Restricted Debate The Northern invasion of the South, during the Civil War, fueled existing, and created new, reactionary anti black movements.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jun 10, 2019
Messages
116
#1
The North generally did not have the African slaves best interest at heart. The African slave was no less a victim of the North then any other Southerner. The now "emancipated" slave had been used to justify the invasion of the South, now used to justify reconstruction, and would continue to be used to divide Southerners. The North, fueled existing, and created new, race wars between the Southerns; the events of which sparked reactionary anti black movements.
 

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

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,368
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
#2
The North generally did not have the African slaves best interest at heart. The African slave was no less a victim of the North then any other Southerner. The now "emancipated" slave had been used to justify the invasion of the South, now used to justify reconstruction, and would continue to be used to divide Southerners. The North, fueled existing, and created new, race wars between the Southerns; the events of which sparked reactionary anti black movements.
Prove it.
 

7thWisconsin

First Sergeant
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
1,037
#3
I don't think you can justify this assumption. The United States embarked on military action clearly to preserve the Union. The war was well and truly under way by the time Emancipation was proclaimed. The abolitionists themselves certainly do not offer evidence of some kind of class warfare design in their writings, and in fact display a fair degree of frustration with the Federal government that it took as long as it did to affect emancipation.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2019
Messages
116
#4
I don't think you can justify this assumption. The United States embarked on military action clearly to preserve the Union. The war was well and truly under way by the time Emancipation was proclaimed. The abolitionists themselves certainly do not offer evidence of some kind of class warfare design in their writings, and in fact display a fair degree of frustration with the Federal government that it took as long as it did to affect emancipation.
The time table on emancipation doesn't seem as any kind of proof against what I asserted above. It was the promise of freedom, a promise they craftily left hanging out like a carrot; and without a commitment to ever actually deliver the carrot. That same carrot was kept dangled in front of the South too, "accept your fate and your gradual loss of the slaves and your loss of States Rights, and you can keep the slaves for now" was in effect what the North was craftily and in a almost equally non committal manner saying.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
29,368
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
#5
The time table on emancipation doesn't seem as any kind of proof against what I asserted above. It was the promise of freedom, a promise they craftily left hanging out like a carrot; and without a commitment to ever actually deliver the carrot. That same carrot was kept dangled in front of the South too, "accept your fate and your gradual loss of the slaves and your loss of States Rights, and you can keep the slaves for now" was in effect what the North was craftily and in a almost equally non committal manner saying.
You have offered nothing but your personal opinion in your OP and you continue to do such with your above post.

Where is your evidence to support this, at present, unsupported supposition?
 

7thWisconsin

First Sergeant
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
1,037
#6
The time table on emancipation doesn't seem as any kind of proof against what I asserted above. It was the promise of freedom, a promise they craftily left hanging out like a carrot; and without a commitment to ever actually deliver the carrot. That same carrot was kept dangled in front of the South too, "accept your fate and your gradual loss of the slaves and your loss of States Rights, and you can keep the slaves for now" was in effect what the North was craftily and in a almost equally non committal manner saying.
I think you read a level of both competence and duplicity into Federal leadership that's hard to prove. The Southern states had not seen any loss of states rights in the decade before seccession, a decade that saw slavery legalized de facto nationwide.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2019
Messages
116
#7
I think you read a level of both competence and duplicity into Federal leadership that's hard to prove.
That could be. It can be very hard to prove things. However, neither am I convinced it has been proven that freeing the slaves actually improved things for anyone, perhaps except the worst edge cases. I am convinced either my first post is absolutely true or that perhaps there are small little errors in it -- effectively however that, is how it all plays out -- whether by design or intent or some combination thereof.
 
Last edited:

johan_steele

Regimental Armorer
Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
14,883
Location
South of the North 40
#9
I’m not certain what the OP is implying. The elimination of race based slavery was a mistake? This nation was built on ideals, ideals rarely come to fruition as people are people and understand there are ideals and there is reality.

Were slaves worse off when free? Was the hatred & second class status of black people suddenly changed by freedom? Was the hatred of black Americans suddenly increased by their freedom? No, it’s a very complex subject and blaming poor race relations on the US seems naive or petty. No govt does much well or competently past taxes and corruption. Even wars are only one by the least incompetent army.
 

OpnCoronet

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Feb 23, 2010
Messages
10,356
#10
That could be. It can be very hard to prove things. However, neither am I convinced it has been proven that freeing the slaves actually improved things for anyone, perhaps except the worst edge cases. I am convinced either my first post is absolutely true or that perhaps there are small little errors in it -- effectively however that, is how it all plays out -- whether by design or intent or some combination thereof.

That the North had to invade the South And emancipate their slaves,was the direct result of Southern hubris, arrogance stupidity.

