A Confederate Statue Continues To Stir Unrest At UNC-Chapel Hill

Dec 3, 2018
211
234
115
#51
Do you believe slavery in America was inherently racist?
I'm not sure how to answer that. I think racism was definitely involved, but I don't think slavery was inherently racist. Every civilization has had slaves. Plato was a pretty chill dude, super smart, generous and kind - also a slave owner. The Greeks loved enslaving their fellow Greeks. That whole time period was just warlords fighting each other and enslaving whatever was left over. And this time period was the cradle of modern civilization that we have modeled Western society after.

I think the slave trade has existed since time immemorial, and I think a large reason why the slave trade became about Africans is because that's where the easy pickin's were. They didn't speak the language, they didn't have any technology or really any culture to speak of, and because of this, it was easy to see them as more animal than human. I think they believed that because they were primitive, not because they were black.

But over the years, as the slave trade become more standardized, and where black people were only seen in the context of being slaves, I think that did result in racism. I think most everybody who owned black slaves were racist, in that they believed them to be inferior humans, but racism is a pretty wide spectrum and I think there were slave owners who were kind to their slaves and treated them (almost) like family (many of them were good Christians and believed in treating others with kindness, even if they thought them inferior), and i think there were slave owners who beat their slaves to death just to replace them with whatever came in with the next slave trader.

I also think most people at that time rarely went more than a few miles away from the home they grew up in, and the opportunities for seeing other cultures was absent. That is, they just weren't in a position where they could have enlightened viewpoints. They weren't racist because racist wasn't a thing. There wasn't racist and non-racist. The way we think about racism now is that it is a choice. We know the difference between right and wrong, so we know that choosing wrong is immoral. But there wasn't that choice to the vast majority of people back then. There wasn't right and wrong. There just was.

It's no coincidence that the abolition movement started mainly from wealthy people in large cities where different cultures collided. The abolition movement gained steam, not by people suddenly deciding that slavery was wrong, but through an intense propaganda effort led by Uncle Tom's Cabin and the speeches of Fredrick Douglass. To a lot of people, this was literally the first time where they were given the choice. Where "racist" became an option. And a lot of people chose rightly then. But a lot of people were too invested, and a lot more people never got the message. You think a farmer who spent his entire life within the same three mile radius, who was never taught to read, got to read any dissenting views? One of the reasons I'm so pro-free speech is because I believe that people can't make the right choice if they are never told what their options are.

Do I think slavery was racist? No. Slavery is and always has been a business first. It may have generated racism in slavers and slave owners over the years, but the institution itself predates us raping Africa. Do I think America was racist? Yeah, but not in the way that we understand racism to be today. It was never a choice. It was just how society was. It's what your neighbors believed, your school teachers, your mayor, your wife, and even your slaves. It is almost impossible to see outside the box you are trapped in, so even racist as they were, I don't think we can blame them for choosing to be racist, since it was never a choice they could make.

However, after the Civil War, then real racism started to happen. People realized it was wrong and chose it regardless. More than that, they acted out of hate for their fellow man, killing families, lynching men, and burning crosses on front yards. They created institutions dedicated to racism, and imbued existing institutions on the verge of social progress with a new sense of racist purpose.
 
Oct 26, 2018
699
434
215
#52
For all the statue talk, are statues that big of a thing in the US? I guess it seems so.

In Canada, I don't think anyone cares one bit at any statue or monument.

I'm not sure how to answer that. I think racism was definitely involved, but I don't think slavery was inherently racist. Every civilization has had slaves. Plato was a pretty chill dude, super smart, generous and kind - also a slave owner. The Greeks loved enslaving their fellow Greeks. That whole time period was just warlords fighting each other and enslaving whatever was left over. And this time period was the cradle of modern civilization that we have modeled Western society after.

I think the slave trade has existed since time immemorial, and I think a large reason why the slave trade became about Africans is because that's where the easy pickin's were. They didn't speak the language, they didn't have any technology or really any culture to speak of, and because of this, it was easy to see them as more animal than human. I think they believed that because they were primitive, not because they were black.

But over the years, as the slave trade become more standardized, and where black people were only seen in the context of being slaves, I think that did result in racism. I think most everybody who owned black slaves were racist, in that they believed them to be inferior humans, but racism is a pretty wide spectrum and I think there were slave owners who were kind to their slaves and treated them (almost) like family (many of them were good Christians and believed in treating others with kindness, even if they thought them inferior), and i think there were slave owners who beat their slaves to death just to replace them with whatever came in with the next slave trader.

I also think most people at that time rarely went more than a few miles away from the home they grew up in, and the opportunities for seeing other cultures was absent. That is, they just weren't in a position where they could have enlightened viewpoints. They weren't racist because racist wasn't a thing. There wasn't racist and non-racist. The way we think about racism now is that it is a choice. We know the difference between right and wrong, so we know that choosing wrong is immoral. But there wasn't that choice to the vast majority of people back then. There wasn't right and wrong. There just was.

It's no coincidence that the abolition movement started mainly from wealthy people in large cities where different cultures collided. The abolition movement gained steam, not by people suddenly deciding that slavery was wrong, but through an intense propaganda effort led by Uncle Tom's Cabin and the speeches of Fredrick Douglass. To a lot of people, this was literally the first time where they were given the choice. Where "racist" became an option. And a lot of people chose rightly then. But a lot of people were too invested, and a lot more people never got the message. You think a farmer who spent his entire life within the same three mile radius, who was never taught to read, got to read any dissenting views? One of the reasons I'm so pro-free speech is because I believe that people can't make the right choice if they are never told what their options are.

Do I think slavery was racist? No. Slavery is and always has been a business first. It may have generated racism in slavers and slave owners over the years, but the institution itself predates us raping Africa. Do I think America was racist? Yeah, but not in the way that we understand racism to be today. It was never a choice. It was just how society was. It's what your neighbors believed, your school teachers, your mayor, your wife, and even your slaves. It is almost impossible to see outside the box you are trapped in, so even racist as they were, I don't think we can blame them for choosing to be racist, since it was never a choice they could make.

