The Confederacy: America's worst idea

Well, we could free just a very few, as the North did theirs. But then, what becomes of the slaves? Or we could sell most of them, as the North did, but who would we sell them to? Or we could hang a bunch, as the North did. Which one do you suggest?

No, I don't see slavery as a moral question. It is a product of one people dominating another people just as in a war. Slavery is no more a moral issue than prisoners of war.

Your quite welcome.

Quantrill

 

LOL, did they refuse to free them because they were concerned about their welfare after being freed?

Who did the North sell them to?

Freeing them. How about that?

I am guessing you might if you were the one in chains. You people are such hypocrites.

 

Yes, that was part of it. Another is the extreme amount of slaves freed with nothing and nowhere to go etc. etc. Not only do you ask the Southernor to loose his wealth financially, then you place a tremendous burden on the Southern Society. Of course we could have directed them up North, they would surely have welcomed them.

The North sold their slaves to the Southernor. Where do you suggest the South sell theirs?

Freeing them you say. But the yankee didn't free most of his. Why cant' we sell them somewhere like the yankee did? Or, better yet, why cant there be some compensation from the Federal government given to the southern land holder to enable him to free them? To find a place for them to live? To find a job for them? What will they do?

No, as said, it is not a moral question. I would see it no differently if I were in chains. What is hypocritical?

Quantrill

 

Nuff Said

 

Consider it penance for participation in the abomination of slavery.

If I owned slaves I would free them even if it bankrupted me. Would you?

Certainly more than the South would welcome free black men.

To the same people the North was selling them to. Other southerners.

You were whining about how unfair it was that the South didnt unload their slaves like the north did, but any individual Southerner could have done the exact same thing as any Northerner. If the North was selling them off there was obviously a market for them, right?

Who prevented them from doing so?

Because people should not be property?

Maybe they could have simply asked them if they wanted to remain slaves. I mean, if slavery was obviously so comfortable for them, why would they ever leave? Right?

That is the position I would expect from someone who is morally inferior. I am sure they felt the same way.

You are either incredibly naive or lying.

 

"Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether"- Lincoln's Second Inaugural Speech, March 1865

Lincoln believed in the end that the entire nation was being punished by God with war because it sinnned mightily in allowing the Institution of slavery.

 

Pennance? Well, the North should share in that pennance. The Federal government could compensate the Southernor and fund housing and food and jobs for the freed slaves. That way the North wouldn't miss out on the 'pennance'. Right?

I don't believe you. And no, if I had been a slave holder I would not free the slaves if it bankrupted me.

Oh the North would welcome them? The reason the North was against slavery was because of the economics and the numbers of blacks. They didn't want them. The underground railroad went to Canada. Remember the 75 black people that were hung to protest emancipation. And were there any efforts by the good people of the north to bring the poor black man up there during reconstruction? To help resettle and relocate? Maybe Detroit, uhhh?

Your talking about ending slavery like the North did. If the Southernor just sold to other Southernors, then it still remains. So, who does the Southernor sell his slaves to to end slavery in the South?


Because people shoud not be property? That doesn't answer anything. Why shouldn't the Federal Govt. help compensate the Southernor. And help relocate and house and feed the freed man. As I said earlier, that way the North gets to pay its fair share for slavery. Pennance, remember?

If the slaves all left voluntarily, you still have the problem of compensation, and finding housing, food, and jobs. The problem doesn't go away just because the yankee is far up north and doesn't have to deal with it.

Well, youll just have to take my word for it.

Quantrill

 

That was his tune in 1865. He played different tunes at different times. It all depended on what he thought he needed. He played yall real well.

Quantrill

 

It did. It fought the civil war over this issue. If the North had caved on slavery, there would not have been a civil war.

You keep saying the war wasnt about slavery, but if the North had not been anti-slave, then there would not have been a need for a war. What other issue would have triggered a war?

Should the government also compensate rapists for the women they didnt rape? LOL

You were asking before where the slaves could go...you just answered your own question.

LOL...your answer to the abomination of slavery is "Well, they did it too!". Its like you're completely amoral, heh heh.

Not on an individual level. The individual southerner could have unloaded his slaves to another individual...if he had wanted to.

I would expect that answer from someone without morals. To most normal people, it answers everything. It isnt something that even needs to be explained.

I explained why.

 

Puhleeze, Quantrill. At the very least, both sides brought this war on...

