still being included within the international community of the day. How many nations still allow slavery. Yeah, that's right ... NONE. It is outlawed in every nation on the planet. I find it difficult to believe that, had the CSA survived, that it would still own slaves when no other nation does. At some point, the CSA would have had to give up slavery in order to do business in a larger economy -- and given that the South was largely agrarian and had little industry, the CSA would be heavily reliant upon imports.

JP Cusick wrote:Article 4 section 3 line 3

Constitutions are not written in stone. Things that are written can be unwritten. All one has to do is look at Prohibition to know what I mean. Better yet, look at the parts in the US Constitution which used to contain the laws of slavery but which have since been struck down. Oh, there's no doubt that the South would have continued to oppress former slaves and the black race, but something as blatant as outright slavery would have had to go.

JP Cusick wrote:The Emancipation Proclamation declares these words = " all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; "

Yep, and Obama could sign the Female Drivers Emancipation Proclamation declaring that all women in Saudi Arabia now have the right to drive cars. But how much authority does Obama or the USA have in Saudi Arabia? The only way to enforce such a decree is through force of arms -- which means authority has to be forced upon the Saudis. It's not there "naturally" as a form of legitimate governance. The same is true with Lincoln and the South. The Emancipation Proclamation had no authority in the South as those states were no longer under the presidency of Abraham Lincoln and instead was then governed by Jefferson Davis, a duly and democratically elected president. Only force of arms could enforce it.

JP Cusick wrote:Plus the south was NEVER an independent Country

Well, that's not really true. By every standard that defines a nation, the CSA was one. The South had its own culture, its own elected government, its own currency, its own military, and sought international recognition. In fact, France was willing to recognize the CSA as an independent nation but only jointly with Britain ... but the PM at the time, Lord Palmerston, realized by then that the rebels were losing the war and refused to ally with a lost cause. The irony here is that Jefferson Davis sent a diplomat to Europe with a letter which said specifically that the South was fighting for "the vindication of our right to self-government and independence." In other words, Davis was willing to abolish slavery if it meant gaining recognition as a nation by the European powers.

Remember that history is often written by the victors, and from the North's point of view, the CSA was just a bunch of treasonous rebels. But the South considered themselves an independent country; the major world powers at the time (save Russia) agreed.

JP Cusick wrote:That really is just a matter of interpretation, as white people have always wanted to see excuses for our evils, but we were wrong.

As long as Christianity still attaches itself to the Old Testament (when convenient, of course), religion will always be dangerous. As long as that Bronze Age baggage train of primitive, brutal, barbaric Old Testament laws trails along behind Jesus, the temptation will always be there to use the Bible's miserable excuse for morality as justification for atrocity -- like slavery.

I say dump the Bible completely and focus on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

JP Cusick wrote:If the Brits and or the French had joined or supported the rebellion then they would have aligned themselves with an evil cause, and then they would have found them selves in opposition to God

You're right, which is why the Emancipation Proclamation was signed -- to bring slavery to the forefront of the war and remind the world why the war was being fought. It was masterful propaganda given that the actual shooting was being done to either preserve the Union or to secede from it and not necessarily to preserve slavery (as Jefferson Davis's compromise to gain recognition clearly demonstrates).

As for being in opposition to God, how could they be when the Old Testament quite clearly sets up rules on how to buy, sell, treat, and even punish slaves.

JP Cusick wrote:The old Testament word for slavery was equivalent to the modern word of employee, and the word was not equivalent with our idea of slavery today.

These are the words of a Christian apologist who KNOWS the nonsense in the Old Testament is immortal yet has try desperately to juxtapose the heinous atrocities committed by God in the Old Testament with the loving, just, and kind God of the New Testament. The bottom line is: You can't.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

Hmm ... employees, huh? Since when does an employer purchase his employees? Since when can employers also buy the children of his employees? Since when are employers legally allowed to treat his employees like property?

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. (Exodus 21:7)
Wow, employers can even sell their employees off as sex slaves. Nice, eh? And if the sex isn't good enough, she can even be returned to the original owner (keep your receipts!). Not only do we have slavery, we also have misogyny and sexism. I'd hate to work for THAT employer.

