Man Born in 1846 Talks About the 1860s and Fighting in the Civil War - Restored Audio..sounds like today IMO

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Raido Free America

Radio Free America
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 24, 2020
Messages
2,461
Reaction score
2,811
Location
Tulsa, OK.
yes again, it's a simple question that the people who keep crying "muh slavery" won't even attempt to answer.

>was the South fighting to *impose* slavery in the North?
>was the North fighting to *end* slavery in the South?

these aren't mutual. we fought to "end terrorism" when we invaded the middle east. i remember W flying in on that jet and declaring "mission accomplished" but last time i checked there's still terrorism, especially in that part of the world?

like i established in my previous posts, *slavery does indeed still exist in the world, and arguably in every major city in the US, particularly the "sanctuary cities".*

if you view the war as the South fighting the North, being the aggressor, how can you be an aggressor when you are fighting to *maintain* something that is being eliminated thru an external force?

if you view the war as the North fighting the South, being the aggressor, then it makes sense how the North would be literally *invading* the South in order to end slavery. ***of course*** it makes sense for the media manipulators of the times then *and* the times now to refer to the civil war as a "war on slavery".

but as my analogy, it is really proper to call our middle east engagements, the longest in US history, a "war on terror"?

a war on drugs?

like, you're still operating under the completely false assumption that the South being defeated *ended* slavery.
One ordinary Confederate Solder summed it up well when ask, " Why are you fighting when you don't own slaves?" His answer was , because you are down here!
 

Cold Smoke

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Messages
1,511
Reaction score
2,071
Location
Norman
If you read the CSA constitution, they specifically added slavery to it. Sort of their own bill of rights. That makes the CSA a self described racist country. Yet even today, lots of people online regret that the CSA lost the war. Amazing.
I’m a little confused, perhaps it’s a lack of definitions. What race is a slave? What race is a Muslim?

Is it racist to refer to the multi-million slaves captured from Europe by the Barbary Pirates. How about the Hielan Scots vacated and sold during the Clearances? Were the slave owners of color predominantly in Mississippi, Louisiana and Indian Territory racists or participants in the economy of the time? I’ll have to go find the source again, but it’s roughly calculated that more people exist in a state of chattel slavery world wide now than at the close of hostilities in the War of Northern Aggression. If the WEF have their way, we will all be living as slaves by the definition of the term.

Racist as a term bandied about these days is a construct of the Bolshevik revolutionaries to subdivide cultures for domination and extermination. Only a sucker plays by commie rules. No matter what the terminology de jeure is, a commie is a commie and best served at room temperature.
 

El Pablo

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
8,110
Reaction score
9,080
Location
Yukon
I’m a little confused, perhaps it’s a lack of definitions. What race is a slave? What race is a Muslim?

Is it racist to refer to the multi-million slaves captured from Europe by the Barbary Pirates. How about the Hielan Scots vacated and sold during the Clearances? Were the slave owners of color predominantly in Mississippi, Louisiana and Indian Territory racists or participants in the economy of the time? I’ll have to go find the source again, but it’s roughly calculated that more people exist in a state of chattel slavery world wide now than at the close of hostilities in the War of Northern Aggression. If the WEF have their way, we will all be living as slaves by the definition of the term.

Racist as a term bandied about these days is a construct of the Bolshevik revolutionaries to subdivide cultures for domination and extermination. Only a sucker plays by commie rules. No matter what the terminology de jeure is, a commie is a commie and best served at room temperature.
Muslim is a race as much as Jews are. Race is a social construct, It’s a common misperception it has only to do with skin color. Jews are considered a race even though 90 some percent identify as white.

Originally race just meant a group of people, like a race of monks.
 

Cold Smoke

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Messages
1,511
Reaction score
2,071
Location
Norman
Muslim is a race as much as Jews are. Race is a social construct, It’s a common misperception it has only to do with skin color. Jews are considered a race even though 90 some percent identify as white.

Originally race just meant a group of people, like a race of monks.
I suppose I should have used the term Islamic rather than Muslim, the various people groups who adhere to the tenets are not homogeneous. I used the term Muslim to refer to the various people groups who adhere to the various sects of Islam. I’m not an anthropologist, but I’m pretty sure there are distinct differences between the nations who occupy Singapore and those who occupy Chechnya or modern Turkey etc.

