Restricted Debate Does Northern Racism Absolve the Confederacy?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
636
Location
Pittsburgh
#1
We often see on the boards when discussing racism, slavery, and white supremacy and their relationship to the southern cause that “the north was racist too” or “everyone was racist” as if this somehow excuses the confederacy. I tend towards Brook Simpson’s take on what I agree amounts to a logical fallacy on the part of the pro-confederate use of pointing the racism finger north:

“Responsible scholars recognize the persistence and depth of racism among white northerners during the Civil War period. It's a key component in constructing the narrative of the sectional crisis, the war, and Reconstruction. One of the reasons Lincoln hesitated in issuing a proclamation of emancipation was because he knew it would arouse opposition in the free north among Democrats. None of that, however, has anything to do with the centrality of slavery in southern society or the reasons why secessionists advocated separation and independence, to protect slavery from the threat posed by Lincoln's election and the long term implications of the Republican triumph in 1860. Moreover, pointing to the existence of northern racism does not make it disappear from southern society. Nor does it necessarily follow that because in 1861 most white northerners did not support going to war to destroy slavery, let alone to secure black equality, that white southerners did not go to war to protect a society and a way of life that was ultimately grounded upon and supported by the enslavement of several million human beings. To deny that is to deny historical reality.”

https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/01/18/race-and-slavery-north-and-south-some-logical-fallacies/

Is the notion than Northern racism excuses the confederacy a logical fallacy?
 

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Joined
Mar 22, 2018
Messages
29
#2
In my opinion Northern racism does NOT absolve the Confederacy's slavery.
Who can deny that slavery "trumps" racism in the world of moral wrongs.
**Edited**

However acknowledging Northern racism is part of the North's moral burden, too often denied.

I think that many Northerners who obsess about slavery in the South, and especially obsess over the fact that defending the institution of slavery was the major cause of the Civil War use this as a way of ignoring their own failure to do right by African Americans, *edited*. Or perhaps they have been taught so much how "evil" the Confederacy was that they don't even know their own region's "sins."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Messages
636
Location
Pittsburgh
#3
In my opinion Northern racism does NOT absolve the Confederacy's slavery.
Who can deny that slavery "trumps" racism in the world of moral wrongs.
(Forgive my use of the "T" word)

However acknowledging Northern racism is part of the North's moral burden, too often denied.

I think that many Northerners who obsess about slavery in the South, and especially obsess over the fact that defending the institution of slavery was the major cause of the Civil War use this as a way of ignoring their own failure to do right by African Americans, from 1619 to 2019. Or perhaps they have been taught so much how "evil" the Confederacy was that they don't even know their own region's "sins."
I agree. However, I don’t recall seeing anyone on the boards denying Northern racism. The notion that people deny northern racism seems a straw man set up by those who point the racism finger north as if highlighting it somehow makes the southern cause acceptable.

The first line in the quote above is :

“Responsible scholars recognize the persistence and depth of racism among white northerners during the Civil War period. “
 
Joined
Mar 22, 2018
Messages
29
#4
I agree. However, I don’t recall seeing anyone on the boards denying Northern racism. The notion that people deny northern racism seems a straw man set up by those who point the racism finger north as if highlighting it somehow makes the southern cause acceptable.

The first line in the quote above is :

“Responsible scholars recognize the persistence and depth of racism among white northerners during the Civil War period. “
Not denied, just generally ignored, but isn't it really the same thing? Brook Simpson is the exception rather than the rule.

"The notion that people deny northern racism seems a straw man set up by those who point the racism finger north as if highlighting it somehow makes the southern cause acceptable."

I don't use this argument. Can't speak for others.

How often do you see Northerners or anti Southerners on this board discuss the guilt of Northern racism. Unless it is "At least we didn't fight to keep slavery." To focus on the "sins" of the South lets people ignore/deny their own guilt.
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
7,830
#6
I don't think anyone is "absolving" anyone of behavior.

The truth is, Brooks Simpson grew up in a segregated, upper middle class environment and attended elite, white, private schools.

Authors like this are most comfortable framing racial issues in a way that puts the entire thing at the foot of the South.