I could go on, of course, but I'll simply say this: I am well aware that many Christians are trying their hardest to rewrite the Bible for future generations in the hopes that they won't see just how disgustingly immoral it truly is. I just wonder what their God will think?

Abraham Lincoln wrote:" I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free. "

Yes, and this proves the point I was making from the very beginning. Regardless of Lincoln's personal feelings about slavery, his first duty was to preserve the Union. That's why he made it very clear that he was separating his duties as Commander in Chief and his desires as a decent human being. When he says he intends to make "no modification" of his wish to see all men free, he wasn't saying he would free the slaves and the Union be damned. What he was saying was that no matter what happens, even if he has to allow slavery to keep the South in the Union, he will always personally oppose slavery.

JP Cusick wrote:My guess is that you do not want to see the racism, while I believe we whites need to repent of it, and to make our amends for it today or as soon as possible, and it needed to have been done a long time ago.

No, no, you have me all wrong. I definitely see the racism and I agree that the Civil War was, in part, about racism.

But the second part of your sentence leaves me a bit cold. How do you suggest that we "make amends," now, for slavery? No one alive today ever owned a slave or was a slave, and I strongly oppose the idea of being judged for the sins of our fathers. No one should be made to feel guilty for being white any more than someone should be oppressed for being black. In essence, this is just another form of racism. There's nothing we can do to right the wrongs of the past except to treat each person as an individual and not as a member of a race; to see the good and bad in each person and not pin the blame for the criminality of one and reward the heroism of another based on their race.

I'm half Indian (the Asian kind); I was born and partially raised there. India has had a rigid caste system for thousands of years and only recently has it been outlawed -- yet just as with Jim Crow laws, the vestiges of the old caste system still remain. I know first hand what it's like when you are born into such a system and nothing you do can change your status. No matter how smart you are, how kind you are, how hard you work, how beautiful you might be, you are stuck in your caste forever ... and your children and your children's children. No one should have their ancestry used against them whether it is a rigid caste system or the insistence of feeling "white guilt" for atrocities committed more than a century ago.

There is no way to make amends nor should we try. Who should pay? Should ALL whites pay regardless of whether their ancestors owned slaves or not? Regardless of whether their families arrived before or after slavery was abolished? (Think how many millions of whites came here after the slaves were free). What about mixed races? Should a man like Obama pay only half of the cost because he's half white, then pay it back to himself because he's half-black? And what defines a "white" person? Am I white? Good luck with that one. Again, it would come down to anti-white racism, and that's what we don't need.

I hope you understand where I'm coming from and understand that I'm hardly defending slavery or making excuses for slave owners. I'm certainly not a racist, and my family never owned slaves. In fact, I'm the first in my family to ever set foot in the New World. I just strongly oppose the concept of generational guilt; one of the reasons why America was founded was to get away from that, something practiced ferverently in Europe at the time.

JP Cusick wrote:I prefer an adversary that I can trample under ground - but no - as you just will not let me do it

Aww, you know you love a challenge. You've been holding your own quite well, too, you know.  

Shirina wrote: It is outlawed in every nation on the planet. I find it difficult to believe that, had the CSA survived, that it would still own slaves when no other nation does. At some point, the CSA would have had to give up slavery in order to do business in a larger economy -- and given that the South was largely agrarian and had little industry, the CSA would be heavily reliant upon imports.

The racism of the slavery was the BIG issue while the economics of slavery was a minor issue, and the northern States were far more prosperous without having slaves, so the claims about economic prosperity based on slavery is just one of the white lies.

What we had was a slavery based on race, and in particularly it was white prejudice against African people, which still today has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with white privilege and white superiority.

The idea of white superiority along with the reality of white privilege still exist today in the 21st century, just as does the prejudice and injustices against black people still goes onward today in the 21st century, so the slaves were never going to be free, and even the end of slavery by the brute force of the Union Army was not a deterrent to the still never ending racial prejudice of us whites.

There really are millions (millions) of people just here in my USA where citizens work for unsustainable low pay and horrible hours and in cruel condition, while the only thing that truly separates them from slavery is that they or their children have some slim possibility that they could escape their keepers without being forcibly returned because the law no longer allows that.