However, after the Civil War, then real racism started to happen. People realized it was wrong and chose it regardless. More than that, they acted out of hate for their fellow man, killing families, lynching men, and burning crosses on front yards. They created institutions dedicated to racism, and imbued existing institutions on the verge of social progress with a new sense of racist purpose.
Humans are inherently power hungry. And that includes slaves.... both fellow humans and and also animals doing their work, buying them as pets and telling them what to do, or capturing them into zoos for sake of entertaining people and charging admission.

Some humans who have power will do anything to get more money or have fun at the expense of other living creatures if they can control them.
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2018
211
234
115
#53
For all the statue talk, are statues that big of a thing in the US? I guess it seems so.
It's part of this progressive movement to erase anything from the past that doesn't live up to their beliefs (which is, like, all of it). Statues, I think, are the ultimate goal, because they get this huge boost of esteem from being on the right side of history, and nowhere is that boost stronger than when destroying history's wrong side. Because, as we all know, people who destroy history have always been the good guys, right?

There was a college somewhere that had a statue of the school's founder that they removed because that founder owned slaves. Actually, that might have been more than one college. I know Princeton or Yale had to rename a bunch of buildings, and even job titles ("master"), due to outrage. It's fucking embarrassing.
 
Oct 26, 2018
699
434
215
#54
It's part of this progressive movement to erase anything from the past that doesn't live up to their beliefs (which is, like, all of it). Statues, I think, are the ultimate goal, because they get this huge boost of esteem from being on the right side of history, and nowhere is that boost stronger than when destroying history's wrong side. Because, as we all know, people who destroy history have always been the good guys, right?

There was a college somewhere that had a statue of the school's founder that they removed because that founder owned slaves. Actually, that might have been more than one college. I know Princeton or Yale had to rename a bunch of buildings, and even job titles ("master"), due to outrage. It's fucking embarrassing.
People are overly emotional. Ancient history is just that.

That's like saying everyone should hate Germans because they tried to take over the world in two world wars.

It's funny thing because you brought up Plato had slaves. I never knew that. All I know is every time Plato is brought up, he's some old philosopher in a robe everyone loves. I've never heard anyone say anything bad about him. So for some reason Plato gets a pass.
 
Dec 3, 2018
211
234
115
#56
It's funny thing because you brought up Plato had slaves. I never knew that. All I know is every time Plato is brought up, he's some old philosopher in a robe everyone loves. I've never heard anyone say anything bad about him. So for some reason Plato gets a pass.
That's not a bad thing. It's just a thing. He talks about his slaves all the time. I've only read Republica, and he (well, Socrates) talks about his slaves on the first page, sending them to fetch someone from the market.

My favorite Plato story is that he was hired to tutor the nephew of some warlord. Name started with a D. Anyway, Plato was convinced that he could teach this guy to be his ideal leader in the form of a philosopher king, and tried to restructure the government to be more moderate. But the guy ends up banishing his uncle (and giving his uncle's wife to someone else, just cause fuck you) and puts Plato in jail for conspiring against him. So this guy that Plato is convinced will become a philosopher king actually turns out to be a completely incompetent ruler and a petty asshole.
 
Dec 3, 2018
211
234
115
#57
Did you seriously just call Frederick Douglass’s speeches propaganda...?
No, I said they were used in a propaganda campaign by the abolitionist movement. That doesn't mean that his speeches were propaganda. Think of Pepe and the election of Donald Trump. Though yeah, his speeches were propaganda. I mean, he was an activist, and many of his speeches were emotional appeals designed to influence people to feel a certain way about his agenda. I'm not sure how that isn't propaganda. What would you call it? "Persuasive Orating"?

Fun fact: Frederick Douglass was asked to join John Brown on his campaign to lead an armed uprising in the South, but he declined - not because he believed sedition to be treasonous or immoral, but simply because he thought the campaign would fail. Harriet Tubman was also asked, but was sick that day.

Wow. You are not someone I feel comfortable speaking with at all
You don't have a lot of experience with people disagreeing with you, do you?
 

Woo-Fu

incest on the subway
Jan 2, 2007
13,143
183
1,000
#58
What’s the school’s black population?
Nowadays I don't know, back then? Zero. Which had an interesting effect, I think.

As mean as kids can be I'm sure some of us would have been racist pricks but with nobody to focus that hate on you don't really pick that up, even if your parents are racists, there's just no point. This was the 80's anyhow, almost all of our hate was reserved for communists.
 
Last edited:
Jan 31, 2018
469
208
180
#59
It's funny thing because you brought up Plato had slaves. I never knew that. All I know is every time Plato is brought up, he's some old philosopher in a robe everyone loves. I've never heard anyone say anything bad about him. So for some reason Plato gets a pass.
It's been so long ago that people lost their genetic memory that could have triggered them lol

People triggered by statues nothing new here.
 
Last edited:
Aug 17, 2018
186
182
170
#60
I like how these students are toppling statues built by Democrats due to inherent racism and then voting for the same party of slavery, the Confederacy, Klu Klux Klan and Jim Crow. Literally fingers over ears and lalalalala stuff when you tell them this as well.

Shows how good the Dems are at lying that they've flipped the board for these stupid teens.
 
Likes: Zangiefy360
Oct 21, 2018
526
265
180
#61
No, I said they were used in a propaganda campaign by the abolitionist movement. That doesn't mean that his speeches were propaganda. Think of Pepe and the election of Donald Trump. Though yeah, his speeches were propaganda. I mean, he was an activist, and many of his speeches were emotional appeals designed to influence people to feel a certain way about his agenda. I'm not sure how that isn't propaganda. What would you call it? "Persuasive Orating"?

Fun fact: Frederick Douglass was asked to join John Brown on his campaign to lead an armed uprising in the South, but he declined - not because he believed sedition to be treasonous or immoral, but simply because he thought the campaign would fail. Harriet Tubman was also asked, but was sick that day.


You don't have a lot of experience with people disagreeing with you, do you?
I think you are a dangerous toxic person spreading misinformation that is anathema to me having a happy life.
 
Dec 3, 2018
211
234
115
#62
I think you are a dangerous toxic person spreading misinformation that is anathema to me having a happy life.
I invite you to go back a page and read your interactions with matt404au before calling anyone else toxic. I’ve been nothing but polite, while you’ve been consistently rude, insulting, and derogatory - not just to me and not just in this thread. Your very presence seems to suck the value out of any discussion you join. You seem to think very highly of yourself and your contributions, but I assure you, it is unearned.

