patrick.net

No the North still thinks every Southerner had a Slave and was willing to risk a 5 ounce ball of red hot ballistic lead taking out their gut contents to fertilize the battle grounds, so that rich Southern plantation owners could continue to use cheap slave labor over them them?

The Civil was was an economic clash between the North and the South. The slaves were as much a part of it, as the North's industrial might. But there were still greater social and cultural issues than just the Civil war being reduced to the South using Slave labor.

CaptainShuddup says

No the North still thinks every Southerner had a Slave and was willing to risk a 5 ounce ball of red hot ballistic lead taking out their gut contents to fertilize the battle grounds, so that rich Southern plantation owners could continue to use cheap slave labor over them them?

The Civil was was an economic clash between the North and the South. The slaves were as much a part of it, as the North's industrial might. But there were still greater social and cultural issues than just the Civil war being reduced to the South using Slave labor.

I love apologists for the Confederacy. They tend to sneer at eggheads for using long sentences and fancy words, but notice how nuanced the explanations are on this topic: "social", "cultural", "economic". Such careful and elaborate explanations! Something like what John Kerry, or maybe a professor of Latina Women's Empowerment, would say.

How about a simple one, instead: "They fought to preserve slavery."

Alright then answer this, how come when the war was over, the worst jobs in America for blacks were in Northern meat processing plants and factories?

Had the North been to Holier than though, then you would have thought that the Civil rights movement of the 60's would have been a moot point.

EXCLUSION of FREE BLACKS

"[R]ace prejudice seems stronger in those states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists, and nowhere is it more intolerant than in those states where slavery was never known." --Alexis De Tocqueville, �Democracy in America�

In some Northern states, after emancipation, blacks were legally allowed to vote, marry whites, file lawsuits, or sit on juries. In most, they were not. But even where the right was extended by law, often the white majority did not allow it to happen. In Massachusetts in 1795, despite the absence of any law prohibiting on black voting, Judge James Winthrop and Thomas Pemberton wrote �that Negroes could neither elect nor be elected to office in that state.�[1] De Tocqueville, in Philadelphia in 1831, asked why, since black men had the right to vote there, none ever dared do so. The answer came back: �The law with us is nothing if it is not supported by public opinion.� When Ohio�s prohibition against blacks testifying in legal cases involving white people was lifted in 1849, observers acknowledged that, at least in the southern part of the state, where most of the blacks lived, social prejudice would keep the ban in practical effect.

The OLD NORTH

In 1790, the first U.S. census counted 13,059 free blacks in New England, with another 13,975 in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Strictly speaking, none of them was "free," for their lives were proscribed politically, economically, and socially. While white indentured servants often became respected members of their communities after their indentures ended, free blacks in the North rarely had the opportunity to rise above the level of common laborers and washerwomen, and as early as 1760 they had formed ghettoes in the grimy alleys and waterfront districts of Boston and other Northern towns.

In colonial times, Northern freemen, like slaves, were required to carry passes when traveling in some places, and they were forbidden to own property in others. Although taxed in New England, they could not vote there in early colonial times, though they could in the plantation colonies.[2] Free blacks were required to work on roads a certain number of days a year in Massachusetts, at the discretion of the local selectmen. They could only use ferries under certain conditions in New England. In South Kingstown, Rhode Island, they could not own horses or sheep. In Boston, they could not carry a cane unless they were unable to walk without one.

Pennsylvania colony's �Act for the better Regulation of Negroes� set penalties for free blacks who harbored runaway slaves or received property stolen from masters that were potentially much higher than those applied to whites. If the considerable fines could not be paid, the justices had the power to order a free black person put into servitude. Under other provisions of the act, free negroes who married whites were to be sold into slavery for life; for mere fornication or adultery involving blacks and whites, the penalty for the black person was to be sold as a servant for seven years. Whites in such cases faced different or lighter punishment. By a law of 1718, a black man convicted of the rape of a white woman was to be castrated. Throughout Pennsylvania colony, the children of free blacks, without exception, were bound out by the local justices of the peace until age 24 (if male) or 21 (if female). All in all, the "free" blacks of colonial Pennsylvania led severely circumscribed lives; they had no control even over their own family arrangements, and they could be put back into servitude for "laziness" or petty crimes, at the mercy of the local authorities.