Shirina wrote: Oh, there's no doubt that the South would have continued to oppress former slaves and the black race, but something as blatant as outright slavery would have had to go.

So do you praise that?

Is that not reason for our shame and our condemnation?

The "Jim Crow" racist laws were better than slavery - so cheers to "Jim Crow Laws" = well hell no.

The slavery was ended only by brute fore while the racism continues - so they get no credit nor honor for any part of it.

Shirina wrote: The same is true with Lincoln and the South. The Emancipation Proclamation had no authority in the South as those states were no longer under the presidency of Abraham Lincoln and instead was then governed by Jefferson Davis, a duly and democratically elected president. Only force of arms could enforce it.

You keep preaching that and it is NOT true, and not accurate.

The force of arms is the only thing that gives any law its authority, just as a traffic cop giving out a speeding ticket can forcibly take the driver into custody, and so too the Army of the USA enforced the Emancipation Proclamation onto our southern States, and anyone / everyone who defied that was subject to the brute force of the rightful law enforcement.

Jeff Davis only governed his band of criminals until the law enforcement arrested him and forcibly suppressed his criminal allies.

As you are viewing it then any gang leader is their own government - until the police arrive.

The Emancipation Proclamation had indeed the force of law behind it, and no southern traitor could defy it without breaking the law and risking their own legal prosecution including arrest or instant death by the law enforcement of the Union military.

As such the Emancipation Proclamation did have authority, and it actually had a huge amount of authority.

Link = 10 Facts about the Emancipation Proclamation

QUOTE from that link = "William Seward suggested waiting for a Union victory so that the government could prove that it could enforce the Proclamation."

And it was enforced.

Shirina wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:Plus the south was NEVER an independent Country

Well, that's not really true. By every standard that defines a nation, the CSA was one. The South had its own culture, ...

Not by the one (1) standard which mattered - by the standards of the USA the southern rebels were never an independent Country, and that is why the rebels were crushed while the southern States remained an intact part of the USA.

So no, the standards of some foreign power were never relevant and never applied. Even if the Brits or the French had sent in troops then it would have been a foreign invasion and NOT an independent Country.

Shirina wrote:The irony here is that Jefferson Davis sent a diplomat to Europe with a letter which said specifically that the South was fighting for "the vindication of our right to self-government and independence." In other words, Davis was willing to abolish slavery if it meant gaining recognition as a nation by the European powers.

That is utter complete nonsense.

The only self-governance and independence that the southern traitors wanted was the white superiority along with the African slavery, while you are projecting an untruth into the words of Davis.

Shirina wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:The old Testament word for slavery was equivalent to the modern word of employee, and the word was not equivalent with our idea of slavery today.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.  You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land.  You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.  You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

Hmm ... employees, huh? Since when does an employer purchase his employees? Since when can employers also buy the children of his employees? Since when are employers legally allowed to treat his employees like property?

Actually a thing like this happens all the time regularly.

As a corporate takeover, or even if you or me buy a small business then we get all the employees included when we buy the business.

Shirina wrote:
There's nothing we can do to right the wrongs of the past except to treat each person as an individual and not as a member of a race; to see the good and bad in each person and not pin the blame for the criminality of one and reward the heroism of another based on their race.

That means to continue the inequality against the African Americans, and that needs to be stopped.

What you are referring to about ignoring a person's race or being "color-blind" simply means continuing the white domination, while ignoring things like the prisons being filled with a super majority of black people, and ignoring the huge disparity between employment and education and law enforcement and the many other social factors and distinctions between the races based on the never ending white prejudice.

So if one wants truth and justice then we do not want any more of the racist claiming to be color blind.

Shirina wrote:
I'm half Indian (the Asian kind); I was born and partially raised there. India has had a rigid caste system for thousands of years and only recently has it been outlawed -- yet just as with Jim Crow laws, the vestiges of the old caste system still remain. I know first hand what it's like when you are born into such a system and nothing you do can change your status. No matter how smart you are, how kind you are, how hard you work, how beautiful you might be, you are stuck in your caste forever ... and your children and your children's children. No one should have their ancestry used against them whether it is a rigid caste system or the insistence of feeling "white guilt" for atrocities committed more than a century ago.