So, I ask you, why is it that the people most likely to throw the word toxic around tend to be the most odious individuals themselves? I’d develop some respect for my fellow posters and learn to appreciate a good discussion before I went around calling anyone else “toxic”. In fact, I’d suggest you remove the word “toxic” from your vocabulary altogether, as all it does is draw attention to the fact that the blackest one in the room isn’t the pot.
 
Oct 21, 2018
526
265
180
#63
I invite you to go back a page and read your interactions with matt404au before calling anyone else toxic. I’ve been nothing but polite, while you’ve been consistently rude, insulting, and derogatory - not just to me and not just in this thread. Your very presence seems to suck the value out of any discussion you join. You seem to think very highly of yourself and your contributions, but I assure you, it is unearned.

So, I ask you, why is it that the people most likely to throw the word toxic around tend to be the most odious individuals themselves? I’d develop some respect for my fellow posters and learn to appreciate a good discussion before I went around calling anyone else “toxic”. In fact, I’d suggest you remove the word “toxic” from your vocabulary altogether, as all it does is draw attention to the fact that the blackest one in the room isn’t the pot.
Okay dude who thinks America slavery wasn’t inherently racist. Bye now.
 
Mar 12, 2014
2,971
1,499
355
#64
I despise the attacks against history of which these statutes form a small part of. But removing confederate statutes is not on the same level as banning books /authors /etc., IMO One is a snapshot of what people were like in the past and valuable educational tools. These statutes remind me of hanging a banner in a football stadium that says "Super Bowl Losers." They seem silly in the first place, but if people want to resist removing them I understand for the simple reason that the overall attacks on history need to be pushed back against.
 
Dec 3, 2018
211
234
115
#66
I despise the attacks against history of which these statutes form a small part of. But removing confederate statutes is not on the same level as banning books /authors /etc., IMO One is a snapshot of what people were like in the past and valuable educational tools. These statutes remind me of hanging a banner in a football stadium that says "Super Bowl Losers." They seem silly in the first place, but if people want to resist removing them I understand for the simple reason that the overall attacks on history need to be pushed back against.
I saw a "Romney '08" bumper sticker yesterday. I guess people just like to remember things.

There are several monuments dedicated to remembering the black soldiers of the Confederacy. Are you okay with destroying those monuments?

I guess you are also in favor of removing all the Vietnam memorials around the country, right? "Super Bowl Losers".
 
Last edited:
Mar 12, 2014
2,971
1,499
355
#67
I saw a "Romney '08" bumper sticker yesterday. I guess people just like to remember things.

There are several monuments dedicated to remembering the black soldiers of the Confederacy. Are you okay with destroying those monuments?

I guess you are also in favor of removing all the Vietnam memorials around the country, right? "Super Bowl Losers".
The substance of your reply suggests we are more in agreement than disagreement regarding attacks against history. But I've got a few seconds left before signing off, so:

1) Don't care what soldiers of the Confederacy are being honored. Skin color doesn't change the fact it was a civil war and the Confederacy overall wanted to preserve slavery. And while I was not there, the notion that many black men served in the Confederacy because they agreed with it's views seems a bit off, wouldn't you say?

2) Vietnam memorials are not comparable. Remembering the sacrifice of those serving the country are just not comparable to those who supported dissolution of the Union and preservation of slavery.

I'm as fed up with the far left as anyone. Post history doesn't lie. But fed up with far left will never mean I support honoring those who fought to preserve slavery.
 
Likes: PkunkFury
Dec 3, 2018
211
234
115
#68
1) Don't care what soldiers of the Confederacy are being honored. Skin color doesn't change the fact it was a civil war and the Confederacy overall wanted to preserve slavery. And while I was not there, the notion that many black men served in the Confederacy because they agreed with it's views seems a bit off, wouldn't you say?
Actually, there were many black Confederate soldiers. Roughly 65,000 of them. In fact, the Confederate army had higher ranking black men than the North, and Jefferson Davis made it a requirement that any slave joining the military be made a free man. Like I've been saying, the ideas that you and many others have about the Civil War has been flanderized into a cartoon version of history.

Here's a fun fact that I just learned, in 1864, President Jefferson Davis approved a plan that proposed the emancipation of the slaves in return for official recognition from Britain and France. Technically, the war was all but over, so it didn't do much, but I'm not sure you can make the claim that the South purely wanted to defend slavery if it was willing to give slavery up. They were fighting for sovereignty, not slavery, and they were willing to give up one to get the other.

2) Vietnam memorials are not comparable. Remembering the sacrifice of those serving the country are just not comparable to those who supported dissolution of the Union and preservation of slavery.
It's the same thing. The vast majority of these Civil War monuments were erected to remember veterans, many still living, that fought for the state that erected the monument. South Carolina is allowed to remember the veterans who fought and died in the name of South Carolina.
 
Apr 8, 2009
19,996
703
405
#69
Actually, there were many black Confederate soldiers. Roughly 65,000 of them. In fact, the Confederate army had higher ranking black men than the North, and Jefferson Davis made it a requirement that any slave joining the military be made a free man. Like I've been saying, the ideas that you and many others have about the Civil War has been flanderized into a cartoon version of history.

Here's a fun fact that I just learned, in 1864, President Jefferson Davis approved a plan that proposed the emancipation of the slaves in return for official recognition from Britain and France. Technically, the war was all but over, so it didn't do much, but I'm not sure you can make the claim that the South purely wanted to defend slavery if it was willing to give slavery up. They were fighting for sovereignty, not slavery, and they were willing to give up one to get the other.

It's the same thing. The vast majority of these Civil War monuments were erected to remember veterans, many still living, that fought for the state that erected the monument. South Carolina is allowed to remember the veterans who fought and died in the name of South Carolina.
Fought and died in the name of South Carolina’s right to continue the practice of chattel slavery and revolt against the lawful government of the United States is more accurate. Sure they’re allowed to, but let’s not whitewash history.
 
Oct 26, 2018
699
434
215
#70
Please continue slavery stories. I'm all for learning, and have no interest reading a million wikipedia pages on it.

All I know is the north was anti-slavery, the south loved it, and anything resembling a Dukes of Hazzard flag is big no-no as it symbolizes the slave-drivers.
 