Having set controls on their black residents, the Northern states busied themselves in passing laws to make sure no more blacks moved within their boundaries. These were not elitist actions. The pressure for total exclusion came from the working class whites, struggling for a little bargaining power with the shopowners and fearful of inexpensive black competition that could drive down wages. New Jersey in 1786 had prohibited blacks from entering the state to settle, because "sound public policy requires that importation be prohibited in order that white labour may be protected." Connecticut's legislature, making the same prohibition in 1784, had declared that it did so because "the increase of slaves is injurious to the poor."

As far back as 1717, citizens of New London, Connecticut, in a town meeting voted their objection to free blacks living in the town or owning land anywhere in the colony. That year, the colonial assembly passed a law in accordance with this sentiment, prohibiting free blacks or mulattoes from residing in any town in the colony. It also forbid them to buy land or go into business without the consent of the town. The provisions were retroactive, so that if any black person had managed to buy land, the deed was rendered void, and a black resident of a town, however long he had been there, was now subject to prosecution at the discretion of the selectmen. Massachusetts in 1788 prescribed flogging for non-resident blacks who stayed more than two months. Less than four months after its Congressmen voted against the restrictions on black settlement in the Missouri Compromise, Massachusetts set up a legislative committee to investigate such legislation for its own sake. From 1813 to 1852, Pennsylvania was constantly debating exclusion, under pressure of petitions from the counties along the Mason-Dixon Line.

Like the black codes of the South and Midwest in the 19th century, enforcement of Northern colonial race laws was selective, and their real value lay in harassment and discouragement of further settlement, and in being a constant reminder to free blacks that their existence was precarious and dependent on white toleration. Across the North, such laws were the sword hung above the heads of a whole black population: Step out of line, make one false move, and you could be shipped out, or sold into slavery. You wouldn't have the right to face your (white) accuser in court (as you would in, say, ante-bellum Louisiana). Anti-sodomy laws still are on the books in some states; their defenders point out that they are rarely invoked, but that does not make their potential targets feel safer living under them. It gets to the gist of what makes slavery itself, however comfortable, always worse than freedom, however miserable. Many Southern slaves, perhaps the mass of them, lived better than most northern industrial laborers, when you quantify their work requirements, nutrition, and life expectancy. But the slave could be, at any moment, and with no recourse, stripped, beaten, whipped, violated, and sold. That �could be� embraces all the evil of slavery.

So the Negro [in the North] is free, but he cannot share the rights, pleasures, labors, griefs, or even the tomb of him whose equal he has been declared; there is nowhere where he can meet him, neither in life nor in death.

In the South, where slavery still exists, less trouble is taken to keep the Negro apart: they sometimes share the labors and the pleasures of the white men; people are prepared to mix with them to some extent; legislation is more harsh against them, but customs are more tolerant and gentle.

After reading the Captain's comment, and noticing the correct grammar, I wondered where it came from, and found it was written by Douglas Harper. Harper seems to be a legitimate historian.

If you want to find really glaring examples of revisionist history from the south, look at the Texas school board and the damage they do to textbooks that they foist upon everyone, elevating the role of religion in the founding of the republic. They would have you believe that American history began with the Pilgrims in 1620, even though actually the Pilgrims were trying to reach what is now New York City, which was already a thriving trading post. After 64 days sailing, the Pilgrims couldn't make it any further, and settled on Cape Cod instead, where they began killing each other as witches after some rotten rye gave them hallucinations. Funny how history doesn't quite repeat itself, but it rhymes.

Damn Hydro just got owned by the Captain. How embarrassing!

The war was about the South getting their ass kicked by a Republican president. They enjoyed it so much they vote Republican over & over today.

History is revised all the time according to the convenience, prejudices, and passions of the most current governments and generations.

I love all the TV/movies that show people from historical times being retro-actively "politically correct" or the politically incorrect insanely demonized.Har, har.

Quigley says

Hydro just got owned by the Captain

"Owned" . . . like a slave?

curious2 says

After reading the Captain's comment, and noticing the correct grammar, I wondered where it came from

Yes, that is a dead give away.

I agree with Captain. The south succeeded from the union due to the north constantly violating constitutional rights and among others things (mainly huge cultural difference). Mind you the south succeeded from the union and even sent commissioners to the Union to the purchase southern lands. What's funny is that most people seem to miss the obvious, the south succeeded from the union for which they had a right too, so if the southern state succeeded from the union how can one call it a Civil War?