I take that means that you must be a "Brahmin" (the upper caste)?

Because the lower caste always know of ways to make right the old wrongs.

Shirina wrote:
There is no way to make amends nor should we try. Who should pay? Should ALL whites pay regardless of whether their ancestors owned slaves or not? Regardless of whether their families arrived before or after slavery was abolished? (Think how many millions of whites came here after the slaves were free). What about mixed races? Should a man like Obama pay only half of the cost because he's half white, then pay it back to himself because he's half-black? And what defines a "white" person? Am I white? Good luck with that one. Again, it would come down to anti-white racism, and that's what we don't need.

The idea of paying reparations is a white-ignorant idea, because white people view things through our greed and by our money, while reparations (repairing the wrongs) does not really mean to pay anyone anything.

Repentance and making amends does not mean paying people off with dirty cash, except in the mentality of the immoral and the unjust.

Shirina wrote:
I hope you understand where I'm coming from and understand that I'm hardly defending slavery or making excuses for slave owners. I'm certainly not a racist, and my family never owned slaves. In fact, I'm the first in my family to ever set foot in the New World. I just strongly oppose the concept of generational guilt; one of the reasons why America was founded was to get away from that, something practiced ferverently in Europe at the time.

At first I thought that you were speaking as a born and raised American and I thought that I understood you from that position, but now I find that you are not a white-American from the USA then now I understand you to be misinformed.

Racism is a sad reality throughout the entire planet earth, but here in the USA it is a particular kind of opposites being "black and white" along with the human ego of self righteousness, so that the USA society and mentality is built upon the worst of evils based on our violence, lust and greed.

I really find this explained best in the Bhagavad-gita from the old Sanskrit of India.

All of Life is here. The Coen Brothers could make a magnificent movie based upon this thread.

JP Cusick wrote:There really are millions (millions) of people just here in my USA where citizens work for unsustainable low pay and horrible hours and in cruel condition, while the only thing that truly separates them from slavery is that they or their children have some slim possibility that they could escape their keepers without being forcibly returned because the law no longer allows that.

Sure there are ... it's called economic slavery. This form of slavery doesn't see skin color or ethnicity. It's all about who has money and who doesn't. And those who have it are going to do everything in their considerable power to make sure those who don't have it will never get it.

JP Cusick wrote:So do you praise that?

Did you see me praising it? Did you see me cheerleading for the oppression of the black race? When I discuss history, I discuss it to the best of my ability without value judgements, emotional reactions, or personal agendas. I merely stated the FACT that slavery would never have been tolerated within the international community, so while the slaves would have been set free, the South would continue to oppress the black race. I don't see that statement as somehow giving three cheers for oppression. Do you?

JP Cusick wrote:Is that not reason for our shame and our condemnation?

No. Like I said, only racists should feel ashamed; only those who still cling to 19th Century anti-black sentiments passed on to them by ignorant parents and grandparents bound and determined to keep racism alive -- THOSE people should feel ashamed and rightfully deserve our condemnation. But NO ONE should be made to feel ashamed of their race. One may as well be made to feel ashamed of a disability or their age or having a disease ... and a myriad other things one cannot control. Unless you, personally, owned slaves or you, personally, are a racist, you have no reason to be ashamed of who you are.

JP Cusick wrote:The "Jim Crow" racist laws were better than slavery - so cheers to "Jim Crow Laws" = well hell no.

Please don't twist my words, Mr. Cusick. That is a disingenuous form of debate and should be beneath you. I think you know full well what I meant, and the idea that I was somehow "cheering" for Jim Crow laws is borderline insulting. I am telling you how things would have been if the CSA had gained its independence. The slaves would have been set free but they still would have been oppressed. That's all I said. I have no understanding where you pulled out the "cheers to Jim Crow laws" comment from, but even lightning flashes out of the blue once in awhile.

JP Cusick wrote:You keep preaching that and it is NOT true, and not accurate.

