Wednesday, Sep. 2, 2015    Login | Register           

Was the Civil War about slavery?

Terry Garlock's picture

This year marks the 150th anniversary of America’s Civil War, and the occasion is raising the perennial argument over whether that war was about slavery or state’s rights. While the history and politics of slavery in America would fill a long bookshelf, the debate is an occasion to look past the simplicity of pop history to a few highlights that illuminate some warts and wrinkles in our country’s beginnings.

Long before slavery spread to North America, the practice had taken deep root in the Caribbean and what we now call Central and South America, brought by European colonists along with their more advanced civilization, Christianity and a few virulent diseases.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting by comparison the natives were pure. All over the world, humans have been killing and enslaving each other since long before any written history, with the spoils going to the strongest. Our own native Americans practiced a rich variety of brutality and slavery, though a few tribes like the Cherokee Nation were extraordinarily civilized, making our lousy treatment of them particularly egregious.

As colonies in North America became established, the British soon recognized the profit potential in slavery for labor-intensive agriculture. It seems the smell of gold can nudge our susceptible minds to rationalize almost anything, and the crop-intensive southern colonies soon built a slave-based economy. A lot of that money found its way back to England, and some would use the moral excuse that the system of slavery was forced on them by the king.

In 1776 when the colonies were struggling against the chokehold of the British, they finally broached the subject of independence. While they debated in the Philadelphia Continental Congress meetings, the elephant in the room nobody wished to mention was slavery.

The colonies had never before acted in concert on anything, and leading spokesmen knew they had a chance to unite to fight for independence, or they could fight each other over slavery, but that either choice precluded the other. Southern colonies would tolerate no intrusion into the slavery base of their economy. Northern colonies held a rather convenient morally dim view on slavery since their pocketbook was not affected, but they soon learned they had to postpone dealing with the abomination of slavery in order to gain the cooperation of southern colonies.

The first meetings did not even consider the treasonous idea of independence. When John Adams of Massachusetts sensed the Congress shifting towards his notion of independence, he made a strategic offer to form a committee to draft a declaration while negotiations continued. Adams persuaded Thomas Jefferson to draft the statement since Jefferson was a persuasive writer.

Jefferson was from Virginia, one of the southern slave colonies and the most populous by far. Jefferson’s paradox was that he owned hundreds of slaves to work his plantation while he was philosophically opposed to the slavery system, and in his list of grievances against the king he inserted the following language into his draft, surely knowing the firestorm of division it would create:.

“... Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms against us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them, thus paying off former crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another ...”

The drafting committee, perhaps Adams or Franklin, struck this slavery language out of the Declaration of Independence, replacing it with the following vague reference to the King’s promise of freedom to slaves in the colonies who would join the British to fight their masters: “... He has excited domestic Insurrections among us; ...”

And thus began what I would call a conspiracy of silence on the subject of slavery in America. Those deeply involved in politics kept this festering division under wraps, America’s version of a crazy aunt locked in an attic, not to be discussed openly, the subject of whispers in dark corners to preserve a fragile union.

Thomas Jefferson may have been bold in drafting his indictment of the British on the subject of slavery, possibly thinking that would absolve him and other slave owners, but the truth is not quite so tidy. While Jefferson accomplished many notable things in his life, the subject of slavery was not one to give him any cause of pride.

For such a powerful and influential writer, he was remarkably silent on slavery even while others railed against the inhumanity and injustice of the system. In the decades following the Revolution, the population of freed slaves in Virginia grew rapidly as one after another slave owner freed their slaves as a matter of conscience, or included such freedom at their death by their will. But while some of his fellow Virginians were setting their slaves free, Jefferson never did.

When the war ended with America’s independence in 1781, the country operated under Articles of Confederation until the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 to shape the form of our government. At last, America’s great thinkers were gathering to decide how we would govern ourselves, and surely the slavery issue would be finally settled, wouldn’t it?

In the Pennsylvania State House, over three months the representatives of the former colonies, now states, worked and argued, forming factions to support this or oppose that. The southern states were most interested in preserving their status quo on slavery while large and small states were at each others’ throats over the issue of apportionment and how votes in Congress would be counted.

As a prime example of Congress’ noxious deal-making specialty, northern states struck a bargain with southern states to extend the slave trade for 20 years in exchange for making federal regulation of commerce a mere majority vote in Congress instead of requiring a two-thirds majority. It seems that northern morality, just as southern morality, had its price.

The infamous Constitutional clause (Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3) counting slaves as three-fifths of a person is often derided as a gross example of racism, but that over-simplified view is mistaken even though the truth is not much better.