 

Curious thread title. The Confederacy was the South's idea, and it certainly wasn't their worst idea.

 

The South unilaterally seceded. So no, both sides did not bring on the war. Had the South not seceded there would have been no war.

 

I'm being generous when I say "at the very least". Considering the CSA fired the first shot of the war, it's a bit disingenuous to blame the USA for starting it.

All that having been said, the fighting between the pro and anti-slavery factions in America actually began years before the South seceded...

 

TODAY....What this nation needs is the Confederacy concept in DC.​

 

The fact that people like you have been in continual decline since the civil war leads me to believe that the system we have right now is better.

 

You mean if the North had been willing to obey the law, there never would have been a war.

The war wasn't about slavery. It was about the Norths refusal to treat the South as equals in the Union. As you said, the North was the real U.S.

What does rapists have to do with the Federal govt. compensating the Southernor for his slaves and then helping to provide for the freed men?

The point of Canada is that the North didn't want the black man. But oh how they like to posture themselves as the good people who want to free the black man. Yes, yes you are so moral.

My answer to you is that you the north were the hypocrits in this matter. Especially now when so much evidence is there that proves that slavery was not why the North went to war.

The point about what to do with the slaves pertained to ending slavery in the South as slavery ended in the north. The North could sell them to the South and be free of it. The South had no where to sell them to end slavery in the South. Pay attention.

Sorry, you evade the original question. And you did not give an answer. Why shouldn't the Federal govt. compensate the Southernor for his slaves and seek to help fund the relocating and housing and feeding and finding jobs for them. To say the North paid because it fought the war is wrong because we are talking about doing something prior to the war. The South fought the war also. Big deal.

Quantrill

 

Sorry, Im not buying that. The North brought it on. The North was the aggressor.

Quantrill

 

If the North had treated the South as equals in the Union, then the South would have never seceeded from the Union.

Once a state does not have any protection under the laws of the land, then its time to go.

Quantrill

 

Apparently you know little of the event at Fort Sumter. The North provoked the war. It was Lincolns purpose to do so.

Quantrill

 

Its too late for it.

Quantrill

 

Of course we never could match the yankee in numbers. But then, the yankee went overseas to get 1/4 of his men to fight his war. The yankee has lofty principles. He is morally superior, just ask him. I guess getting foreigners to fight his war was the 'moral' thing to do. " Mine eyes have seen the glory".

Quantrill

 

Actually our first form of government was a 'confederacy'. Remember, the 'Articles of Confederation'?

Quantrill

 

"I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Lincoln's First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

"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. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388.

"Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republican administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume IV, "Letter to Alexander H. Stephens" (December 22, 1860), p. 160.

"I will say, then, that I AM NOT NOR HAVE EVER BEEN in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the black and white races---that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with White people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the White and black races which will ever FORBID the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the White race."
~ 4th Lincoln-Douglas debate, September 18th, 1858; Vol. 3, pp. 145-146

"I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary."
~ Lincoln, Aug. 21, 1858, in remarks stating his belief that blacks were naturally inferior to whites.

"What I would most desire would be the separation of the white and black races."
~ Spoken at Springfield, Illinois on July 17th, 1858; from ABRAHAM LINCOLN: COMPLETE WORKS, 1894, Vol. 1, page 273

He was a politician. He told whatever audience what they wanted to hear.

 

...or anyone else. How many people today would say that the North was not morally superior to the South? Should we start a poll?

Probably not the only moral thing, but it was definitely moral. The eradication of the Southern slave society was a benefit to mankind, and an advancement for the human race as a whole, not just America.

The North did...the southern states had full representation. They left in a pouty rage like children when they didnt get their way.

I am ok with that interpretation. I dont have a problem with victimizing slave cultures. I'd support doing the exact same thing today.

Since when does the minority get the final say on the interpretation of a given law? What makes their interpretation more relevant than that of the majority?

If slavery was not an issue, then there would have been no war. That is a fact.

Here, this might help:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/analogy

If they supported slavery as much as you say they did, then what was the problem? What were they imposing on the South?

Of course I am. I am morally superior to both sides that fought the civil war, and to you as well.

The difference between the two sides was just a matter of degree. The North was morally inferior to most modern Americans, but they were morally superior to the south of their time.

I am ok with that so long as their goals were more noble.

Because owning human beings is wrong, and people who owned human beings as property do not deserve to be rewarded for it.

 

If your so moral and right, why did yall ignore the Constitution?

Quantrill