They don't acknowledge or accept their own history in this, only that South "did it."
 

lurid

Corporal
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
406
#8
No, northern racism doesn't neutralize the Confederacy. Two different types of racism: northern racism was/is geared towards wanting nothing to do with blacks, absolutely nothing. We don't wish any ill-feelings or any ill-fate towards you, but stay on your side of the train tracks and we'll stay on our side. Confederacy racism was nothing but pure oppression backed by hate, and the main objective was to subjugate blacks to rule and rein over them in every way possible.

The worst argument I heard on this board is how Lincoln wanted to colonize blacks, and some these people believe colonization is just as bad as slavery. LOL. Lincoln had the mindset that blacks were never going to be treated 100% fairly no matter where they lived in the USA, so why not give them a fresh start somewhere else. Even if Lincoln was racist he still wanted blacks to have freedom to be able to live without being oppressed or discriminated against. That is way better than being enslaved and watching your women get raped 24/7.
 

uaskme

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 9, 2016
Messages
2,188
#9
Does it excuse the North of Slave Trading? Port of NY was a dominant link to the illegal Mid-Atlantic Slave Trade which trafficked 1.6 Million Africans until the Civil War. Northern Merchants also trafficked Coolies to Cuba and Peru until the 1870s. Also Traded in Opium. Helping to make addicts of 15 Million Chinese.

Does it excuse the North from being complicit to Southern Slavery. They Financed, moved Slaves from MD South, supplied Planters with equipment, shipped Cotton, consumed Cotton and Sugar, wrote Insurance Policies on Slaves. They were Equal Partners to Southern Slavery.

Does it excuse the North from begging the South to return to the Union, and offering Guarantees to Protect Slavery and Enforce the FSL? The North began the War and Fought to keep Slavery as a way to enable Union. Only attacked Slavery as a War Measure. EP Excluded Union Slaves. Republicans wanted to restricted Slavery & Blacks from the Territories so that land would be left for White Families. A scant few wanted Restrictions because of Black Rights. Also had to eliminate the Red-man from the Territories. Had to, Make it White. Even the Radical Republicans said it was untenable for the X Slaves to go North. Does it excuse Abe from trying to Deport, the 2% of the Blacks the North has? That is White Supremacy.
 
Last edited:

johan_steele

Regimental Armorer
Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
14,881
Location
South of the North 40
#10
There has been a trend over the last few decades of some claiming the south of the CS was some sort of multicultural utopia. It’s pure hogwash.

Was the rest of the nation racist? Yes, and I can’t think of anyone on this board ever saying the rest of the country was free of the stain of slavery and racism. It took a Civil War to eliminate slavery in the country and it has been a long and ugly road to a far less racist society than that of the 19th century.
 
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
740
#11
No, northern racism doesn't neutralize the Confederacy. Two different types of racism: northern racism was/is geared towards wanting nothing to do with blacks, absolutely nothing. We don't wish any ill-feelings or any ill-fate towards you, but stay on your side of the train tracks and we'll stay on our side. Confederacy racism was nothing but pure oppression backed by hate, and the main objective was to subjugate blacks to rule and rein over them in every way possible.

The worst argument I heard on this board is how Lincoln wanted to colonize blacks, and some these people believe colonization is just as bad as slavery. LOL. Lincoln had the mindset that blacks were never going to be treated 100% fairly no matter where they lived in the USA, so why not give them a fresh start somewhere else. Even if Lincoln was racist he still wanted blacks to have freedom to be able to live without being oppressed or discriminated against. That is way better than being enslaved and watching your women get raped 24/7.
Yes indeed, no I'll feelings at all. Northern racism of peace.From the article I posted above.

"African Americans also faced violence at the hands of white northerners. Individual cases of assault and murder occured throughout the North, as did daily insults and harassment. Between 1820 and 1850, Northern blacks also became the frequent targets of mob violence. Whites looted, tore down, and burned black homes, churches, schools, and meeting halls. They stoned, beat, and sometimes murdered blacks. Philadelphia was the site of the worst and most frequent mob violence."
 