A Civil War is when two or more factions fight for the power of the central government, this clearly wasn't the case, the south left the union to form their own central government and didn't want anything to do with the Union from that point on. But unfortunately they were drawn into a war that was inevitably started by the north. Yes the first shot was fired by the confederates but only because the north was occupying and resupplying Fort Sumter which was located in Charleston, South Carolina. That'll be like Russia occupying Miami, Fl. in which of course the US would attack.

Also about the blacks in the north. In some northern states, free blacks were not allow to live or own property there. Not to mention some northern states had slaves. Besides, Lincoln himself was a racist he though whites were superior and didn't believe in miscegenation.

Yes it's true.

I'm a Georgia boy, grew up there, most of my family is still there.

White rednecks are more deluded than you can imagine about this.

White Southerners want to recast it for the same reason Japanese don't want to talk about their history with China. They can't look in that mirror, they know the ugliness they'll have to face and they are chickenshits about it. The cop-out, is to cast themselves as victims of "Northern aggression" so they can play innocent.

The New South where everyone is colorblind, is a FUCKING LIE that Southerners peddle to themselves. Before I fostered an African American child it never really penetrated my upbringing. Afterwards, it was startling and eye-opening how fast I started accumulating everyday racism incidents.

CaptainShuddup says

The Civil was was an economic clash between the North and the South. The slaves were as much a part of it, as the North's industrial might. But there were still greater social and cultural issues than just the Civil war being reduced to the South using Slave labor.

True, economic and cultural differences (besides slavery) were major reasons to cause the Civil War.

adarmiento says

True, economic and cultural differences (besides slavery) were major reasons to cause the Civil War.

It is amazing. On this thread alone, we have at least 4-5 people who believe the lies.

If you notice, in the Cap'ns long post, it says nothing about slavery not being the cause of the Civil War. Yes, some southerners were nice to their propery and let them mingle with them as long as they knew their place. And, yes, some Notherners were racist.

I don't recall an underground railroad going from North to South though, so I'll assume that free was preferable to slave. Even with the prejudice in the North.

spydah_hh says

A Civil War is when two or more factions fight for the power of the central government, this clearly wasn't the case

Bullshit, there are civil wars all over the globe right now of groups wanting to break away.

tatupu70 says

I don't recall an underground railroad going from North to South though, so I'll assume that free was preferable to slave. Even with the prejudice in the North.

Don't confuse these people with facts.

bob2356 says

spydah_hh says

A Civil War is when two or more factions fight for the power of the central government, this clearly wasn't the case

Bullshit, there are civil wars all over the globe right now of groups wanting to break away.

And that isn't a civil war. If that is the case then the American War with the British wasn't a revolution but a civil war. It's the same thing with the south vs the north, the south left to form their own government. They were fighting to be free from the union, not to capture it. That is closer in terms of a revolution than a civil war.

So I am calling you out on your BS.

tatupu70 says

If you notice, in the Cap'ns long post, it says nothing about slavery not being the cause of the Civil War. Yes, some southerners were nice to their propery and let them mingle with them as long as they knew their place. And, yes, some Notherners were racist. The South were racist by the sign in the

The point of my "Long" post, was to show you, that the North was and always has been as equally racist as the south. They didn't own slaves for economic reasons. But make no mistake, they treated the blacks like second class citizens, in most cases just as appalling living conditions.

The South were racist by the signs in the Window, the North were racist by the laws on the books.

And this article aligns with I've said all along, that southern red necks are more apt to live, socialize and play along side blacks, than Northern(Or in today's political currency Liberals).

Sorry you sorry Liberal race-baiting racist, you'll have to dig deeper than that.

spydah_hh says

And that isn't a civil war.

spydah_hh says

So I am calling you out on your BS.

All the major online dictionaries disagree with you, as well as my print versions. It's defined as war between factions in the same country. It's not specified for what reason, breaking away or taking control. The American revolution was fought between the country of England and the colonies in America. That is not an example of factions fighting within the same country.

civil war
noun
a war between political factions or regions within the same country.

Full Definition of CIVIL WAR
a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country

civil war
n.
1. A war between factions or regions of the same country.

civil war
noun [C] /ˈsɪv·əl ˈwɔr/
› a war fought between groups of people living in the same country

bob2356 says

The American revolution was fought between the country of England and the colonies in America. That is not an example of factions fighting within the same country.