Dec 3, 2018
211
234
115
#71
Fought and died in the name of South Carolina’s right to continue the practice of chattel slavery and revolt against the lawful government of the United States is more accurate. Sure they’re allowed to, but let’s not whitewash history.
There's nothing about your statement that is accurate. That's not why South Carolina seceded, their secession wasn't a "revolt", and the federal government was only the lawful government so far in that it was recognized as such by the states.
 
Apr 8, 2009
19,996
703
405
#72
There's nothing about your statement that is accurate. That's not why South Carolina seceded, their secession wasn't a "revolt", and the federal government was only the lawful government so far in that it was recognized as such by the states.
That’s strange, since South Carolina said slavery was a big reason it seceded and, of course, it had no right to do so. Lost cause revisionism has been laughed at for decades, my man.
 
Jun 17, 2004
3,817
303
1,320
35
USA
#73
Here's a fun fact that I just learned, in 1864, President Jefferson Davis approved a plan that proposed the emancipation of the slaves in return for official recognition from Britain and France. Technically, the war was all but over, so it didn't do much, but I'm not sure you can make the claim that the South purely wanted to defend slavery if it was willing to give slavery up. They were fighting for sovereignty, not slavery, and they were willing to give up one to get the other.
A move that would have been so unpopular with Southren forces that Davis agreed to it without input from the Confederate Congress as a last ditch effort and proposed it in secret so as not to piss off the millions of Southerners who were fighting precisely to keep the institution of slavery alive. Talk about tyranny! This information is even in the minimal source you cited:

The South was desperate, and Pres. Jefferson Davis reluctantly agreed to the plan. But Davis knew that such a proposal would inflame Southern opinion, and he decided to send Kenner alone to Europe without informing the Confederate Congress.
This is gaslighting. You are twisting real events to make it look they support your false claim. Davis did not speak for the Confederate Congress when making these considerations

You aren't technically wrong about some of what you claim, but you are heavily curating little tidbits of truth to magnify the minimal "not slavery" reasons for secession. The South were fighting for both sovereignty and preservation of slavery. The two went hand in hand, and some were fighting for one more than the other, but slavery was still the major reason for the conflict. The nitpicking you use to prop up your position can be done with any major movement, since people do not behave as a unit. The South was a coalition of states with millions of members. Not all of them cared about slavery, but the movers and shakers who got the ball rolling sure as hell did, and the vast majority, even if they weren't preserving their own right to own slaves, wanted to preserve it for those who propped up their economy.

Mississippi declaration of secession:

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.
This is the very first reason they give, right at the top, and the largest paragraph
And some bonus racism which you try to sweep under the rug with your "any race could be a slave or own slaves" nonesense where Mississippi specifically declares that blacks were genetically predisposed for slave labor!

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
The high seas have nothing to do with states' rights, but these statements have everything to do with slavery.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
Oh, I was told the Civil War was about State's rights? Then why is Mississippi so upset that other states have nullified the Fugitive Slave Law!!??

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.
More of that racism you claim wasn't a factor. Enshrined succinctly in the declaration of secession for all to see

And there's more. This declaration is small. Over 50% of it directly implicates slavery/racism as the cause for secession, and the other portions such as " to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system" and "enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us" (lol, never change, Southerners) are indirectly linked. There's nothing in this document worth seceding over beyond the slavery issue


Texas justification for secession:

She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?
Once again, the first and foremost reason given for secession

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slave-holding States.
Make no mistake, the issues these states (also seen in the Mississippi doc) had with the new territories was also based in slavery, and the fact that new slave states were not allowed (thus weakening the South's moral position in scope of America)

There's a bunch more here. All centered around slavery, and how the Northern states are collaborating against the South via anti slave laws (what happened to State's rights???!!!). Also very important to recognize that Texas identifies itself and its peers as the "slave-holding" states. This is the defining factor they use to set the confederacy apart from the union. This is what the civil war was about.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
Right there you have not only the defense of slavery as justification for secession that you claim wasn't front and center, but also the blatant racism associated with slavery which you claim doesn't exist.

You talk a big game but you are missing basic facts. Sounds like you are reading sources curated to present a specific picture of the cause of the war which isn't comprehensive.
Would you be willing to share where you are getting your information with us?
The justifications for secession for many Southern states are obvious by simply reading their own words as to why they wanted sovereignty. Shall we find more?
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2018
211
234
115
#74
That’s strange, since South Carolina said slavery was a big reason it seceded and, of course, it had no right to do so. Lost cause revisionism has been laughed at for decades, my man.
Actually, what South Carolina said is that it was upset that other states were not respecting its laws, refusing to return its fugitives (even accused murderers and rapists), and that they were facing increasing hostility over the previous decades from other states. They also said that the other states were effectively cheating in elections by allowing those who were not constitutionally allowed to vote to be counted, and because of that, a president was elected that had promised to wage war against its laws and institutions.

Yes, it was specifically about slaves, but I should remind you that at this time, slavery was not just legal nationwide, it was endorsed and constitutionally protected. Slaves could not constitutionally vote. These are all things that could be challenged, legally, and through the proper channels, but weren't. These other states were unilaterally bypassing the federally protected rules that bound the disparate states together, to the point where Lincoln became president (despite not even being on the ballot in the South) and outright stated that he would use the power of the federal government to override states rights. And again, South Carolina was already ready to leave the Union over the Nullifcation Crisis when it was established that the federal government could overrule state government - established at gunpoint.

A comparable situation would be if South Carolina legalized gay marriage, but those marriages were not recognized in Delaware. Not only that but if a married gay couple went to Delaware, their marriage would be annulled. Regardless of what you think about gay marriage, the idea that a different state could overrule your own state's laws just because, without oversight or due process, is insane. Now imagine it wasn't just Delaware. Imagine it was a dozen states, and none of them allowed any gay people to vote in elections. Using their power, they get a president elected that vows to use the power and authority of his office to outlaw gay marriages all over the land. How happy would you be?
 
Jan 31, 2008
2,127
479
830
Taylorsville, Ky!
#75
The substance of your reply suggests we are more in agreement than disagreement regarding attacks against history. But I've got a few seconds left before signing off, so:

1) Don't care what soldiers of the Confederacy are being honored. Skin color doesn't change the fact it was a civil war and the Confederacy overall wanted to preserve slavery. And while I was not there, the notion that many black men served in the Confederacy because they agreed with it's views seems a bit off, wouldn't you say?