JPK Huson 1863

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Joined
Feb 14, 2012
Messages
18,385
Location
Central Pennsylvania
#12
Does it excuse the North of Slave Trading? Port of NY was a dominant link to the illegal Mid-Atlantic Slave Trade which trafficked 1.6 Million Africans until the Civil War. Northern Merchants also trafficked Coolies to Cuba and Peru until the 1870s. Also Traded in Opium. Helping to make addicts of 15 Million Chinese.

Does it excuse the North from being complicit to Southern Slavery. They Financed, moved Slaves from MD South, supplied Planters with equipment, shipped Cotton, consumed Cotton and Sugar, wrote Insurance Policies on Slaves. They were Equal Partners to Southern Slavery.

Does it excuse the North from begging the South to return to the Union, and offering Guarantees to Protect Slavery and Enforce the FSL? The North began the War and Fought to keep Slavery as a way to enable Union. Only attacked Slavery as a War Measure. EP Excluded Union Slaves. Republicans wanted to restricted Slavery & Blacks from the Territories so that land would be left for White Families. A scant few wanted Restrictions because of Black Rights. Also had to eliminate the Red-man from the Territories. Had to, Make it White. Even the Radical Republicans said it was untenable for the X Slaves to go North. Does it excuse Abe from trying to Deport, the 2% of the Blacks the North has? That is White Supremacy.

Yes but you're nicely doing the straw man thing plus piling fuel on this country's divisive bonfire by sprinkling loaded terms and current issues through it like inflammatory garnish. Over arching entities called " The North " or " The South " just didn't exist in this construct. Family's been here awhile. Not one opium trader, insurance writer, enslaved deporter ( new one on me anyway ) or enslaved importer running around eliminating Native Americans ( who I think you may be referring to with " Red Man " ) . There were a few politicians we're still trying to live down, however. Point being creating 150 year old flaming barriers carefully stoked by throwing loaded terms and generalities on the conflagration between us is unhelpful.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
19,612
Location
Laurinburg NC
#13
Does it excuse the North of Slave Trading? Port of NY was a dominant link to the illegal Mid-Atlantic Slave Trade which trafficked 1.6 Million Africans until the Civil War. Northern Merchants also trafficked Coolies to Cuba and Peru until the 1870s. Also Traded in Opium. Helping to make addicts of 15 Million Chinese.

Does it excuse the North from being complicit to Southern Slavery. They Financed, moved Slaves from MD South, supplied Planters with equipment, shipped Cotton, consumed Cotton and Sugar, wrote Insurance Policies on Slaves. They were Equal Partners to Southern Slavery.

Does it excuse the North from begging the South to return to the Union, and offering Guarantees to Protect Slavery and Enforce the FSL? The North began the War and Fought to keep Slavery as a way to enable Union. Only attacked Slavery as a War Measure. EP Excluded Union Slaves. Republicans wanted to restricted Slavery & Blacks from the Territories so that land would be left for White Families. A scant few wanted Restrictions because of Black Rights. Also had to eliminate the Red-man from the Territories. Had to, Make it White. Even the Radical Republicans said it was untenable for the X Slaves to go North. Does it excuse Abe from trying to Deport, the 2% of the Blacks the North has? That is White Supremacy.
Ah, the virtuous Yankee "ready to repent of everyone's sins, but his own."
 

lurid

Corporal
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
Messages
406
#15
Yes indeed, no I'll feelings at all. Northern racism of peace.From the article I posted above.

"African Americans also faced violence at the hands of white northerners. Individual cases of assault and murder occured throughout the North, as did daily insults and harassment. Between 1820 and 1850, Northern blacks also became the frequent targets of mob violence. Whites looted, tore down, and burned black homes, churches, schools, and meeting halls. They stoned, beat, and sometimes murdered blacks. Philadelphia was the site of the worst and most frequent mob violence."
Did you read my post correctly? No, you did not. I said no ill-feeling if you stay on your side of the railroad tracks. I doubt whites were going out hunting blacks, like you're trying to insinuate. Therefore, your point to minimize the evil of slavery is not only dismissed, it's actually down right shameful. Let me get this straight, are you implying that blacks in the north had it just as bad as blacks in the south? That's like comparing an deep horizon oil spill to my neighbor dropping a little oil when changing oil in his car(wiki).

