CSA Movie--poorly researched, horribly done

I guess to manipulate the concept of proportional represenation an hard thing to do as balance is somehow need to be kept while keeping the advantage.
 
ShadowCommunist2009 said:
The population of slaves proves NOTHING about people's opinion of slavery, just as the population of "rebels" in Rwanda in 1994 proved nothing about the actual Tutsi rebellion against the Hutu power government, or the "total population" of traitors, wreckers, and counterrevolutionaries proved anything about how "lawless" the Soviet Union was under Stalin.

The abolitionist movement was gaining momentum in the South particularly because of the number of educated free-blacks in the decades leading up to the Civil War. The South (socially) was becoming more and more aware of the possibility that perhaps human "property" had some contribution to society.

And people do go to war over tariffs and states' rights. We did it in the French and Indian War and again in 1776.

Slavery wasn't the primary cause of the Civil War, nor was it the "dominant" idea behind the Confederacy. Read their constitution. The Confederacy's political structure was based on the idea of individual liberty for the states and greater autonomy for state legislatures. And if you look at the political situation in the United States before and after the Civil War, we had much greater political freedom at the state level than we ever had after the Civil War.
Lincoln ruled as a military dictator during the Civil War, and Reconstruction brought an end to states' rights because it imposed not only the law but the will of the federal government on the South which set the precedent that it could be done in the North. And here we are today.
The southern constitution was quite blunt about slavery. Specifically, you could not as a confederate state outlaw slavery in your state.
 

WFHermans

Banned
wkwillis said:
The southern constitution was quite blunt about slavery. Specifically, you could not as a confederate state outlaw slavery in your state.
Nonsense. Whoever told you that is a liar or just fantasizing.
 
ShadowCommunist2009 said:
The abolitionist movement was gaining momentum in the South particularly because of the number of educated free-blacks in the decades leading up to the Civil War.

-- wrong. The South was becoming more and more convinced of the "Positive Good" theory; ie., that slavery was a positive good and should be spread everywhere.

ShadowCommunist2009 said:
Slavery wasn't the primary cause of the Civil War, nor was it the "dominant" idea behind the Confederacy.

-- I suggest you read the secession declarations of the Southern states. None of them mention anything else besides slavery. (And the horrors of potential black rapists lusting after the pure white women if slavery was abolished.)

Face it, the Confederacy was the Evil Empire, and the (justly) Lost Cause was a stench in the nostrils of decent men.
 
joatsimeon@aol.com said:
-- wrong. The South was becoming more and more convinced of the "Positive Good" theory; ie., that slavery was a positive good and should be spread everywhere.



-- I suggest you read the secession declarations of the Southern states. None of them mention anything else besides slavery. (And the horrors of potential black rapists lusting after the pure white women if slavery was abolished.)

Face it, the Confederacy was the Evil Empire, and the (justly) Lost Cause was a stench in the nostrils of decent men.


Yet the need to deny this seems almost pathological amongst those who defend the CSA.If you are generous and give such people the benefit of the doubt that racism isnt the main motivation behind such support- what else could be?
 
Geminonone said:
Yet the need to deny this seems almost pathological amongst those who defend the CSA.If you are generous and give such people the benefit of the doubt that racism isnt the main motivation behind such support- what else could be?
Well, the question is, in 1860 slavery was allowed in all the territories, by the Constitution according to the Dred Scott decision. The South still had enough votes to prevent a constitutional amendment. Everything they could reasonably was going for them on that issue, other than the election of a President who couldn't muster the votes necessary.... Surely this points to other issues being present.

As for saying black soldiers fought for the Confederacy being equivalent to denying that Nazi Germany slaughter 11 million completely innocent people for their race, um....
 
Imajin said:
.

As for saying black soldiers fought for the Confederacy being equivalent to denying that Nazi Germany slaughter 11 million completely innocent people for their race, um....


Both revisionist claims are made in the same spirit-to downplay what was done to the victim and to take blame away from the perpetrator.
 
Gustav Anderman said:
Constitution of the Confederate States of America

Section 9 (4)

4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America

That provision was a section from a list of prohibitions on actions that could be taken by THE CONFEDERATE CONGRESS. It DID NOT apply to the States, which had the power to abolish slavery anytime they saw fit.
 
Imajin said:
Surely this points to other issues being present.


The question about this issue isnt wether other issues were present (because everyone knows that there were) the question is what was considered the driving or main issue by the people at the time.Its disengenious at best to suggest ,based on the pesky evidence,that it was anything other than slavery.
 
Geminonone said:
Both revisionist claims are made in the same spirit-to downplay what was done to the victim and to take blame away from the perpetrator.
When has anyone used the arguement that, since there were confederate black soldiers, slavery wasn't wrong?
 
Imajin said:
When has anyone used the arguement that, since there were confederate black soldiers, slavery wasn't wrong?

Seriously right? The claim is cleary used by CSA apologists to suggest that if slavery was so bad and was all the the CSA was fighting for why would BLACK soliders fight for the CSA.
 