2) Vietnam memorials are not comparable. Remembering the sacrifice of those serving the country are just not comparable to those who supported dissolution of the Union and preservation of slavery.

I'm as fed up with the far left as anyone. Post history doesn't lie. But fed up with far left will never mean I support honoring those who fought to preserve slavery.
I support dissolution of the Union now, so that is a perfectly reasonable position to take in my view.

Should this be based on personal opinions and behavior towards blacks? Because some confederates, including Lee and Jackson, were quite kind to them. And if that were the case, we should be ripping down statues of Lincoln, who felt blacks and whites were not equal and would never be able to live together.

If it is just slave ownership or support of slavery that creates the bar to public honor....then we cannot honor anyone from any civilization until the west started to eliminate slavery. Every civilization in the history of humankind had slavery. We can't honor Greeks, Romans, Africans like Mansa Musa who owned large numbers of slaves (we celebrate him in a big way to young schoolkids now to instill black pride), Chinese, Japanese....we better stop honoring Native Americans, since slavery was a common and unquestioned institution before European contact in both North and South America.

Do we only publicly honor saints, or can sinners like Jefferson (who owned slaves and maybe fathered children with a 13yo slave) remain on the public honor roll? How about a plagiarist and philanderer like Martin Luther King, Jr.? Or a murderer like Mandela?

The answers to these questions won't change anyone's views. You know why? Because everyone's views on this topic are based on their position vis-a-vis The Narrative(tm) of today. There are no consistent principles on either side.

My position: Every one of the men remembered on these controversial statues is 1000 times the man of any of these soyboy weaklings and their blue-haired harpy co-conspirators. They will be remembered for their honor and skill in battle long after every manpurse carrying SJW and his "problematic" list have turned to dust and blown away on the wind.
 
Likes: Nymphae
Oct 21, 2018
526
265
180
#76
I support dissolution of the Union now, so that is a perfectly reasonable position to take in my view.

Should this be based on personal opinions and behavior towards blacks? Because some confederates, including Lee and Jackson, were quite kind to them. And if that were the case, we should be ripping down statues of Lincoln, who felt blacks and whites were not equal and would never be able to live together.

If it is just slave ownership or support of slavery that creates the bar to public honor....then we cannot honor anyone from any civilization until the west started to eliminate slavery. Every civilization in the history of humankind had slavery. We can't honor Greeks, Romans, Africans like Mansa Musa who owned large numbers of slaves (we celebrate him in a big way to young schoolkids now to instill black pride), Chinese, Japanese....we better stop honoring Native Americans, since slavery was a common and unquestioned institution before European contact in both North and South America.

Do we only publicly honor saints, or can sinners like Jefferson (who owned slaves and maybe fathered children with a 13yo slave) remain on the public honor roll? How about a plagiarist and philanderer like Martin Luther King, Jr.? Or a murderer like Mandela?

The answers to these questions won't change anyone's views. You know why? Because everyone's views on this topic are based on their position vis-a-vis The Narrative(tm) of today. There are no consistent principles on either side.

My position: Every one of the men remembered on these controversial statues is 1000 times the man of any of these soyboy weaklings and their blue-haired harpy co-conspirators. They will be remembered for their honor and skill in battle long after every manpurse carrying SJW and his "problematic" list have turned to dust and blown away on the wind.
Thank you for admitting you admire slaveowners And think people that owned slaves are great.
 
Likes: Straight Edge
Dec 3, 2018
211
234
115
#77
This is gaslighting. You are twisting real events to make it look they support your false claim. Davis did not speak for the Confederate Congress when making these considerations
I just learned about this today. I did say the war was virtually over and nothing came from it, so I'm not sure I'm misrepresenting it. I mean, no deal was actually struck (France was interested, but the UK was not) and it is very possible that it was more of a feeler than an actual proposal. But I think it is worth noting that the President of the Confederacy, at least for a brief moment, but the possibility of freeing all the slaves on the bargaining table.

You aren't technically wrong about some of what you claim, but you are heavily curating little tidbits of truth to magnify the minimal "not slavery" reasons for secession. The South were fighting for both sovereignty and preservation of slavery. The two went hand in hand, and some were fighting for one more than the other, but slavery was still the major reason for the conflict. The nitpicking you use to prop up your position can be done with any major movement, since people do not behave as a unit. The South was a coalition of states with millions of members. Not all of them cared about slavery, but the movers and shakers who got the ball rolling sure as hell did, and the vast majority, even if they weren't preserving their own right to own slaves, wanted to preserve it for those who propped up their economy.
I've always said that the Civil War was not just about slavery. I think the ideas we have about how slavery and racism were back then are a little warped by time and ideology, and I think it is important to keep perspective on these things. Up until the 1960s, nearly every Civil War scholar agreed that it was a war for states rights, so I think maybe it is worth remembering that even if the war was about slavery, it was just as much (or more) about states rights.

This is the very first reason they give, right at the top, and the largest paragraph, explaining why they saw it as important!!!
And some bonus racism which you try to sweep under the rug with your "any race could be a slave or own slaves" nonesense where Mississippi specifically declares that blacks were genetically predisposed for slave labor!
If you read the full secession document, it isn't talking about slavery, but it isn't saying "geez, we really get off on owning a negro or two". It talks about how the way other states have treated them over slavery (I remind you, legal at this time and constitutionally protected) have resulted in a threat to their economy, their agriculture, their sovereignty, their equality, their safety, and their future. None of these things are about slavery directly.

The high seas have nothing to do with state's rights, but these statements have everything to do with slavery.
You have to understand that at this point, slavery were property. Legally. Let's say that you decided to ship a bunch of oranges and the these oranges were confiscated from you - and any attempt to get those oranges back, to get compensated for the theft, or to stop the theft from happening again, all fell on intentionally deaf ears. The police would just pick their nose and go, "sucks to be you." You'd be PISSED. You'd say there was something wrong with the police, wouldn't you? And if you were directly paying for those police, you'd stop, wouldn't you?

Oh, I was told the Civil War was about State's rights? Then why is Mississippi so upset that other states have nullified the Fugitive Slave Law!!??
The interesting thing about that is that South Carolina had attempted nullification a few decades earlier and faced the threat of violence from Andrew Jackson. And here the Northerners were allowed to nullify (or otherwise ignore) a law they didn't like. It's like if you punched a guy for stealing your oranges and got put in prison, then watched someone else punch a guy for stealing oranges and got an award.