Comparing an random incident here and there to the actual constant and perennial oppression that was assigned to slavery is definitely a false equivelence.
 

Northern Light

Lt. Colonel
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 21, 2014
Messages
10,695
#17
Racism and slavery are two very different things. You can be the worst kind of racist and still believe that slavery is an evil thing.

I believe that most people on this site understand and acknowledge that the majority of 19th century American society, and likely most other societies, were racist towards all others different from themselves. That does not preclude that fact that there were people both North and South who considered slavery immoral. The two concepts are not mutually incompatible, then or now.

This understanding leads me to the conclusion that, in the context of a rational debate, "Northern racism" is a tu quoque argument rather than a logical fallacy.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,368
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
#18
Ah, the virtuous Yankee "ready to repent of everyone's sins, but his own."
"Cast the beam from thine own eye before attempting to remove the splinter form thy brother's eye." The CSA had enough of it own 'sin' to worry about.

I'm not sure what the point is. "Does Northern racism absolve the Confederacy?". No, and by the way, The Confederacy isn't seeking your absolution.
It isn't "seeking" anything.

It's dead.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,368
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
#19
Does it excuse the North of Slave Trading? Port of NY was a dominant link to the illegal Mid-Atlantic Slave Trade which trafficked 1.6 Million Africans until the Civil War. Northern Merchants also trafficked Coolies to Cuba and Peru until the 1870s. Also Traded in Opium. Helping to make addicts of 15 Million Chinese.

Now what would make the North, as Lincoln put it, to be "great carriers of slaves?" Couldn't be that there was a booming market for them in the slaveholding South, could it? But I'm sure, on close, personal observation, every Northern sea captain with a cargo of slaves, held a gun to the head of a Southern slave buyer to be rid of his cargo.


Does it excuse the North from being complicit to Southern Slavery.

Not one member of this forum has every claimed such in all my time here. Even Lincoln knew the North was complicit in the slave trade.

They Financed, moved Slaves from MD South, supplied Planters with equipment, shipped Cotton, consumed Cotton and Sugar, wrote Insurance Policies on Slaves. They were Equal Partners to Southern Slavery.

A glimmer of actual history has peeked through the straw man haze.

Does it excuse the North from begging the South to return to the Union, and offering Guarantees to Protect Slavery and Enforce the FSL?

Begged? Got to see that letter, legislation, speech, document. I know the Crittenden Compromise had everything to do with leaving slavery safe and alone in the South. Is this the "beg" you refer to?

The North began the War and Fought to keep Slavery as a way to enable Union.

And the document that stated war goal by the North is to be found where?

Only attacked Slavery as a War Measure.

At first.

EP Excluded Union Slaves.

They must have been furious when the 13th Amendment was passed and then ratified, abolishing slavery.

Republicans wanted to restricted Slavery & Blacks from the Territories so that land would be left for White Families.

A common argument/excuse. Hey! After the war, just how many blacks and their families moved West?

A scant few wanted Restrictions because of Black Rights.

A 'scant few.' 14th and 15th Amendments come to mind. But we can toss them to the side in the face of Jim Crow and the so-called Southern 'Redeemer' governments.

Also had to eliminate the Red-man from the Territories. Had to, Make it White.

Jeez, we Americans are such a terrible people! But there were Southern representatives in Congress who wanted that territory too, wasn't there?

Even the Radical Republicans said it was untenable for the X Slaves to go North.

Which ones said so? Got their speeches handy? Their written word available so we can see for ourselves?

Does it excuse Abe from trying to Deport, the 2% of the Blacks the North has?

You constantly do this, use words that are not in the correct context of what actually took place. Lincoln deported NO ONE nor did he ever suggest doing so. He wanted to see if voluntary colonization could work. No federal soldiers pointed guns at ex-slaves and forced them on board any ship. Quit trying to twist the facts.

That is White Supremacy.
Not exactly, because the story is twisted with personal views and misuse of context.

But, hey, there's always next time.

Unionblue
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.



Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top