The fraction was a negotiated deal on enumeration to determine how taxes were distributed and how many representatives a state would have. Northern states didn’t want slaves counted at all, while southern slave states wanted slaves counted as a full person. Three-fifths was the compromise, the best deal either side could strike.

And so America’s Constitution was formed with nary an honorable attempt to get rid of slavery. While the new federal government kicked the slavery can down the road, the issue was bubbling at the state level and some states passed their own abolition laws.

By the time the first shot of the Civil War was fired in 1861, there had been ongoing struggles over slavery and compromises on the spread of slavery to western territories. Maybe the war and its bloodbath were inevitable, made necessary by deep, unresolved differences that grew into resentment, suspicion and suppressed anger just below the surface and ready to blow at the slightest provocation.

Does President Abraham Lincoln deserve the accolades he still receives for freeing the slaves in the Emancipation Proclamation? He said, “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. ...”

Lincoln held the proclamation in abeyance as he waited impatiently for a Union victory on the battlefield to make the announcement, apparently to maximize political effect.

Furthermore, it was announced in September 1862, as a provision that would go into effect only for those Confederate states who had not returned to the Union by the following January. No Confederate state complied, and when Emancipation was announced on Jan. 1, 1863, it was an order to free 3 million slaves in the Confederate states where the Union held no power to enforce it, and it did not free the nearly 1 million slaves in Union states.

Secretary of State William Seward said of this absurdity, “We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free.”

Lincoln, a Republican, angered northern Democrats with this proclamation as they favored ending the war by accepting slavery. Both parties have committed far too many offenses since that time for either to claim any virtue on the matter.

Personally, I think Lincoln was a great man and a fine President, albeit with many flaws, illustrating our tendency to overlook facts to simplify history and beatify our favorite historical figures.

Was the Civil War about slavery? Well, sure it was, but it was also about the absolute unwillingness of some states to bend to the will of outsiders, and it was about the cowardice of Congress to deal with tough issues, to sweep problems under the rug, to postpone controversy so someone else might handle it in the future, to trade away the most profound principles for a little mutual back-scratching.

Sound familiar?

[Terry Garlock lives in Peachtree City and occasionally contributes a column to The Citizen. His email is terry@garlock1.com.]

Comments

Hmm, those noble South Carolinians had every chance to put all the REAL reasons in their declaration of secession. But, they seem to be fixed on one, and one only--SLAVERY!

I don't see anything about unfair taxes--but I see a lot about SLAVERY!

I don't see anything about unfair trade--but I see a lot about SLAVERY!

I don't see anything about Union troops on southern soil--but I see a lot about SLAVERY!

In fact, I don't see anything about anything much but--SLAVERY!

Now, if there were other factors behind South Carolina's secession, that document would have been the place to put them, at least one or two, don't you think?

But my pa, and his pa, and his pa, and his pa, who were true and noble South Carolinians (Georgians, Virginians, fill in your favorite slave state) said that the war WASN'T about slavery, it was about states rights and the Constitution and, and, and, and the southern way of life! Yes, little Johnny, that's right, go to sleep now and soon you'll be old enough to tote that gun...God Bless the CSA!

I wonder who the Falcons will take in the 3rd round--I'm guessing linebacker.

Go Hawks!

G35 Dude's picture

This discussion is about the entire Confederacy so I'm going to respond to you using Georgia's letter of secession. Yes slavery is mentioned as I've not denied that it was a factor. But it was far from the only factor.

[Quote]I don't see anything about unfair taxes--but I see a lot about SLAVERY![/Quote]

Here Georgia lists how taxes are used for the north and nothing for the south.

The material prosperity of the North was greatly dependent on the Federal Government; that of the the South not at all. In the first years of the Republic the navigating, commercial, and manufacturing interests of the North began to seek profit and aggrandizement at the expense of the agricultural interests. Even the owners of fishing smacks sought and obtained bounties for pursuing their own business (which yet continue), and $500,000 is now paid them annually out of the Treasury. The navigating interests begged for protection against foreign shipbuilders and against competition in the coasting trade. Congress granted both requests, and by prohibitory acts gave an absolute monopoly of this business to each of their interests, which they enjoy without diminution to this day. Not content with these great and unjust advantages, they have sought to throw the legitimate burden of their business as much as possible upon the public; they have succeeded in throwing the cost of light-houses, buoys, and the maintenance of their seamen upon the Treasury, and the Government now pays above $2,000,000 annually for the support of these objects. Theses interests, in connection with the commercial and manufacturing classes, have also succeeded, by means of subventions to mail steamers and the reduction in postage, in relieving their business from the payment of about $7,000,000 annually, throwing it upon the public Treasury under the name of postal deficiency. The manufacturing interests entered into the same struggle early, and has clamored steadily for Government bounties and special favors. This interest was confined mainly to the Eastern and Middle non-slave-holding States.