That You consider the freed slaves as being better off as slaves rather than free men, is an interesting claim, for a citizen of the 21st Century America. However, I think that is a belief not shared by many emancipate Slaves of the South, then nor their children today.
 

wbull1

Sergeant
Joined
Jul 26, 2018
Messages
887
#11
I'm not aware that the emancipated slave was used "to justify" the war in the south. Of course, no justification was needed after secession and the Confederates started shooting. Equally, reconstruction was caused by the Confederates losing the war. It, too, needed no "justification."

It is true that one major motivation of voluntary Union colored troops was to emancipate blacks still in slavery. Some who fought for the Union were abolitionists, wanting to end slavery. That desire was not a "justification" for either group, it was a heart-felt imperative.

The statement, for which you present no evidence, is, I believe, an example of the sort of after-the-fact re-imagined scenario, presented by "Lost Cause" mythologizers who conflate opinion for fact. Please feel free to supply evidence, i.e., quotes from speeches. letters, newspaper articles and so forth written during the Civil War that contradict my post.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2019
Messages
116
#12
I’m not certain what the OP is implying. The elimination of race based slavery was a mistake? This nation was built on ideals, ideals rarely come to fruition as people are people and understand there are ideals and there is reality.

Were slaves worse off when free? Was the hatred & second class status of black people suddenly changed by freedom? Was the hatred of black Americans suddenly increased by their freedom? No, it’s a very complex subject and blaming poor race relations on the US seems naive or petty. No govt does much well or competently past taxes and corruption. Even wars are only one by the least incompetent army.
You can see here that a Nation is by definition defined by race:

Nation "A people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized jural society, usually inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally, but not necessarily, living under the same government and sovereignty."

If those pretending to be on the side of the then slaves, truly believed the things they pretended to believe, I assert that they they would have taken steps in the creation of a Nation-State composed of now free slaves. Many decedents of the slaves would in the future desire their own Nation-State; and recognize that the Northern "liberators" were not truly on their side. However, the tragedy is in the fact that the Northern "liberators", in many cases, in effect caused, irreconcilable hostilities between the decedents of the masters, and the decedents of the slaves. The whole "liberation" of the slaves was handled poorly and divisively.
 
Last edited:

jackt62

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Messages
3,242
Location
New York City
#13
First of all, the terminology that the north "invaded" the south implies that the southern confederacy was a legitimate sovereign nation. It was not. The act of secession by the southern states was considered an act of rebellion by the federal government, which used necessary force to destroy the "unlawful combinations" (i.e., the confederate military forces) that were obviously arrayed against the national government in the southern states. Second, Lincoln's call to emancipate enslaved Blacks was first taken as a military measure under the Emancipation Proclamation, then followed up as a moral measure with the passage of the 13th Amendment. In neither instance was the north seeking to divide southerners or use the abolitionist cause as a means to justify quelling the rebellion. Racism, to its shame, was no less rampant in the north than the south, and the eventual weakening of civil rights protections during the waning days and aftermath of Reconstruction shows that the northern population was willing to go only so far in protecting the rights of African-Americans.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2019
Messages
116
#14
First of all, the terminology that the north "invaded" the south implies that the southern confederacy was a legitimate sovereign nation.
Correct it does imply that; and I do assert just that. I also assert that people like Jefferson Davis would have been permitted to go to trial for treason, if there had in fact been a legit case to be made that the South was in rebellion. I believe that preventing the trials in a legal constitutional manner, was a sleight of hand move in defense of the unconstitutional invasion of the North.

Once one realizes the invasion of the North, was illegal and immoral, the rest of your argument falls to pieces -- for example the morality of the 13th amendment.
 

johan_steele

Regimental Armorer
Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
14,883
Location
South of the North 40
#15
You can see here that a Nation is by definition defined by race:

Nation "A people, or aggregation of men, existing in the form of an organized jural society, usually inhabiting a distinct portion of the earth, speaking the same language, using the same customs, possessing historic continuity, and distinguished from other like groups by their racial origin and characteristics, and generally, but not necessarily, living under the same government and sovereignty."

If those pretending to be on the side of the then slaves, truly believed the things they pretended to believe, I assert that they they would have taken steps in the creation of a Nation-State composed of now free slaves. Many decedents of the slaves would in the future desire their own Nation-State; and recognize that the Northern "liberators" were not truly on their side. However, the tragedy is in the fact that the Northern "liberators", in many cases, in effect caused, irreconcilable hostilities between the decedents of the masters, and the decedents of the slaves. The whole "liberation" of the slaves was handled poorly and divisively.
Am I reading you right in that you believe a Nation is restricted to those of the same skin color and language? Must they have the same religion, culture eye and hair color as well? That sounds chillingly familiar.