More of that racism you claim wasn't a factor. Enshrined succinctly in the declaration of secession for all to see
You have to understand that at this time, black people weren't equal. Not in the eyes of the law, the land, the courts, or of God. They wouldn't become equal for some time afterwards. So at this point in US history, supporting this belief was seen as dangerous, and if you read the rest of the statement - the part that says, "promotes insurrection and incendiarism" - you'll see where their concerns were. It threatened their safety.

And there's more. This declaration is small. Over 50% of it directly implicates slavery/racism as the cause for secession, and the other portions such as " to ruin our agriculture, to prostrate our industrial pursuits and to destroy our social system" and "enlisted its press, its pulpit and its schools against us" (lol, never change, Southerners) are indirectly linked. There's nothing in this document worth seceding over beyond the slavery issue
Mississippi is one of the states that seceded primarily due to slavery. If I remember correctly, the population of Mississippi at that time was something like 90% slave. It was a major part of their economy and society, and a major social upheaval with a population that is 90% slave would've basically destroyed Mississippi (and let's just say that Mississippi didn't make out too well after the war).

But you have to read what is actually written there. The vast majority of their complaints were about how other states not seeing eye to eye with them on slavery affected their safety, families, and money - not about how it was their right to own slaves, their moral or religious dominance over black people, or anything like that. Sure, that's there, but their complaints are entirely concrete. Abolition threatened them, and the government was created so that states worked together. They weren't working together. They were undermining each other, endangering each other, and threatening to overpower them. So, it was about slavery, but mostly it was about states' rights.

Texas is interesting because Texas was a relatively new state, having been annexed like a decade earlier and then fighting a war against Mexico. Part of Texas' agreement to join the Union was, in fact, to promise to protect slavery. So, basically, they were sold a bill of goods that said, hey buddy, come join our Union. We've got all the best cheeses, then ten years later get told there wasn't any cheese. Texas had been part of the Union for a decade - being an independent republic was still in living memory to all of its citizens. They didn't secede because of slavery, they seceded because they felt the government lied to them and cheated them. Seeing how recently Texas had joined the Union, I've always seen their secession more like annulling a shotgun wedding in Las Vegas. What seemed like a good idea at the time maybe doesn't look so good when you sober up.

Make no mistake, the issues these states (also seen in the Mississippi doc) had with the new territories was also based in slavery, and the fact that new slave states were not allowed (thus weakening the South's moral position in scope of America)
Not moral position, political power. They saw it as effectively gerrymandering. Let's put it in perspective. Let's imagine that the US decided to make a 51st state - complete with 2 senators, multiple congressmen, electoral college votes - but only allowed Trump supporters to live there. Would you just shrug and let something like that happen?

There's a bunch more here. All centered around slavery,
Yes, it centers around slavery, but the complaints are rarely about the institution of slavery. It's all about how the other states would not recognize or cooperate with them because they had slaves. Slavery is not the cause of the Civil War, it is the cause of the cause. But if it wasn't slavery, it would've been something else. It was ALWAYS going to happen, and almost happened several times before. Just so happened that slavery, being so important to business and society in the south, was a cause that finally spurred them all to action.

and how the Northern states are collaborating against the South via anti slave laws (what happened to State's rights???!!!).
That's the definition of states' rights when a states' laws are not respected by other members of the union. That was kind of the entire point of having a federal government in the first place.

You talk a big game but you are missing basic facts. Sounds like you are reading sources curated to present a specific picture of the cause of the war which isn't comprehensive.
Nah man. I love the Civil War. I think it is one of the most interesting time periods in history. I feel like the cartoon version of it makes it seem way less cool. It's like the Roy Rogers version of the Old West. The white hats and and singing horses are fun and all, but that's not what makes it awesome.

Would you be willing to share where you are getting your information with us?
All sorts of places. It's easy enough to find primary sources for a lot of these things, and... oh, wait a second. I see what you are doing. You're trying to imply that I'm secretly reading Stormfront propaganda or something. Trying to imply I'm a Nazi. Very sneaky. I hope that works out for you.

The justifications for secession for many Southern states are obvious by simply reading their own words as to why they wanted sovereignty. Shall we find more?
By all means. I think you'll find that the majority of the complaints are about how the Northern states were treating and undermining Southern states, but there's only one way to know for sure.
 
Nov 11, 2018
67
28
140
#80
I like how these students are toppling statues built by Democrats due to inherent racism and then voting for the same party of slavery, the Confederacy, Klu Klux Klan and Jim Crow. Literally fingers over ears and lalalalala stuff when you tell them this as well.

Shows how good the Dems are at lying that they've flipped the board for these stupid teens.
After the Civil Rights act, the parties effectively switched sides, so that's not a salient rebuttal.
 
Dec 3, 2018
211
234
115
#81
We've been enslaving our fellow man since time immemorial, but we always enslaved those we defeated in war. As such, these people were see as slaves and property, but still people (even black slaves). But because of how primitive the slaves captured from Africa were, it was easy to see them more as beasts of burden than as actual human beings. I'm not saying it was right.
 
Nov 11, 2018
67
28
140
#82
We've been enslaving our fellow man since time immemorial, but we always enslaved those we defeated in war. As such, these people were see as slaves and property, but still people (even black slaves). But because of how primitive the slaves captured from Africa were, it was easy to see them more as beasts of burden than as actual human beings. I'm not saying it was right.
Don't bother responding to me anymore. I've reported you. If your comments are allowed to stand, that's a clear message to the black members of this forum about how they should expect to be treated.
 
Likes: TayTay
Apr 8, 2009
19,996
703
405
#83
Actually, what South Carolina said is that it was upset that other states were not respecting its laws, refusing to return its fugitives (even accused murderers and rapists), and that they were facing increasing hostility over the previous decades from other states. They also said that the other states were effectively cheating in elections by allowing those who were not constitutionally allowed to vote to be counted, and because of that, a president was elected that had promised to wage war against its laws and institutions.