Geminonone said:
Seriously right? The claim is cleary used by CSA apologists to suggest that if slavery was so bad and was all the the CSA was fighting for why would BLACK soliders fight for the CSA.
You're combining the issues of the evil of slavery and that slavery was all the CSA was fighting for- why can't the two be separated?
 
Imajin said:
You're combining the issues of the evil of slavery and that slavery was all the CSA was fighting for- why can't the two be separated?


The issues werent seperated by the vast majority of Confederates who fought for the South -they didnt think it was evil and they knew it was what they were fighting for.The real question that I originally asked is why today's Confederate apologists wont accept this as the truth it is and constantly use things like the lie of black Confederate soldiers to downplay it.
 
Last edited:
Imajin said:
When has anyone used the arguement that, since there were confederate black soldiers, slavery wasn't wrong?

-- there weren't, in fact, Confederate black soldiers. There were black servants and laborers with the armies.

Proposals to raise black troops were raised but never actually put into effect, even at the end when the Confederacy was desperate.
 
joatsimeon@aol.com said:
-- there weren't, in fact, Confederate black soldiers. There were black servants and laborers with the armies.

Proposals to raise black troops were raised but never actually put into effect, even at the end when the Confederacy was desperate.
I have heard of one regiment(and only one)of Freedmen that was raised,but never saw service, it may have remained in state service as home guards.Also one of the Texas Cavalry reenactors claim thier regiment had Black enlisted men along side their "Mexican"and white soilders
These may or may not be factual. It would be interesting had Claiborne's idea been taken up,how many slaves would fight for "Massa".I don't see slavery lasting much longer in a victorius south that had done this.
 
joatsimeon@aol.com said:
-- there weren't, in fact, Confederate black soldiers. There were black servants and laborers with the armies.

Proposals to raise black troops were raised but never actually put into effect, even at the end when the Confederacy was desperate.

The 1st Louisiana Native Guard was one of the few regiments of all-black soldiers that fought for the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War. The regiment was mostly made "free persons of color" between the ages of 15 and 50 and was the result of a large population of African Americans in the state of Louisiana.

They never saw action but outfitted with full equipment, and even rifles.
 

Tielhard

Banned
Completely off the subject but funny:

"Darkie Toothpaste" is a real toothpaste they sell it in Malaysia and Sri Lanka it has a picture of a 'negro minstrel' on it with a huge white smile. Very popular apparently. Leathal stuff strips the enammel away like no ones business. Poor old right on PC Teilhard nearly died when it was the only stuff he could get hold of!
 
joatsimeon@aol.com said:
-- Face it, the Confederacy was the Evil Empire, and the (justly) Lost Cause was a stench in the nostrils of decent men.

Ah, the screeching call of the blue-bellied Yankee Mockingbird. Let's see if we can drown out it's wearisome noise with some facts, shall we? :D

joatsimeon@aol.com said:
-- wrong. The South was becoming more and more convinced of the "Positive Good" theory; ie., that slavery was a positive good and should be spread everywhere.

There certainly were demagogues who argued such a position...just as there were demagogues in the North who were burning the Constitution and calling for the utter extermination of white Southerners. These demagogues no more represented the people of the South as a whole than did those at the North.

joatsimeon@aol.com said:
-- I suggest you read the secession declarations of the Southern states. None of them mention anything else besides slavery. (And the horrors of potential black rapists lusting after the pure white women if slavery was abolished.)

Having read all of these, your analysis is very simplistic. First, only four of the States (South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas) issued such declarations. Of those who did, only two of them can be seen as ringing endorsements of slavery...those of Mississippi and Texas.

South Carolina's document is a legal argument justifying their action in seceding from the Union. Where slavery is mentioned, it is in citing violations of the Constitution by the Northern States which justified South Carolina in declaring the compact of the Constitution dissolved and seceding from it.

Georgia's document also contains no endorsement of slavery. It does state that the agitation against slavery in the North was the cause of it's secession. But it also states that secession would not have been necessary save for the fact that the anti-slave elements in the North had allied themselves with the other traditional enemies of the South...the faction which promoted high tariffs and other business subsidies to promote Northern business interests. So Georgia was actually seceding to get away from both of these groups...not just the anti-slavery group.

The other three original seven states...Florida, Alabama, and Louisiana, never issued statements declaring the causes of their secession.

As for Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, Arkansas, and later Kentucky and Missouri, those States seceded because the Federal Government had announced it's decision (by demanding these States provide their militias for the enterprise) to invade the seceding states and reimpose the Union by force of bayonets. Their decisions had nothing to do with slavery at all.
 
robertp6165 said:
There certainly were demagogues who argued such a position...just as there were demagogues in the North who were burning the Constitution and calling for the utter extermination of white Southerners. These demagogues no more represented the people of the South as a whole than did those at the North.

WTF? Which group ever demanded "the utter extermination of white Southerners"? C'mon, even Farrakhan isn't radical enough for that.
 
Top