Funny, the colonies were under English rule but you're willing to declare them the Colonies vs the British a Revolution but, not the Confederacy vs. the Union? Hell by the time the war started the Confederacy already had a constitution, It essentially had declared itself as its own government. The colonies did the same thing with the British, declaring it's independence from the British.

Just to add, so none of your points fall within lie that the North vs the South or Union vs. the Confederates is a civil war because by that time they (the south) were not members of the same country. Just as if the Colonist were not members of the British government.

CaptainShuddup says

And this article aligns with I've said all along, that southern red necks are more apt to live, socialize and play along side blacks, than Northern(Or in today's political currency Liberals).

I was raised in the south and still spend time with family there. What you are saying is total complete unadulterated bullshit. They may not put up signs any more, but things haven't changed that much under the surface. You're from florida, that's just the 6th borough of NYC, not the real south.

spydah_hh says

Funny, the colonies were under English rule but you're willing to declare them the Colonies

There is a website called dictionary.com, check it out if you don't understand what words mean. You hit the nail on the head with "under English rule". Yes that is the definition of a colony. A colony is under the control of another country, not a part of it. You do remember that the revolutionary war was about "no taxation without representation" don't you? Colonies don't have representation in the government of the colonizing country. New Zealand is actually still a colony, the official head of state is still the queen of England. Do you consider New Zealand part of the country of England? Do kiwis send representatives to parliament in London?

You certainly can't claim the southern states were never a part of the country called the United States of America or never had equal representation in the government. The northern states didn't become a country then colonize the southern states. Although some withdrew there were congressman and senators from the confederate states still siting in the congress when the civil war battles started

So yes by all definitions available in the english language the revolutionary war was a revolutionary war and the civil war was a civil war.

CaptainShuddup says

The point of my "Long" post, was to show you, that the North was and always has been as equally racist as the south.

Again--I'll have to disagree. I consider owning slaves to be slightly more racist than NOT owning slaves.

CaptainShuddup says

But make no mistake, they treated the blacks like second class citizens, in most cases just as appalling living conditions.

No, not as appalling. Being a piece of property is much more appalling then living in poor conditions. Let's get serious here.

bob2356 says

I was raised in the south and still spend time with family there. What you are saying is total complete unadulterated bullshit.

Well I'm sorry your family are racists, and you still like to go back and visit them. What can I tell ya. There's racist in Brooklyn as well. Are you going to condemn the whole state of New York?

You guys are going to need a bigger boat.

It's funny watching the GOP-lovers in this thread bend themselves into pretzels excusing the South. There's a reason the Confederate flag is clutched like a teddy bear by Southern Whites, and it's got nothing to do with States Rights.

tatupu70 says

No, not as appalling. Being a piece of property is much more appalling then living in poor conditions. Let's get serious here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omaha_Race_Riot_of_1919

OK Race baiting bonus round, for the daily double douche.

How come NONE of the top 10 American race riots happened in the good ole Deep South?

http://theblackbottom.com/?p=5210

CaptainShuddup says

There's racist in Brooklyn as well. Are you going to condemn the whole state of New York?

I condemn anyone who is racist. But I don't buy for one second your contention that the pervasive, overt, and institutionalized racism that has declined but not disappeared in the south was somehow the same as or less of a problem as the racism that existed in the north. You're dreaming.

bob2356 says

But I don't buy for one second your contention that the pervasive, overt, and institutionalized racism that has declined but not disappeared in the south was somehow the same as or less of a problem as the racism that existed in the north.

Well fucking of course You DON'T, or your party would be obsolete.

CaptainShuddup says

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omaha_Race_Riot_of_1919

OK Race baiting bonus round, for the daily double douche.

How come NONE of the top 10 American race riots happened in the good ole Deep South?

http://theblackbottom.com/?p=5210

OK--maybe we're speaking different languages. I don't think anyone here is saying that there aren't racist people living in the North.

Is that what you are trying to show?

Vicente says

It's funny watching the GOP-lovers in this thread bend themselves into pretzels excusing the South.

Who's excusing the South, and excusing the South for what?

I love how the race baiters in this thread are pretending that Blacks in the North have always had equal footing. The only historical race problems have been in the South.

bob2356 says

I condemn anyone who is racist. But I don't buy for one second your contention that the pervasive, overt, and institutionalized racism that has declined but not disappeared in the south was somehow the same as or less of a problem as the racism that existed in the north. You're dreaming.