Yes, it was specifically about slaves, but I should remind you that at this time, slavery was not just legal nationwide, it was endorsed and constitutionally protected. Slaves could not constitutionally vote. These are all things that could be challenged, legally, and through the proper channels, but weren't. These other states were unilaterally bypassing the federally protected rules that bound the disparate states together, to the point where Lincoln became president (despite not even being on the ballot in the South) and outright stated that he would use the power of the federal government to override states rights. And again, South Carolina was already ready to leave the Union over the Nullifcation Crisis when it was established that the federal government could overrule state government - established at gunpoint.

A comparable situation would be if South Carolina legalized gay marriage, but those marriages were not recognized in Delaware. Not only that but if a married gay couple went to Delaware, their marriage would be annulled. Regardless of what you think about gay marriage, the idea that a different state could overrule your own state's laws just because, without oversight or due process, is insane. Now imagine it wasn't just Delaware. Imagine it was a dozen states, and none of them allowed any gay people to vote in elections. Using their power, they get a president elected that vows to use the power and authority of his office to outlaw gay marriages all over the land. How happy would you be?
Ok, so now the original point of contention, whether the preservation of slavery was the reason for secession, appears to have been resolved. We both agree it was the primary reason for initiating a bloody war in which hundreds of thousands died.

You just think it was a good reason and I don’t.
 
Likes: TayTay
Oct 21, 2018
526
265
180
#84
Ok, so now the original point of contention, whether the preservation of slavery was the reason for secession, appears to have been resolved. We both agree it was the primary reason for initiating a bloody war in which hundreds of thousands died.

You just think it was a good reason and I don’t.
No no no but slaves drove our entire society and economy! And they were so primitive and had NO CULTURE. That makes it justified, apparently.
 
Last edited:
Feb 16, 2018
87
103
160
#85
IF the college builds a building dedicated to the history good and bad of the college then i think thats' a perfect place for the statue.
 
Oct 21, 2018
526
265
180
#86
I just learned about this today. I did say the war was virtually over and nothing came from it, so I'm not sure I'm misrepresenting it. I mean, no deal was actually struck (France was interested, but the UK was not) and it is very possible that it was more of a feeler than an actual proposal. But I think it is worth noting that the President of the Confederacy, at least for a brief moment, but the possibility of freeing all the slaves on the bargaining table.

I've always said that the Civil War was not just about slavery. I think the ideas we have about how slavery and racism were back then are a little warped by time and ideology, and I think it is important to keep perspective on these things. Up until the 1960s, nearly every Civil War scholar agreed that it was a war for states rights, so I think maybe it is worth remembering that even if the war was about slavery, it was just as much (or more) about states rights.


If you read the full secession document, it isn't talking about slavery, but it isn't saying "geez, we really get off on owning a negro or two". It talks about how the way other states have treated them over slavery (I remind you, legal at this time and constitutionally protected) have resulted in a threat to their economy, their agriculture, their sovereignty, their equality, their safety, and their future. None of these things are about slavery directly.

You have to understand that at this point, slavery were property. Legally. Let's say that you decided to ship a bunch of oranges and the these oranges were confiscated from you - and any attempt to get those oranges back, to get compensated for the theft, or to stop the theft from happening again, all fell on intentionally deaf ears. The police would just pick their nose and go, "sucks to be you." You'd be PISSED. You'd say there was something wrong with the police, wouldn't you? And if you were directly paying for those police, you'd stop, wouldn't you?

The interesting thing about that is that South Carolina had attempted nullification a few decades earlier and faced the threat of violence from Andrew Jackson. And here the Northerners were allowed to nullify (or otherwise ignore) a law they didn't like. It's like if you punched a guy for stealing your oranges and got put in prison, then watched someone else punch a guy for stealing oranges and got an award.

You have to understand that at this time, black people weren't equal. Not in the eyes of the law, the land, the courts, or of God. They wouldn't become equal for some time afterwards. So at this point in US history, supporting this belief was seen as dangerous, and if you read the rest of the statement - the part that says, "promotes insurrection and incendiarism" - you'll see where their concerns were. It threatened their safety.

Mississippi is one of the states that seceded primarily due to slavery. If I remember correctly, the population of Mississippi at that time was something like 90% slave. It was a major part of their economy and society, and a major social upheaval with a population that is 90% slave would've basically destroyed Mississippi (and let's just say that Mississippi didn't make out too well after the war).

But you have to read what is actually written there. The vast majority of their complaints were about how other states not seeing eye to eye with them on slavery affected their safety, families, and money - not about how it was their right to own slaves, their moral or religious dominance over black people, or anything like that. Sure, that's there, but their complaints are entirely concrete. Abolition threatened them, and the government was created so that states worked together. They weren't working together. They were undermining each other, endangering each other, and threatening to overpower them. So, it was about slavery, but mostly it was about states' rights.

Texas is interesting because Texas was a relatively new state, having been annexed like a decade earlier and then fighting a war against Mexico. Part of Texas' agreement to join the Union was, in fact, to promise to protect slavery. So, basically, they were sold a bill of goods that said, hey buddy, come join our Union. We've got all the best cheeses, then ten years later get told there wasn't any cheese. Texas had been part of the Union for a decade - being an independent republic was still in living memory to all of its citizens. They didn't secede because of slavery, they seceded because they felt the government lied to them and cheated them. Seeing how recently Texas had joined the Union, I've always seen their secession more like annulling a shotgun wedding in Las Vegas. What seemed like a good idea at the time maybe doesn't look so good when you sober up.

Not moral position, political power. They saw it as effectively gerrymandering. Let's put it in perspective. Let's imagine that the US decided to make a 51st state - complete with 2 senators, multiple congressmen, electoral college votes - but only allowed Trump supporters to live there. Would you just shrug and let something like that happen?

Yes, it centers around slavery, but the complaints are rarely about the institution of slavery. It's all about how the other states would not recognize or cooperate with them because they had slaves. Slavery is not the cause of the Civil War, it is the cause of the cause. But if it wasn't slavery, it would've been something else. It was ALWAYS going to happen, and almost happened several times before. Just so happened that slavery, being so important to business and society in the south, was a cause that finally spurred them all to action.

That's the definition of states' rights when a states' laws are not respected by other members of the union. That was kind of the entire point of having a federal government in the first place.


Nah man. I love the Civil War. I think it is one of the most interesting time periods in history. I feel like the cartoon version of it makes it seem way less cool. It's like the Roy Rogers version of the Old West. The white hats and and singing horses are fun and all, but that's not what makes it awesome.