I've always wondered if SC should have been renamed either Freedom or Lincoln and made a home for recently freed slaves. But such would have required the relocation of all CS politicians and slaveowners and the restriction of them ever being allowed to own property in the US again if they chose to stay. Maybe send them to Mexico or Cuba and let them root hog or die there. Frankly, it would not have eliminated the hatred or racism rampant throughout the US and the rest of the world anymore than your idea of a separate Nation-state. They were Americans and their descendants are today. I happen to agree with Thomas with his "mix em all up" statement about people. We're better for it and despite the best wishes of some there has never been a balkanization of the US and I pray there won't be.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2019
Messages
116
#16
Am I reading you right in that you believe a Nation is restricted to those of the same skin color and language? Must they have the same religion, culture eye and hair color as well? That sounds chillingly familiar.

I've always wondered if SC should have been renamed either Freedom or Lincoln and made a home for recently freed slaves. But such would have required the relocation of all CS politicians and slaveowners and the restriction of them ever being allowed to own property in the US again if they chose to stay. Maybe send them to Mexico or Cuba and let them root hog or die there. Frankly, it would not have eliminated the hatred or racism rampant throughout the US and the rest of the world anymore than your idea of a separate Nation-state. They were Americans and their descendants are today. I happen to agree with Thomas with his "mix em all up" statement about people. We're better for it and despite the best wishes of some there has never been a balkanization of the US and I pray there won't be.
A State and or a Country is not by definition a Nation. A Nation doesn't necessarily even control its own State -- practically, however, it does usually control its own State and or Country. A State owned by a certain Nation is a Nation-State. A Nation of people is united by common race origins -- virtually always meaning the same skin color. Nation is not defined by having the same eye color or hair color. A Nation is not technically defined by the same color of skin; however, in our case going back to (as early as Virginia) 1600 - 1864(+?) the Southern States were owned by a Nation of people who were white, and it can't be honestly argued otherwise.
 
Last edited:

johan_steele

Regimental Armorer
Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
14,883
Location
South of the North 40
#17
Correct it does imply that; and I do assert just that. I also assert that people like Jefferson Davis would have been permitted to go to trial for treason, if there had in fact been a legit case to be made that the South was in rebellion. I believe that preventing the trials in a legal constitutional manner, was a sleight of hand move in defense of the unconstitutional invasion of the North.

Once one realizes the invasion of the North, was illegal and immoral, the rest of your argument falls to pieces -- for example the morality of the 13th amendment.
You are saying it's immoral for a nation to defend itself against those enemies foreign or domestic who wish to destroy it? Would you say the same of the CS who invaded neutral Kentucky?

Davis should have been a made a man without a country. Never again allowed to set foot on US soil or on any other soil. Never to again receive mail or missives to live out his days upon a warship with order to be given free reign aboard ship but never allowed off it until the day he was to be resigned to the depths and the judgement of God. It might have been a good idea to have Early and his ilk join him later as well. But alas we are a nation where the rule of law is sometimes inconsistent and cowards, traitors and those who adore treason are sometimes embraced.
 
Joined
Jun 10, 2019
Messages
116
#19
You are saying it's immoral for a nation to defend itself against those enemies foreign or domestic who wish to destroy it? Would you say the same of the CS who invaded neutral Kentucky?

Davis should have been a made a man without a country. Never again allowed to set foot on US soil or on any other soil. Never to again receive mail or missives to live out his days upon a warship with order to be given free reign aboard ship but never allowed off it until the day he was to be resigned to the depths and the judgement of God. It might have been a good idea to have Early and his ilk join him later as well. But alas we are a nation where the rule of law is sometimes inconsistent and cowards, traitors and those who adore treason are sometimes embraced.
I always find it ironic the decedents of the North, be it by ideological adoption, or birth, think their in a position to claim who is or who isn't a rebel. I really wish they had allowed legit legal treason trials to take place; but I already know why it was practically impossible for them to do so. Virginia gave birth to America. Virginia never surrendered its sovereignty or right to remove herself from any union with other States. Virginia is the elder State -- and the direct decedents of the elder State supported secession and understood it as legal.
 
Last edited:
Joined
May 27, 2011
Messages
16,680
Location
los angeles ca
#20
Correct it does imply that; and I do assert just that. I also assert that people like Jefferson Davis would have been permitted to go to trial for treason, if there had in fact been a legit case to be made that the South was in rebellion. I believe that preventing the trials in a legal constitutional manner, was a sleight of hand move in defense of the unconstitutional invasion of the North.

Once one realizes the invasion of the North, was illegal and immoral, the rest of your argument falls to pieces -- for example the morality of the 13th amendment.
What you state is demonstrably false . You need to read "Jefferson Davis American" by William Cooper that goes into detail about why Jefferson Davis was not tried for freedom. It had nothing to do with Jefferson Davis being thought innocent.
Leftyhunter
 
Status
Not open for further replies.



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