I disagree and I've told you why. I guess we'll just have to "agree to disagree" on this point as there's nothing more I can say without  

JP Cusick wrote:The force of arms is the only thing that gives any law its authority

Not necessarily. The legitimacy of the government also gives the law its authority -- as well as social pressures and a person's own surivial instict. No one would want to live in a society where murder is legal, for example, because people don't want to be murdered.

JP Cusick wrote:Jeff Davis only governed his band of criminals until the law enforcement arrested him and forcibly suppressed his criminal allies.

I can only assume, then, that neither Panama or Iraq were independent nations because "police" came to arrest Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein.

JP Cusick wrote:As you are viewing it then any gang leader is their own government - until the police arrive.

In a manner of speaking, yes. Gangs do have their own hierarchies and ways of doing things that can, in fact, mimic a government. However, no, I'm not saying gangs are independent nations for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that they have no governmental legitimacy.

JP Cusick wrote:Not by the one (1) standard which mattered - by the standards of the USA the southern rebels were never an independent Country, and that is why the rebels were crushed while the southern States remained an intact part of the USA.

So you're essentially saying that no nation can become independent without the USA's blessing? In addition, do you consider the People's Republic of China (Taiwan) an independent nation even though China, which Taiwain formerly belonged to, claims that it isn't?

JP Cusick wrote:So no, the standards of some foreign power were never relevant and never applied.

Actually, it is very relevant. International recognition determines how armed conflict is viewed. If the nation is recognized, then a civil war becomes a foreign invasion by the Union and would no doubt prompt action by the European powers (which wanted America split to begin with). It also gives the rebel government legitimacy in the eyes of the world. Yeah, that legitimacy thing is a real drag, but THAT even more than force of arms gives a government its power. Otherwise all governments and all nations would be dictatorial police states since the population would rebel without a gun pressed into their backs.

JP Cusick wrote:That is utter complete nonsense.

It's annoying when historical fact doesn't always mesh with your interpretation ... isn't it.

JP Cusick wrote:while you are projecting an untruth into the words of Davis.

Tsk, tsk. Go look it up. I assure you that Davis did, in fact, write that letter and that letter was, in fact, presented to the heads of the European powers. Davis was, in fact, willing to sacrifice slavery to gain international recognition -- which just goes to show you how important such recognition is, meaning it is not "irrelevant" as you say.

JP Cusick wrote:As a corporate takeover, or even if you or me buy a small business then we get all the employees included when we buy the business.

Um, no ... that's not even remotely the same thing as the slave laws laid out in the Bible. What a person buys when purchasing a business is NOT the employees but rather the positions the employees occupy. Employees are free to quit and walk off the job any time they wish, and they won't be hunted down by their employer and dragged back to work in chains - plus a few dozen lashes for good measure.

The Bible, however, speaks of real slavery -- the kind where you cannot quit, you cannot leave, you cannot demand a salary, etc. because slaves have no rights. They are property and the Bible says implicitly that slaves are property. The Bible even gives instructions on how to beat slaves; as long as the slave dies a day or two after the beating, the master hasn't violated God's law. Masters are simply prohibited from beating a slave to death right there on the spot. (See Exodus 21:20-21)

JP Cusick wrote:That means to continue the inequality against the African Americans, and that needs to be stopped.

I'd still like to know what we're supposed to do, precisely. I'm not actually white, per se, but assuming I was, am I supposed to bow and avert my eyes when a black person walks by? Should I give up my seat on public transport if I see a black person standing? Should blacks get preferential treatment when being hired or admitted to a college irrespective of qualifications? What, exactly?

JP Cusick wrote:What you are referring to about ignoring a person's race or being "color-blind" simply means continuing the white domination

No, it means TRUE equality. What you seem to want is to swing the pendulum in the opposite direction so that whites now must be treated unfairly to somehow make up for the slave era. Sorry, but no. I'm for actual equality, and you can't achieve that by giving blacks special privileges, waivers, exceptions, etc. That is hardly continuing "white domination." Being "color blind" means I'm not going to treat anyone differently because of their race ... that is equality, not giving special deference to black people. As I said before, you cannot heal the past by reversing the racism and demanding whites be ashamed and guilty of things they didn't even do (as no one alive today is responsible for slavery).

JP Cusick wrote:based on the never ending white prejudice.

