Based on that there was no honor or chivalry in the medieval times. Considering that peasants are essentially the same thing as slaves. Which is also ironic because that is the time of which those terms are used to describe the nobility and royalty.


________________

No, I can't say that in any circumstance would I ever support a group of people who fought in order to prolong the enslavement of other human beings. Something about that seems rather... cruel and inhumane? No need to mention PC terms like racism here.

To be honest, at this point I rather doubt I worded this properly and probably should not have expected people to read anything other than the title.
I may make a new version later but at least this gives me slight insight.

________________

My thoughts.
I agree with what they fought for but not what they did. I would not fight.
1. I agree that they fought to retain their rights (the whole reason that they fought was because of states' rights, not slavery, although that does fall under states' rights).
2. However, I do not believe in slavery. Gosh, I bet someone will read the first fourth of this post and say,, "omg you're so racist" but NO. I do not agree with what they did.
3. That being said, I would not fight.

EDIT:

Umm...I'm from Texas and I don't support secession of any kind. In fact, most people don't . And Texas is supposedly the state that wants to secede the most so I really don't think anyone is having Confederacy ideas as of now in the South.

Last edited by doki-doki-kimochi at 1:15 am, Feb 9 2014

________________
You can, you should, and if you’re brave enough to start, you will.

I was just kinda hoping that this thead'd diiieeeee...

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa...



No.

See, that's where we're gonna have a breakdown in communication. I purposely kept my statement void of any racial implications simply for the fact that the issue should be shot down as "idiotic" on the "humans owning humans" level. It shouldn't even be a debate about the color or race of the human, because humans owning humans is ridiculous, no matter the color. (Yes, yes... A human owing a human is wrong....*cough*outsideofmarrage*cough*...)


And you're wrong. If we're talking the 1860 confederate south, and as far as I can tell from the brilliant opening post, we seem to be, then yes, it is, or rather, was a southern belief that white men should be able to own black people. Can you even believe that? 1860. In the grand scheme of things, that's not all that long ago.


Haaaa... looks like I'm coming apart at the seams here...




Correct.

Our country did not go to war with itself for such a noble cause as freeing the slaves. The primary reason for the Union to go to war was simply to preserve the Union. Freeing the slaves was a merely a byproduct of the war, somewhat. (I say "somewhat" because there're many reasons for the war that may contridict my statement, specifically, but not limited to, Lincon making it an official war goal, after the fact, to "free the slaves". I don't mean to give anyone an American history lesson; if anyone wants to know, look it up.)

Yes, Lincoln had it in his mind to contain slavery, but that's all. He was perfectly happy with slavery naturally dying out as something that was obviously wrong.

Unfortunately, the times were against him, and the southern leaders had no hand to play other than succession because their economy probably would've collapsed if slavery were suddenly abolished. If it was going to be "unconstitutional" to own a slave, then the slave oriented south had no other choice. It was a ploy they had to pull off to preserve what they thought was their dwindling political standing. Their political standing to make more pro-slavery laws.

And so they succeeded, and after they succeeded, the Union sought to preserve the Union. Nothing noble. Nothing grand.

But that's history.



You're right, yet also wrong. Your title was good enough, but you worded your opening post like a complete moron if it was your intent to speak of individual state-by-state rights. Why would you say this if that were the case?



ANYONE who was cleanly against slavery in this situation would have said something like this right from the start to avoid confusion:

"Ok, so I know that slavery is OBVIOUSLY wrong, and if a modern confederate army rose to protect slavery in this day 'n age, I'd be against them. But that's not what I'm talking about here. I'm only asking about your individual state rights within the United States. Let's talk about that."


If you said that, you'd have diffused the situation immediately. Hell, I'd have never replied, or better yet, I would've probably replied more favorably.

But you didn't. In fact, you almost made it sound like you were defending the forced labor of blacks.

you_no_see_me_, I'm sorry, but I'm strangely an honest person, so let me be frank; I think you're an idiot. But let me be more frank... You know those manga you've read that have the antagonist blur the line between "good", "evil", and "justice" in some self indulgent dialog with the protagonist? Well, all that's a buncha shit.

A wise man once said: "I realized critical analysis isn't necessarily all it's made out to be. Standing in the rain doesn't always symbolize the washing away of sins. Sometimes a black cat is just a black cat, the color red isn't always a symbol of caution, and a cigar doesn't always denote status."

That's the truth. If you think that slavery is wrong, say that from the get-go, instead of making seemingly defensive 1860 confederate statements. Otherwise, we'll all misunderstand, without you having a leg to stand on as to where our misunderstanding stems.

Last edited by Badkarma at 3:48 am, Feb 9 2014

Well, the main issue here would most likely be that I have never viewed the cause for secession as one mainly focused on slavery. I was never taught of it in that way.
I was taught that secession was a cause of absurdly high tariffs and for the rights of the states.
I may also be biased in favor due to the fact that I am aware that many members of my ancestors fought and died in the Confederate army. We also have one ancestor that fought in the Union army.

As I said, I worded this very poorly. Most likely a side effect of the fact that I was half asleep at the time.

________________

You should really learn to question what you're taught (source, emphasis added):

As you can see, the second highest executive in the Confederacy openly stated that the southern rebellion was first and foremost about slavery - and he said this before the Battle of Fort Sumter.

And here's another question you should ask yourself - if the southern states were truly in favor of State's rights, why did they unanimously support the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, a tremendous federal intrusion on the rights of northern states?