Get back over here, I'm not done with you yet.

Before I can ever take you serious ever again.

I need a modern example of "institutionalized racism" in the South. Otherwise, I'll place you in the same regard of your rhetoric as BGMal and his Zionist rants.

CaptainShuddup says

I love how the race baiters in this thread are pretending that Blacks in the North have always had equal footing. The only historical race problems have been in the South.

Who is claiming that???

The South kept the institution of slavery until they were forced to go to war. That's the point.

tatupu70 says

OK--maybe we're speaking different languages. I don't think anyone here is saying that there aren't racist people living in the North.

Is that what you are trying to show?

No don't lay that trip on me, I'm not the one who started this thread that is the opposite of what you just posted.

I'm just pointing out, that the North, didn't suddenly drop their racist culture, they just took it off the books.

tatupu70 says

The South kept the institution of slavery until they were forced to go to war. That's the point.

Now we're getting somewhere. And how long ago was that?

CaptainShuddup says

I'm just pointing out, that the North, didn't suddenly drop their racist culture, they just took it off the books.

Well, they were for abolishing slavery so I'd say that makes them less racist than folks that were FOR slavery. Wouldn't you?

Actually, maybe I'm assuming too much. Do you think someone who has slaves is more racist than someone who doesn't?

Yes like Obama was better than Mitt Romney and Sarah Painintheass.

Vicente says

White Southerners want to recast it for the same reason Japanese don't want to talk about their history with China. They can't look in that mirror, they know the ugliness they'll have to face and they are chickenshits about it. The cop-out, is to cast themselves as victims of "Northern aggression" so they can play innocent.

+100

There's a reason you have to confess your sins to be forgiven. Acknowledging the wrong is the first and unskippable step to fixing the wrong and moving on. Had the South done this, they would no longer be carrying the guilt of slavery, segregation, and lynching.

Dan8267 says

Had the South done this, they would no longer be carrying the guilt of slavery, segregation, and lynching.

I'll repeat it again...
CaptainShuddup says

How come NONE of the top 10 American race riots happened in the good ole Deep South?

http://theblackbottom.com/?p=5210

Oh and one more thing that is really really really egging me.
You guys claim that there is "institutionalized" racism in the South. When the LA Police department is considered the most racist department in the US, and has been so at least since the O.J. Simpson trial.

You Clowns live closer to Cletus than I do.

CaptainShuddup says

No the North still thinks every Southerner had a Slave and was willing to risk a 5 ounce ball of red hot ballistic lead taking out their gut contents to fertilize the battle grounds, so that rich Southern plantation owners could continue to use cheap slave labor over them them?

No, this is not what people in the North think.

What we think is that the people with political power and authority in South were the ones who had slaves. The common man was too damn poor to own one, and in fact was poor precisely because of slavery.

Slavery cut wages for free workers. This prevented the virtuous cycle of high productivity, high wages, high consumption, high demand. So, in fact, slavery is the prime reason the South is still dirt poor and never built the economy that the North did.

Nonetheless, the common man could have demanded that slavery be outlawed or sided with the North during the Civil War. Instead, they sided with evil. As such, I have no sympathy for them.

CaptainShuddup says

The Civil was was an economic clash between the North and the South. The slaves were as much a part of it, as the North's industrial might

This statement is utter revisionist history. You might as well state that the Holocaust was an economic disagreement between the Nazis and the Jews.

Slavery was not only the prime cause of the Civil War, it was the only cause. Even the state's rights argument was bullshit back then. Some people just use the phrase "state's rights" to try to get their way when they can't get the federal government to side with them. These same people will use the federal government to undermine state's rights when they can. See legalizing marijuana and same-sex marriages. The misnamed Defense of Marriage act is a perfect example of these people giving a big F-U to state's rights today. Before the Civil War, those people had no problem using the federal government to promote slavery when they could.

Furthermore, if slavery and racism wasn't the cause of the Civil War, then why did segregation, lynching, false arrests, voter suppression, and the KKK exist for over 100 years after the war?

The Civil War: It was about slavery, period.

HEY YOU says

The war was about the South getting their ass kicked by a Republican president. They enjoyed it so much they vote Republican over & over today.

And re-enact their epic failure.