I agreed with you up to this point. Not everything plaguing the black race is a result of white prejudice.

JP Cusick wrote:So if one wants truth and justice then we do not want any more of the racist claiming to be color blind.

I'm talking about personal interactions here not governmental policy or whether police are over-enforcing laws in black neighborhoods. No, I'm talking about me and a black person engaging in conversation. In that sense, I am color blind and I will remain so to the best of my ability. I am not going to be especially polite, deferential, apologetic, or submissive when dealing with blacks simply because their ancestors were slaves. I'm going to treat them the way I would treat anyone else ... because I believe in equality.

Jesus said to treat others as you would have them treat you ... and I really don't want MY race and ethnicity playing a major factor in a conversation or whether someone will befriend me or go out on a date with me. I just want the respect accorded to me by being a fellow human being. No one should have the right to strut into a room and expect special treatment because of their race. That's nonsense.

JP Cusick wrote:I take that means that you must be a "Brahmin" (the upper caste)?

LOL! No, I was born a Sudras. It's why I was taken out of India at a fairly young age. I had no future there since where I lived there was a tendency to follow the caste system ... if not de jure then de facto. The best I could have hoped for would be to wash someone's clothes or scrub someone's toilet.

JP Cusick wrote:Because the lower caste always know of ways to make right the old wrongs.

You can't right old wrongs without a time machine. All you can do is stop the wrongs and try to ensure that they don't happen again. That's especially true when all of those who were wronged and those who committed the wrongs are dead.

Yes, I'm aware that there is still racism, there is still prejudice, but you cannot deny the progress we've made over the years. There has to be a time when blacks stand on their own two feet and do for themselves. No one else can whip out a race card and demand privileges no one else receives and that has to stop, too. If you get busted committing a crime, you can't flash the race card and claim, "There is a disproportionate number of blacks in prison so you have to let me go." If you get C's and D's in high school and score a 700 on the SATs, you can't kick down the door of the Harvard admissions office, flash the race card, and demand to be accepted. There are plenty of successful black people so it's not all about race.

JP Cusick wrote:The idea of paying reparations is a white-ignorant idea

Except it was black folks who came up with the idea.

JP Cusick wrote:because white people view things through our greed and by our money

I will remind you as forum administrator that racist comments are strictly prohibited. That includes being racist against your own race. Your comment above SHOULD be removed, but I'll let it stand this time as a warning.

JP Cusick wrote:At first I thought that you were speaking as a born and raised American and I thought that I understood you from that position, but now I find that you are not a white-American from the USA then now I understand you to be misinformed.

I've been in the USA for quite some time; I earned my degrees here in an American college. But I've also had the privilege of living on four distinctly different continents with distinctly different cultures and worldviews. The experience has given me a distinctly different view of the world - including the USA. I am not at all misinformed; I just don't debate a point with a particular agenda. I let history control the journey, not the other way around.

JP Cusick wrote:so that the USA society and mentality is built upon the worst of evils based on our violence, lust and greed.

Oh I certainly agree ... as you see if you have read any of my posts scattered throughout, especially the political ones. I've even considered leaving the USA as one of my threads shows. What you have to understand is that I KNOW racism exists - believe me I know given that I'm not white. I've been tagged as Muslim, Hispanic, Mulatto, Asian ... you name it, and I've dealt with the various prejudices thrown at all of these religions, ethnicities, and races.

But racism is just one component in a massive machine powered by, as you say, "greed, lust, and violence."

JP Cusick wrote:I really find this explained best in the Bhagavad-gita from the old Sanskrit of India.

Did you actually read the whole thing?

Shirina wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:Jeff Davis only governed his band of criminals until the law enforcement arrested him and forcibly suppressed his criminal allies.

I can only assume, then, that neither Panama or Iraq were independent nations because "police" came to arrest Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein.

That would apply if it were their own police dept in Panama or in Iraq.

Because when Davis was arrested it was by the lawful authorities of his own Country the USA.

Shirina wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:Not by the one (1) standard which mattered - by the standards of the USA the southern rebels were never an independent Country, and that is why the rebels were crushed while the southern States remained an intact part of the USA.