Perhaps you should question what you're taught. As they say, it's the victor that writes history.
Also, they were violating the rights of the South to own slaves so they passed the Fugitive Slave Act.
Whether or not you agree with slavery being right or wrong, it was legal at the time which meant that the northerners were essentially seizing "property"(not to be rude, but that is what it was back then) and refusing to return it to the owners.
It was an act put in place to protect the rights of states to maintain "property".

________________

I don't agree with the views of the Confederacy or anything that they stand for. I also can't fathom the ignorance and racism that is apparent in this thread...

@OP: For someone that openly admits that his whole perception of this topic is shaped by the (biased) way that history is taught in Southern schools, you are being incredibly ridiculous and your entire argument is weakened because of it. You should take hannah's advice and try to not believe everything that they teach you. (source: I grew up in the South as well.)

And you think being against mixing with other races is not racist...
Good luck to surviving in a world where the percentage of white people is decreasing. And also thank you, I would rather not mix with bigots either. Have a nice day.

________________
♪MONSTARR~ will eat all your cookies and steal your bishies~♪ Φ_Φ

I find it funny how so many of you say that I should double check my views on the war.
That I should not trust everything taught to me in school. I don't. I research things myself.
I find it utterly ironic that none of you think to question your own teachings, that none of you sit there and think "Perhaps the country I live in that crushed a rebellion after taxing them to the point of said rebellion is pushing propaganda to prevent another event of such magnitude. Perhaps it truly is the victor that writes history, and the occupier that changes the ideals of the native people. Perhaps everything I've been taught should be questioned."

In all honesty, it seems rather...strange to only question one side and never question your own. I understand why it is that way though. After all, every time that happens rebellion follows shortly.

I have looked into it all, I'm aware slavery was a large portion, but I'm also aware that the South was tariffed so heavily that its almost laughable. That they were mocked and ridiculed by the North for their keeping of slavery despite the largest plantation being in Maine, and despite the fact that the emancipation proclamation was intended only to cause unrest in the Southern slave population as well as prevent foreign intervention on the side of the Confederacy. It did not free nor mention slaves in the border states. They were never meant to be freed. In fact, had Lincoln not been assassinated they most likely would not have been. The argument that the North desired equality is laughable at best. Very few were even remotely interested in said aspect. Most agreed that slavery was abominable but not much else.

In regards to the act of secession in and of itself and the events surrounding it leading to the start of the war with the attack on Fort Sumter I have a few things to say as well. Many Northerners believed that the South should be allowed to leave at first; after all, their views were so different on that matter and what should be done to fix it that they believed it in their best interest to simply split apart. They did not unite in the fight until the attack on Fort Sumter. That was the point in which the North unified in the desire to retake the South. They believed the South had attacked their troops in their base unprovoked for seemingly no reason. That is false. The South attacked Fort Sumter in response to multiple perceived acts of aggression with the first being ordered by President Buchanan on January 9th of 1861 to reinforce and resupply Fort Sumter which laid near Charleston, South Carolina in the newly founded Confederacy and the second act of aggression that led to the attack was ordered by the new President Abraham Lincoln when he again ordered a resupply and reinforcement of Fort Sumter. The Confederacy had requested and made clear their desire for Union troops to evacuate the Fort and leave their newly founded country. The Commander of the Fort refused to do so. After the two attempts at reinforcement and resupply the Confederacy attacked the Fort with heavy fire for 34 hours. No lives were lost in the attack. The attack was reported to the Northern citizens as an unprovoked attack on one of their Forts. It was at this time that the war truly began and it was at this time that the South began to be portrayed in a negative light.

________________

Born and brought up in the South, I found the frequent nostalgia for the antebellum South that white Southerners felt and still feel awfully strange and sometimes infuriating. The whole agriculture economy of the old South was built on huge plantations in which human beings were treated like work animals.

What's there to be nostalgic about in that! Shame would be a more appropriate reaction.

And who cares why the North fought the Civil War? The RESULT was that something awful was ended. Yay!

Did you not read the first post? The topic is primarily states rights. Slavery was not meant to be the portion of the discussion. The portion of discussion was meant to be of the South's view on state's rights.

________________

ok, so it's 2:30 in the morning and I'm not thinking too clearly, but just to clarify- what is your stance on this? I realize you want to focus on states' rights but was there any other "right" that the South was trying to protect besides slavery? If I suspend my personal moral beliefs, even then I can't agree with either the South's actions or beliefs. I remember learning about the Civil War in school and thinking it was as if the South was throwing a temper tantrum (much like our recent government shutdown). Our government is set up to evolve and change with the people (at least in theory). Lincoln was elected president by the majority of people. Laws are passed by the majority as well. If laws were being discussed or passed that states did not like, then they just had to vote against it. Or they could bring it before the Supreme Court as being unconstitutional. There are legal ways of protecting state's rights. Or am I mistaken? Yes, it would be time consuming and require effort but that is just how it is.

EDIT 2: And by fight - do you mean like army fight or lobby fight? And are you asking if Southerners would fight for states' rights, for the reinstatement of the rights stripped from them during the Civil War, or the reemergence of the Confederacy and Southern succession? I am unclear.

EDIT: P.S. I, in no way support or condone the enslavement of anyone. Nor do I believe any one person/race/gender to be superior or inferior to another.(I feel like disclaimers are needed on this thread) I'm from the North.

( Is genuinely shocked that this thread hasn't been reported and locked yet.)

Last edited by rychels at 12:10 am, Feb 10 2014

I honestly am more interested in having this issue right here being addressed:






It's like OP has been dancing around it.

________________

Everyday I'm tumblin'

How can you ask people to give their opinion on the Confederacy but then tell them not to talk about slavery? It's like asking people to give an opinion about Hitler but without bringing up the Holocaust.