In regards to the side bar of the OP, slavery did not become an issue in TWoNA until the vastly outnumbered Suthroners continued to turn Yankee arses into sombreros. The recent slave uprising in Haiti was the source of inspiration for the DC vermin whose ambition was to foment similar unrest in the South. Lincoln himself said he would free all the slaves, half the slaves or none of the slaves, whatever it took to preserve the Union. He also said that the black man would never be the equal of the white man. They supposed they could water down the efficacy of the Suthron armies if they were simultaneously holding back the Union armies and suppressing an internal uprising. The actual defeat of the South was not due to any great maneuvers of the North. It was in fact the disparate Suthron states failed to bolster each other and unify to provide strength to need. It was an excess of independence and an early unwillingness to respond in kind to the threat levied against them.

The fact is that the Suthron agrarian economy was the engine of the original confederation. The northern industrial base was trying to get its legs under itself in the face of superior European goods. This was an untenable position to a population in the north, superior in numbers and afflicted with a hubris that exists to this very day.
 
Last edited:

okcBob

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
5,510
Reaction score
8,703
Location
okc
I’m a little confused, perhaps it’s a lack of definitions. What race is a slave? What race is a Muslim?
Is it racist to refer to the multi-million slaves captured from Europe by the Barbary Pirates. How about the Hielan Scots vacated and sold during the Clearances? Were the slave owners of color predominantly in Mississippi, Louisiana and Indian Territory racists or participants in the economy of the time? I’ll have to go find the source again, but it’s roughly calculated that more people exist in a state of chattel slavery world wide now than at the close of hostilities in the War of Northern Aggression. If the WEF have their way, we will all be living as slaves by the definition of the term.

Racist as a term bandied about these days is a construct of the Bolshevik revolutionaries to subdivide cultures for domination and extermination. Only a sucker plays by commie rules. No matter what the terminology de jeure is, a commie is a commie and best served at room temperature.
Since the discussion is about the CSA & slavery I assume the definition is from the CSA constitution & CSA govt officials,which defines slaves as negroes of the African race.
 
Last edited:

Cold Smoke

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Messages
1,511
Reaction score
2,071
Location
Norman
Since the discussion is about the CSA & slavery I assume the definition is from the CSA constitution which defines slaves as negroes of the African race.
No where in any of those documents was a particular race specified. Only those on one side of a particular arrangement, an arrangement not widely partaken in or embraced by the majority of the population. It says nothing about Caribe or South American indigenous people or those in a state of indenture. There’s a specific reason for the enslavement of particular peoples despite the repugnance to modern sensibilities.

For a bit of trivial entertainment, see how many slaves were imported under Suthron colours vs those imported under the colors of These United States. Bonus for the ethnicity of the majority of brokers in human flesh.
 

El Pablo

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Apr 5, 2007
Messages
8,110
Reaction score
9,080
Location
Yukon
Easy, Africans were used as slaves because they lived longer and had more skills than the poor white who had limited skills. The poor whites who tended to die before their indentured servitude was up. Natives also dropped like flies due to the old world diseases brought over.
 
Last edited:

Cold Smoke

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 19, 2019
Messages
1,511
Reaction score
2,071
Location
Norman
Easy, Africans we’re used as slaves because they lived longer and had more skills than the poor white who had limited skills. The poor whites who tended to die before their indentured servitude was up. Natives also dropped like flies due to the old world diseases brought over.
There ya go! Physical resilience and acquired resistance to subtropical diseases common to the region. That and they were relatively inexpensive on the world market. The fat ones were eaten or enslaved by their regional conquerors. The rest were trotted out to the coastal markets. Despite the fodder for film, unshaven white dudes did not charge into the interior and round up villagers while raping the chickens and goats, unless they were Sassenachs and the goats particularly cute...
 

okcBob

Sharpshooter
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
5,510
Reaction score
8,703
Location
okc
No where in any of those documents was a particular race specified. Only those on one side of a particular arrangement, an arrangement not widely partaken in or embraced by the majority of the population. It says nothing about Caribe or South American indigenous people or those in a state of indenture. There’s a specific reason for the enslavement of particular peoples despite the repugnance to modern sensibilities.

For a bit of trivial entertainment, see how many slaves were imported under Suthron colours vs those imported under the colors of These United States. Bonus for the ethnicity of the majority of brokers in human flesh.
“Sec. 9. (I) The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.
Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due.”

Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, in his “Cornerstone Speech” proclaims that slavery and white supremacy were not only the cause for secession, but also the “cornerstone” of the Confederate nation.
”…Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.…”

Now, If you want to claim that the CSA was not racist & never legalized negro slavery, good luck with that. Being pedantic doesn’t help your argument. The bottom line is the CSA wanted slavery to continue after secession & specifically put it in their constitution so it wouldn’t be outlawed. Still amazed after all these years that folks still wanted the South to win the war.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Top Bottom