So you're essentially saying that no nation can become independent without the USA's blessing? In addition, do you consider the People's Republic of China (Taiwan) an independent nation even though China, which Taiwain formerly belonged to, claims that it isn't?

You are twisting my words now, as I only said that those American traitors inside of the USA as were the southern traitors who were duly arrested had no Country of their own except the one who lawfully arrested the leader and rightfully suppressed the rebel army.

That one (1) standard applied because they were all citizens of the USA.

As to Taiwan then I do say that it is a territory of China, and I say our American standard is out of line as we do not belong in that territory of China.

Shirina wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:while you are projecting an untruth into the words of Davis.

Tsk, tsk. Go look it up. I assure you that Davis did, in fact, write that letter and that letter was, in fact, presented to the heads of the European powers. Davis was, in fact, willing to sacrifice slavery to gain international recognition -- which just goes to show you how important such recognition is, meaning it is not "irrelevant" as you say.

Last time I looked up your claim about the Greeley letter then we found out that you left out the most important last sentence which contradicted everything that you claimed.

As to that Davis letter "Shirina wrote" = The irony here is that Jefferson Davis sent a diplomat to Europe with a letter which said specifically that the South was fighting for "the vindication of our right to self-government and independence." In other words, Davis was willing to abolish slavery if it meant gaining recognition as a nation by the European powers.

Those "in other words" are your own words and not the words of Davis, and your words are an out-of-line projection which is NOT true, as you say that and Davis said no such thing about abolishing the slavery - hell no - he did not.

Shirina wrote:Being "color blind" means I'm not going to treat anyone differently because of their race ... that is equality, not giving special deference to black people.

African American people do not want their race or color to be ignored or marginalized, and I agree with them.

As like we recognize and cheer the fact that President Obama is our first and only black Man for President and we are not color blind to his identity.

The same with music and TV shows and prison population and public housing or in any regard.

By being color blind then there can never be equality.

Shirina wrote: No one should have the right to strut into a room and expect special treatment because of their race. That's nonsense.

I get that special treatment as a white man without asking for it, while black people may not get that simply by the show of their color.

Does not mean that I have any right to it? or that others have no such right? No, as that reality just happens.

Shirina wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:Because the lower caste always know of ways to make right the old wrongs.

You can't right old wrongs without a time machine. All you can do is stop the wrongs and try to ensure that they don't happen again. That's especially true when all of those who were wronged and those who committed the wrongs are dead.

The fact is that we really can change the past with our actions in the present - and the process is called repentance and making amends.

We do not need any time machine, because time has its own way of making that happen.

In example: If we were to outlaw the display of the racist rebel flag today, then ever after the history would read that on that date it ended.

The history would then be corrected and it would then become the new revised historical record, which thereby changes the past.

Repentance and making amends works just like magic - or more so like a miracle when they are done correctly.

Shirina wrote:But racism is just one component in a massive machine powered by, as you say, "greed, lust, and violence."

I can agree with that, but I do not like to lower the racism as some secondary concern which it is not.

Shirina wrote:

JP Cusick wrote:I really find this explained best in the Bhagavad-gita from the old Sanskrit of India.

Did you actually read the whole thing?

Yes, I have read the Gita many times, and I have the two best versions of the Gita here in my house, and I simply love the message even though it describes evil as well as righteousness.

My finding is that the Gita describes the exact same "tree of life" as told in Genesis 3 with Adam and Eve committing the original sin, and the Gita explains that we must detach our self from that evil "knowledge of good and bad" as that is the mental poison in all of humanity.

I first learned about the Gita by reading the books written by the Mahatma Gandhi, and Gandhi recommended that Edwin Arnold version.

 

As to the Civil War, decent people knew what it was about. Two of my wife's family, having failed to establish democracy here as Physical Force Chartists, went over to fight the slave-owners. My own ancestor just owned a silver-mine in Nevada: it fell in on him and killed him, and serve him right. Still, what he left took the family to Patagonia. The reason so many black Americans have 'Welsh' names, however, is not that our ancestors had plantations but that they were Union Army chaplains, happy to lead 'black' congregations, many of whom adopted their surnames in solidarity.