[quote]I don't see anything about unfair trade--but I see a lot about SLAVERY![/Quote]

The act of 1846 gave northern states an unfair advantage in avoidance of taxes by delaying taxes being due until the product was sold.

But when these reasons ceased they were no less clamorous for Government protection, but their clamors were less heeded-- the country had put the principle of protection upon trial and condemned it. After having enjoyed protection to the extent of from 15 to 200 per cent. upon their entire business for above thirty years, the act of 1846 was passed. It avoided sudden change, but the principle was settled, and free trade, low duties, and economy in public expenditures was the verdict of the American people. The South and the Northwestern States sustained this policy. There was but small hope of its reversal; upon the direct issue, none at all.

[quote] I don't see anything about Union troops on southern soil--but I see a lot about SLAVERY![/quote]

Of course not. They weren't here until after these letters were written. This letter of succession can be found at the following link on the Yale Law server.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_geosec.asp

You can't use logic with an illogical person.

suggarfoot's picture

"In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sovereignty; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of government in all its departments-- Legislative, Executive and Judicial. For purposes of defense, they united their arms and their counsels; and, in 1778, they entered into a League known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to entrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first Article "that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled.............Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely: the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And concurrent with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother Country a FREE, SOVEREIGN AND INDEPENDENT STATE.......The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were several sovereign States; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed the compact was to take effect among those concurring; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then invested with their authority.

If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were-- separate, sovereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Constitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation"

The deal gones on, but what they were siting was that the inital agreement was that they would be a Union...ONLY.. as long as they all agreed to.

The South had no need of the North. It was a bad marriage and they wanted out. They were taxed and the money went North for improvements. They got no benifit of it. The North wanted to keep them in for the same reason. They liked the South's money.

It wasn't all about Slavery.

Mike King's picture

First South Carolina slaves were freed by the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862 during the Civil War, which did NOT free any slaves held outside those states that seceeded. Yes, there were slaves outside southern states, ergo your mental acunen.

Strom Thurmond never owned slaves but did father a daughter by a black woman who has yet to utter anything derogatory against her father of which I'm aware. You might know better, but if you do prove it.

You are correct in that large plantation owners such as Washington and Jefferson owned hundreds of slaves, but the average landowner of the south simply could not afford them.

If you are indeed insulted, get over it. Life will go on.

The 'black ' woman who was the acknowledged daughter of Strom Thurmond was a college graduate and a teacher in the Los Angeles area. Storm Thurmond supported her and her mother with the understanding that she would not speak of the relationship until after his death . Many of her classmates and sorority sisters had a similar background. This situation was all to common in the south. Mr. Thurmond was reportedly always responsive to her financial needs while she was in college. She and her mother abided by the arrangement. Because she said 'nothing' does not hide the fact that she did not condone the situation.

Proof:

http://www.google.com/search?q=strom+thurmond+daughter&hl=en&client=safa...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-01-26-thurmond-cover_x.htm

Yep, DM, silence on such subjects has always been the method of covering up evils.
Our military does it; our CIA does it; our FBI does it; and nearly all State, and local governments do it.

Such contracts as she had are often the usual method as long as the money is adequate or continues flowing.

How could this woman agree that Thurmond did the right thing to her Mother otherwise? Also, it deteriorates all relations with an entire race.

Thurmond did many very good things for the USA; he also did many bad things. We should recognize both. He was short on character and was hypocritical at it's worst.

suggarfoot's picture

So Thurmond supported her...so what? Bad Thurmond. You would have been happier David's Mom if he didn't? I've got a great idea, why don't you get after the black dads that don't take care of their kids? Do you see anything wrong with that?

Year after year you get on here in whine about not being understood cause you are black. Let me tell you that in my opinion, you and orange head little groupie, are embarrassments to most blacks that want to be, and are accepted, on their own actions. You are totally obnoxious!

I know a lot of blacks that work everyday and don't remind you that 150 years ago, their ancestors, may, or may not, have been slaves. Whites respect them because they have a good work ethic and want to be accepted for themselves and what they do. They don't dye their hair yeller, nor do they grow 2 inch long fingernails. And....they don't show a ugly attitude to 'whitie' and try to show you how lazy they can be and then dare you to fire them. Making sure 'whitie' understands that if you dare comment on the obnoxious way they treat customers they will have the NAACP in to sue.

The 1st group are the blacks ...I.. respect. Why? Because they earn it every day.

I've got some real opinions on the length of your nails.

I'm honored that your 'type' find 'me' obnoxious. I have no idea who you know, but I do know that of all of the 'white' people I know - we have a mutual respect for each other because of our work ethic, etc. I don't remember whining about anything, but obviously, that is what you heard. I hear the sad attempt of one trying to defend his/ her own ignorance. I've been fortunate not to personally encounter anyone like you, except on 'blogs'. Keep posting, you are an embarrassment - but an eye opener for many to realize that there are still pockets of ignorance to be exposed to the light of true brotherhood and patriotism.

suggarfoot's picture

Ouch! "I have no idea who you know", sounds like I hit the nail on the head with the 'yeller' hair, 2 inch fingernails, and attitude.. nope, don't know anyone that knows you...just a guess. ha ha that will give me a laugh the rest of the day I got it right.

Mike King's picture

What you fail to comprehend or acknowledge, is that when Mr Thurmond's indescretion took place what were the social norms of the time. I would believe that he would have done exactly the same thing if the lady was white. Can you say the same about the fathers of unwed African American mothers? Further, I would ask that you look at other aspects of his life, not one instance of youthful indulgence to get a better picture of the man.

BTW, during all of your digging did you happen to find any quotes from the mother?

She kept her end if the bargain, with dignity. Accepted social norm? Please. Check the courts. Oh my, there are 'white men' in court for non- child support - and the number of single mothers among 'white women ' is growing. This is a problem that is becoming equalized. Sad. All Americans should be concerned about this problem, including the Palins - right? Because 'that's the way it was'. Doesn't make it right. Read the article. You'll get your answer.

At least the white women know who the daddy is.

While 28 percent of white women gave birth out of wedlock in 2007, nearly 72 percent of black women and more than 51 percent of Latinas did.

[quote=grizz]At least the white women know who the daddy is.

While 28 percent of white women gave birth out of wedlock in 2007, nearly 72 percent of black women and more than 51 percent of Latinas did.[/quote]

Sooooo....."out of wedlock" equates to "unknown father" in your mind?

For there to be certain segment of the population bred and taught from birth and generation to generation that they have an obligation to go fight in every war conceived by government officials under the banner of truth, honor, justice, democracy, the American way, baseball, hot dogs, and Chevrolet (well, maybe Kia now, since that bankruptcy thing and there being a big plant just down the expressway)? Perhaps you are saying that 'that's just the way it is,' and I would agree with that, but if you are suggesting that there is something noble, moral, or even honorable about it, I would not. Dressing up killing, especially on a massive scale, as anything other than killing is, well, just plain ignoble, immoral, and dishonorable.

Now, you seem to be a sports kind of guy. What do you think of the Falcon's draft move last night? Too expensive, even if Julio turns out to be the next Randy Moss or Larry Fitzgerald? I think not! September will tell!

Go Braves--Huddy on the mound!

Mike King's picture

The move to take Julio is likely to be the finest front office move in Falcon history, given time.

You can not dress up the slaughter of human beings for it is certainly ignoble and immoral, and it is especially so for those who bring it about. It is they and their forebears who will likely never fight the battles, but the young and impressionable in America who do their bidding. It is these young men and women who each of us owe an immeasurable debt of gratitude because their sacrifice and service is both honorable and noble.

I'll end by quoting an unknown author of a saying that I have kept close for nearly forty years now: "For those who have fought and almost died, life has a flavor the protected will never know."

The Braves play better on Saturday.

G35 Dude's picture

Mike, The estimates that I've heard most is that 10 - 20% of southerners owned slaves. However what no one wants to discuss is how many northerners owned slaves. The boarder states, slave states that stayed in the union, the estimates are equal or even higher. At one point in the war it is reported that the Confederates offered to free all slaves for independence. Lincoln refused this offer as he said that he did not recognize the Confederacy as a legal government with which he could bargain. This was an interesting response since he had earlier offered to allow the Confederate states to keep their slaves if they would return to the union.

You can't use logic with an illogical person.

Mike King's picture

Your estimates may be a bit high because most slaveowners in South Carolina just prior to 1861 were descendants of the British Sympathizers during that little conflict beginning in 1776. Generally speaking, small farmers were of Irish and Scottish heritage who had no real devotion to the plantation owners, but valued their independence and property to the point of fighting for it.

suggarfoot's picture

Anyone that thinks a small farm owner fought for the rights of the large plantation owners to own slaves, plantation owners whom they were in direct competition with...are insane!!!

These small farmers fought because they were invaded! ...

AND....

you hit the nail on the head about who were the largest slave owners! If only these people would READ!

THE BRITISH...sympathizers...you are so correct. They were the British themselves. They settled in Virginia and accumulated slaves, when the land played out, or in most of thems case, during the Rev war, England gave a lot of them land along the Mississippi River because they weren't safe being known Tories after the war. Some of the most fertile land on earth. I've read in diaries, of people seeing them make the trip across land with a hundred slaves in tow. If you look at the Mississippi census, and check the counties along the river, you will see them sitting there with 2-3 hundred slaves. They also have white imported en dentures from Germany to raise their kids.

These are the same people that while the Irish and the Scot-Irish were fighting the Brits, wouldn't fight.

The Irish and the Scots had no love lost between them and the British sympathizers. Again, when they had the civil war, a lot of the English got an exemption to fight in the war. A lot of them sited that they had too many slaves and it would be a danger if they left their plantation to go off to war.

In Mississippi alone, two counties tried to succeed from the state. Smith and Jones county. If you didn't sign up, you were conscripted. Toward the end of the war, when it was hopeless, there were many deserters. I've read an account that Nathan Beford Forrest shot 2 deserters to set an example. One was an old man, the other a young boy. My ggg was with Nathan Bedford till the surrender. I don't know if he thought about tip towing out a few times.

They fought because they were invaded..and they fought because of who they were. They were scrappy.

People know very little of their history. The Irish will always fight. And many of the Scot Irish are the old Normans. They are some of the fiercest people around. They are not Scots, and they are not Irish, nor French. They are the old Normans.

Their names are distinctively Norman, Montgomery, Houston, Crockett, King, Sinclair, Forrest, Johnston(Johnston is a derivative of Houston)

There is a theory that the large plantation owners, upon seeing some of the small and poor white farmers sympathizing with some slaves, decided to allow them privileges and 'rights' not allocated to the 'blacks'. The reasoning, if these two groups joined together, they could erode the power of the large plantation owner. Interesting theory. Not too different from the opposition to the war on poverty and having the poor in this
country unite, regardless of color or religion. Hmmmmmm.

MajorMike's picture

Are you a teacher or professor? If not you certainly should be. Thanks for your very informative and historically accurate entries in this thread.

A question for you: My mother’s family (ggf - Powell) was always referred to as Scotch / Irish, could it be that it was actually Scots Irish and I misunderstood? Mom was a blue eyed red head and had the temperament to match. The other half of that family was Sherman - yep, same one. He was my maternal grandfather’s great great uncle. I would not presume to guess how that relates to me.

suggarfoot's picture

Thank you for the complement. I'm neither. I'm just someone who has been interested in genealogy. By doing it, I've seen a lot of old records.

I believe dead men just don't lie. The old letters, the wills, they tell how these guys lived and how they saw things.

I haven't checked out that name because it isn't one that I'm related to. Just looking a little though, it says it is Welsh. I will have to dig deeper. That is where the Normans hit 1st, so in digging deeper, that may well be were it came from. What I did do is look at the Powell DNA study. They are I1 and R1b1 which are Scandinavian. I1 is clearly Viking. Vikings had red hair...and tempers. ha ha

also valued not being arrested or shot or both by the conscription squads, at least the ones that couldn't hire someone to take their place!

I do blame that Scots Irish mentality partly for the willingness of the South to fight!

Oh yeah, seems those Mississippians had slavery at the top of their grievance list too!

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/mississippi_declaration.asp

I think CSA president Jefferson Davis said it best when he said,

"My own convictions as to negro slavery are strong. It has its evils and abuses...We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude...You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be."

suggarfoot's picture

of the South to fight!"

Ignorance is bliss. You can ...blame...anyone you want and wallow in self pity, or you can move forward.

I, nor no other Southerner will give you an apology for the war. We don't owe you one.

As for your slam of the Scot Irish (Normans), their bravery and honesty, along with that of the Irish, early Germans, etc, helped make this county great.

It has been said that religion was the opium of the masses in early years.

After the founding of this county, unity, was the opium. In many many ways, it was a good thing. The founders of this country voted for one language etc, everything to unify it. But, as I clearly reprinted for you read, when this country was founded, the agreement was self government of each state and that they would come together for the good of all. When anyone wanted out, the agreement was they could get out. The north broke that contract.

Why? Lets go over it again. They freed the slaves in the south..only, not the North over which they had total control. That should be your 1st clue it wasn't all about slavery. A famous quote by Lincoln concerning letting the south out of the Union, "Then who would pay the taxes?" Surely common sense would tell you it wasn't all about slavery.

Now the new opium, is blame, rather than honor, diversity, rather than unity, and entitlement,(you owe me for what they did back then).

You might want to look deeper into what is opium. It causes an unwarranted sense of euphoria, a sense of well-being and a calm, and of course, it is addictive.

You also might look for a deeper lesson, and draw parallels with today.

This was suppose to be a penal colony, a money maker for special interest groups in England. They sold all Irish, Scot Irish dissidents, and any English that they could charge with a crime, such as stealing food for their children, to being life slaves in the colonies. That didn't work so good, even after branding the runaway slaves on both sides of their face. They still ran away and blended in another settlement. The English special interest groups decided blacks couldn't blend in. They were next choice.

If you want to crawl off in a corner with your crack pipe, please do so. Meanwhile the same self serving special interest groups are alive and cooking in Washington. They use you for money, now, just as then.

You have paid lobbyist, to circumvent the power of your one vote. In other words, a rich man, or company has the funds to send someone to Washington to sway a congressman into voting for what they want, over the will, or vote, of the people.

You have a military that is self funded by the US to fight others wars. There are none braver their our men but very often those wars where again, special interest groups come out the winners. The war machine funded by your tax dollars and your children's blood. Not always used for the good of home and harth.

Almost everything that has been 'deregulated' by big business lobbist, has backfired on the good of the common man and cost him more. There are so many government jobs that have been 'invented' as paybacks for friends.

Our government is almost usless. There are so many overpaid, underworked Federal employees, it is a joke.(did I leave out ignorant and undeserving?) I went in person and applied for SS after working over 40 years. I couldn't understand what happened to it. I called month after month. After 8 months, I MADE a supervisor check on it or I was going to tear the place apart. They had the nerve to tell me the paper work had lain on the employees desk all that time! The closest I got of an appology was he had been kind of sick and knew I would understand. Those type things in the private sector would have been held accountable.

In the budget they just approved, because the banks have run ruff shod over the consumer, a group was put in place called "Making home affordable". They were to make sure some of the old loans were redone into something fair. You will be happy to know that group is no more. The money was given instead to the oil companies for new exporation!those poor poor little oil companies. And..they get a tax rightoff. How does that benift the average homeowner?

So go get your crack pipe, take a hard toke, and think everything is going to be ok because you are still trying to get restitution for something that happened to blacks (and southerners) over 150 years ago. Meanwhile, as you partake of the opium of this age, your pocket is being picked and you are still being used by special interest.

Your enemy is not the southerner soldier, dead over a 150 years.

Your enemy is, as was then, special controling interest.

Fight the good fight, fight the right people. (divide and conquer has served special interest for many hundreds of years to subjugate the masses.)

Attention fellow bloggers! I've now become an instant expert on Scots Irish culture! Beware the Ninja!

It seems that the Scots Irish-led Southern Baptists seceded from the rest of the Baptists in 1845 over, you guessed it, SLAVERY!

You think this might have set the stage for political separation later? I do!

These Scots Irish are a fun crowd!---“The Anglo-Saxon-Scots-Irish people are the most warlike people in history, and their enemies forget it at their peril.”

I can see such sentiment in the writings of a few of my fellow bloggers, such as don't-get-me-riled-up MK!

Instead of church next Sunday, as I assume you have already been today, read this article on Southern Baptists by what seems to be an actual Southern Baptist himself!

http://web.me.com/johnalex1/Johns_Start_Page/Response_to_SBC.html

Welcome to the ATL Julio! That's 'Who-Lee-Oh' for all those out near the Spalding County line!

Go Falcons!

suggarfoot's picture

to stoop to your 'blame game', they might also use the same warped reasoning that Blacks Baptist in 1866 signaled they wanted the Jim Crow laws! It was at that time they pulled out of and away from, the White Baptists of the South and West and combined to form the Consolidated American Baptist Convention. They did the same thing in the North, "Free blacks in the North founded churches independent of white-dominated organizations".

I think I've had all the wisdom from you two I can take for a while.

It has been most enlightening to find that we rebels painted up in war paint and were massacred in Minnesota and North Dakota in the Civil war, and now to find the Southern Baptist started the war! Wow!

[quote]It has been most enlightening to find that we rebels painted up in war paint and were massacred in Minnesota and North Dakota in the Civil war, and now to find the Southern Baptist started the war! Wow![/quote]

Please don't confuse Suggarfoot with facts. This person has been so indoctrinated, that facts are considered illogical. Thanks for sharing. In all fairness, MOST SBC's in Fayetteville are inclusive . People attend religious services where they feel comfortable and welcomed. Segregated churches did not only exist in the south, all denominations practiced this in all American communities at one time or another. Sad, but true, To continue to deny the participation of Native Americans in the Civil War is the beacon of ignorance. To continue to deny that the confederacy wanted all new states admitted to the union to be slave states and tried hard to recruit in the north is illusionary. This celebration of the 150th anniversary will bring out some little known historical facts regarding this sad time in our history - and that's a good thing. No one should forget any soldier who died for our country. The south today has examples of Americans living together cooperatively that need to be advertised as role models for the rest of the country - and the world.

A hearty Ninja welcome to your response to my post! Your writing is chock full of Wa!

I was only pointing out that the schism between the Northern Baptists and the Southern Baptists over the issue of, you guessed it, SLAVERY!, was a precursor of the wider split 16 years later!

That Scots Irish mentality of never giving up was good for taming the wilderness of the southern states, but I fear that that same mindset was instrumental in the South firing the first shots at Fort Sumter, and getting the whole war rolling!

I have not yet become an instant expert on the involvement of native American involvement in the Civil War--I am saving that for tomorrow!

Adieu For Now My Fair Lady!

hutch866's picture

[quote=Davids mom] Sad, but true, To continue to deny the participation of Native Americans in the Civil War is the beacon of ignorance.[/quote]

Like I said earlier mom, nice try. Suggarfoot never denied that the Indians took part in the Civil War, she just said the Indian battles in the Dakotas and Minnesota had nothing to do with the Civil War. Dishonesty, or just plain lying on your part? You make the call.

I yam what I yam

Thanks for sharing.

hutch866's picture

You seemed to be real worried about Suggarfoot, facts, and confusion. Just trying to help out. I see you weren't willing to make that call huh?

I yam what I yam

Hutch-take your concern up with the US Parks dept. These wars were fought during the civil war against Indians who were either siding with the union or the confederacy. Why don't you look it up? Are you denying that the confederacy had a plan to 'conquer' new states and force them to join their side? These were Civil War battles.

hutch866's picture

I notice that you don't address the REAL topic here, the one of you assigning a false position to suggarfoot, but then, that's you all over.

PS, if you really believe the Sioux Indians were siding with the Confederates, your problems are deeper then I thought. Twist away mom, twist away.

I yam what I yam

suggarfoot's picture

"PS, if you really believe the Sioux Indians were siding with the Confederates, your problems are deeper then I thought. Twist away mom, twist away."

Hysterically funny, but sadly true.

But, part of it is that she wants to pull you away from the remark about Jim Crow. A good argument can be paid that they segregated themselves 1st. George washing Carver, one of the black leaders of the day was one of the backers of the Jim Crow laws.

Just as if you want to pay reparations, which she so badly desires, the truth is you would have to find all those poor white slaves 1st, Irish, Scot Irish, and indigent English orphan that were life slaves. She doesn't want to hear anything about them.

If she had to get in line behind the 1st real slaves for the pity pot, there might not be room left for her and Ninja.

She has whined on this board for years and asked for pity, Ninja the nerd, is her little agent orange brain damaged follower.

Nothing you have that I need except honesty. . . and you seem to have trouble with 'truth'. But keep posting, your refusal to deal with some reality in history is sadly revealing.

MajorMike's picture

DM - you would not know the truth if it smacked you in the face. There have been, in the past, bloggers that have compiled lists of your bald faced lies. All one has to do is check the Citizen archives.

Even the libs (for the most part) have given up coming to your defense. Your racist rhetoric is comparable to a horse that, while it is now a pile of dry bones, you keep whipping to gain just a little bit more distance.

You do indeed need to "get over it".

Thanks for your enlightened input.

.

hutch866's picture

I guess that period says it all. Couldn't meet the challenge.

I yam what I yam

What challenge? Read the references and what has been quoted in the discourse. Fact: Indians fought in the Civil War for both the Union and Confederacy. Fact: there is a poster who found this difficult to believe and did not feel encounters with Indians had anything to do with the Civil War. Fact: The US Park Services have identified these sites and provides information about the relevance to the period 1861-1865. Any more questions?

hutch866's picture

I guess you just can't be honest about anything can you? I'll make it easy for you...
[quote=hutch866]Here's your chance to prove me wrong, maybe I missed something, show me where suggarfoot said "NO" Indians participated in the Civil War.[/quote]

I can't be any plainer then that now can I? Just a couple of posts above, you know where you removed you post.

I yam what I yam

hutch866's picture

[quote=Davids mom]What challenge? [/quote] Post number 60 mom, I know you read it, you just can't admit you were wrong again, dishonest again, dare I say it, hell yeah, you lied again. Hey, are you having as much fun as I am. ( Now lets see Davids mom get all racial again)

I yam what I yam

I gave you the references. Twist your way around some facts. . . .use them . We can all learn from research. The real topic is the facts regarding the Civil War. . . And was the war about slavery. The confederate action in northern states was to extend their base of an economy based on slavery . Are you saying that this is not so? Please reference your sources. Thanks. . . And I'll continue to reference mine.

hutch866's picture

Here's your chance to prove me wrong, maybe I missed something, show me where suggarfoot said "NO" Indians participated in the Civil War.

I yam what I yam

I haven't lied . Expressed my opinion and gave references on why I formed the opinion, Having fun? Bored to death over your immaturity. You're absolutely right and I'm absolutely wrong. Feel better? Nighty nite!

hutch866's picture

All you have to do is show where suggarfoot said no Indians were involved in the Civil War. You do that and I'll apologize. You lie and I'm immature, got it.

I yam what I yam

Quote:
ALL THE DAKTOA 'CIVIL WAR' BATTLES...ALL FIGHTING THE INDIANS. (man were these guys confused) If they couldn't tell an Indian from a Rebel..well I don't know what to say.. And if you took your kids to these sites as Civil War battle grounds, I'm equally appalled

Now I interpreted this as saying the Civil War battles were reported incorrectly by saying they were fighting Indians . . That these misguided individuals couldn't tell an Indian from a Rebel. ( some of the many references even had pictures of Indians in Union and/or Confederate uniform. Sugar was equally appalled that I believed that the US Park service advertised these sites as part of the Civil War.) My interpretation of Sugar's statement - Indians were not part of the Civil War according to Sugar. I just offered references of anther point of view by historians . Did you or Sugar read any of the references? Don't answer - no one cares - the discussion has moved on .

hutch866's picture

Why yes I did read your links, that's why I think your reply is so much BS, here's the battles in Dakota Territory...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dead_Buffalo_Lake. Nowhere in there does it mention anything about the Confederates, in fact that might be why suggarfoot said what she did. So all in all, I have to call BS on you yet again.

I yam what I yam

me.and_the_sea's picture

"My own convictions as to negro slavery are strong. It has its evils and abuses...We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude...You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be."

have to directly own slaves to have an interest in continuing the system! First, the freeing of the slaves would unleash a fierce storm of competition in farming and other trades for the non-slaveholder whites. Second, the freeing of the slaves would erode what little status the poor whites had! Third, most the the non-slave-owning poor whites were hard-headed Scots Irish, making genetically disposed toward violence and mayhem! So, to say that one had to actually own slaves to be willing to fight for the system is incorrect!

Hawks vs. Bulls Tonight!

suggarfoot's picture

this is the last time I'm going to add you cause you are a serious nut case.

You really are looking through a kaleidoscope or playing with a ouija board.

Irish were coming off the boat daily..starving Irish. They would work themselves to death for a crust of bread. They would work for pennies a day. The big time slave owners were already employing them. They said in many old journals they were happy with them. They paid them little, didn't have to feed them, cloth them, or house them. If you think the blacks were going out in the fields and preforming some kind of special magic, guess again.

Slavery was on it's way out.

I'm not going on with the conversation with you or David's Mom and her talks of war painted rebels in Minnesota and North Dakota being massacred by US troops.

The bottom line is I am not apologizing for what happened 150 years ago, nor is anyone else.

I'm afraid you would have to get in line for the pity pot behind many whites, namely the first white Irish slaves brought here, then the free, but starving ones of the 1840-1850s. They have long since kicked the pity pot aside and gone on with their lives. The have too much pride.

I suggest to try to grow some. (Take that as pride, or appendages).

Pages

Ad space area 4 internal

Government

The Fayette County Public Art Committee is issuing a call for Fayette County photographers to participate in a unique photo mural project at the Fayette County Administration Building.

Sponsored Content

Opinion

Even those of us who are not supporters of either Donald Trump or Jeb Bush can learn something by comparing how each of these men handled people who tried to disrupt their question-and-answer perio

Community

The Southern Conservation Trust and First Baptist Church of Fayetteville will be hosting Serve Sunday, a community service day, Sept. 6 at The Ridge Nature Area.