All sorts of places. It's easy enough to find primary sources for a lot of these things, and... oh, wait a second. I see what you are doing. You're trying to imply that I'm secretly reading Stormfront propaganda or something. Trying to imply I'm a Nazi. Very sneaky. I hope that works out for you.

By all means. I think you'll find that the majority of the complaints are about how the Northern states were treating and undermining Southern states, but there's only one way to know for sure.
So...

Black people being less than human was enshrined constitutionally, it was dangerous to advocate otherwise, slavery was their entire way of life.

But the war wasn’t about slavery, and slavery wasn’t racist. Got it.

Like I said, gaslighting.

States rights, TO SUBJUGATE BLACK PEOPLE SO WE CAN KEEP OUR CONTENT WAY OF LIFE.

You are literally saying “we believe our way of life is MORE IMPORTANT than black people being slaves” is not only not racist, but totally justified.
 
Last edited:
Oct 21, 2018
526
265
180
#88
Sqorin Hammerfarf touches on some interesting taboos, it's a shame people don't debate these points more in detail instead of just expressing rage about it.

Unless he advocates for reviving slavery, his posts are not a threat.
You believe Africans have genetically inferior brains and advocate for a white ethnostate. Of course you would be on board. You have no grounds to stand on, but you clearly have a stake.
 
Last edited:
Oct 21, 2018
526
265
180
#89
“Yes, he believes that the people you come from (Africans) were culturally inferior, and that it was easy to see them as animals, and that fighting to protect slavery was totally justified because obviously their way of life isn’t as important as the white southerners! But that’s not a threat to you (an African American) at all.”
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
15,890
1,288
470
Brampton, Ontario
#90
You believe Africans have genetically inferior brains and advocate for a white ethnostate. Of course you would be on board. You have no grounds to stand on, but you clearly have a stake.
What post did I say that?

I've always referred to research that said there are different AVERAGES in each race. Somehow, people always leave out the parts of my posts comparing Asians and Europeans. Wonder why?

Nor do I know what this research has to do with a "white ethnostate". That is your imagination.

As a future disclaimer, please don't go on other websites and report things about me that are fake.
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2018
211
234
115
#91
Don't bother responding to me anymore. I've reported you. If your comments are allowed to stand, that's a clear message to the black members of this forum about how they should expect to be treated.
WTF? Did I ever say I believed that personally? You guys really only have one move in your playbook, don't you? If you can't engage in an honest debate, call the other person a racist. How is this behavior allowed? Did I wander into ResetEra by mistake?

Ok, so now the original point of contention, whether the preservation of slavery was the reason for secession, appears to have been resolved. We both agree it was the primary reason for initiating a bloody war in which hundreds of thousands died.

You just think it was a good reason and I don’t.
That's not correct. If someone confiscates your drugs and you are all like, "fuck that guy" and punch him, did you punch him because having drugs is immoral or because he stole your fucking stash?
 
Oct 21, 2018
526
265
180
#92
WTF? Did I ever say I believed that personally? You guys really only have one move in your playbook, don't you? If you can't engage in an honest debate, call the other person a racist. How is this behavior allowed? Did I wander into ResetEra by mistake?


That's not correct. If someone confiscates your drugs and you are all like, "fuck that guy" and punch him, did you punch him because having drugs is immoral or because he stole your fucking stash?
Do you honestly believe there is any kind of reasonable moral distinction between
“They are taking our slaves and we will fight to the death because black people are inferior.” And “they are taking our slaves and we will fight to the death because slavery is our way of life.”?

Both only happen because they wanted it to stay legal for blacks to be slaves.

Also no one called you racist.

Like, in that analogy you just made, it would completely correct to say “you punched him because you like having drugs and wanted to keep drugs.”
 
Last edited:
Dec 3, 2018
211
234
115
#93
And finally you are literally saying “ yes it’s true that the Confederate Constitution literally says that NEGRO slavery is what they are protecting, but it’s totally not about racism!”
You are literally saying “we believe our way of life is MORE IMPORTANT than black people being slaves” is not only not racist, but totally justified.
“Yes, he believes that the people you come from (Africans) were culturally inferior, and that it was easy to see them as animals, and that fighting to protect slavery was totally justified because obviously their way of life isn’t as important as the white southerners! But that’s not a threat to you (an African American) at all.”
If you take nothing else from this discussion, and I fear you won't, let it be known that you have no idea what the word "literally" means and your use of quotation marks is borderline malfeasance.
 
Oct 21, 2018
526
265
180
#95
Two South Carolina lawmakers want to erect a monument on the State House grounds to African-Americans who served the state as Confederate soldiers. But records show the state never accepted nor recognized armed African-American soldiers during the Civil War.

“In all my years of research, I can say I have seen no documentation of black South Carolina soldiers fighting for the Confederacy,” said Walter Edgar, who for 32 years was director of the University of South Carolina’s Institute for Southern Studies and is author of “South Carolina: A History.”

“In fact, when secession came, the state turned down free (blacks) who wanted to volunteer because they didn’t want armed persons of color,” he said.

Pension records gleaned from the S.C. Department of History and Archives show no black Confederate soldiers received payment for combat service. And of the more than 300 blacks who did receive pensions after they were allowed in 1923, all served as body servants or cooks, the records show.

South Carolina had 291,300 white residents in 1860, according to the Historical Statistics of the United States, and 402,406 slaves. Also, 45 percent of white families in South Carolina owned slaves, the highest percentage of any American state, according to Edgar’s book, “South Carolina: A History.”

Confederate law prohibited blacks from bearing arms in the war, records show, until that edict was repealed in 1865 at the very end of the conflict.


That repeal resulted in a handful of African-American units in states such as Virginia and Texas. But there were none in South Carolina, which prohibited African-Americans from carrying guns in the state’s service throughout the war for fear of insurrection, according to the archives.
 

JordanN

Junior Member
Apr 21, 2012
15,890
1,288
470
Brampton, Ontario
#98
So just to clarify you do not at all believe African people to have inferior intelligence and African people do not have the same capacity for progress in their nations and communities as any other race?
You are asking a different question.
Don't ask me what do I believe, show me the post where I called people "genetically inferior".
 
Last edited: