Confederate Heritage

YamiB.

I saw something in another thread that made me think of making this topic.

In the United States there are still people who fly the Confederate flag and celebrate people like Confederate generals. Personally I think that people who do stuff like this should be considered to either be racist or ignorant. I think that showing support for a group who seceded and fought a war with a large reason being that they wanted to maintain racially based slavery should istelf be considered racist. I don't think that stuff like this should be banned, but I do think there should be a heavy social stigma attached to this type of celebration for the Confederacy.

What do you guys think of somebody who uses the Confederate flag or celebrates the Confederacy?

DarkDragoon

Because the Confederacy's whole reason for seceding was slavery and nothing else.

Also, there is a social stigma attatched to the people that try to glorify the Confederacy.

Jason Todd

Even if we assume the war wasn't completely about slavery, they were still fighting in part to maintain slavery. That makes them despicable, regardless of other motives.

Honk

Isn't there already kind of a social stigma associated with that flag?

Thanatos

I personally think Obama at the Alfalfa club dinner is hilarious.

If I were him, I would be showing up at every possible Confederate Heritage event.

Toxin01

Jason Todd wrote: »

Even if we assume the war wasn't completely about slavery, they were still fighting in part to maintain slavery. That makes them despicable, regardless of other motives.

The slavery issue wasn't even a major part of the civil war, and while I don't agree with everything the Confederates did I applaud them for having the balls to at least stand up to the government instead of being it's bitch like everyone seems to do today.

DarkDragoon

Honk wrote: »

Isn't there already kind of a social stigma associated with that flag?

Yes. Even in the south, the people who normally don't go around glorifying the rebel flag tend to see the people who have an obsession with the confederacy as rednecks/redneck wannabes/rascists/etc who don't even realize that the damn flag wasn't even the standard Confederate flag.

Hachface

Toxin01 wrote: »

Jason Todd wrote: »

Even if we assume the war wasn't completely about slavery, they were still fighting in part to maintain slavery. That makes them despicable, regardless of other motives.

The slavery issue wasn't even a major part of the civil war , and while I don't agree with everything the Confederates did I applaud them for having the balls to at least stand up to the government instead of being it's bitch like everyone seems to do today.

WOAH WOAH WOAH slooooooow down there, Nelly. Anyone who tries to tell you that slavery was not intimately and inextricably linked with Southern secession is selling you a bill of goods.

Fencingsax

Thanatos wrote: »

I personally think Obama at the Alfalfa club dinner is hilarious.

If I were him, I would be showing up at every possible Confederate Heritage event.

Next time, he should wear blackface.

Toxin01

Hachface wrote: »

Toxin01 wrote: »

Jason Todd wrote: »

Even if we assume the war wasn't completely about slavery, they were still fighting in part to maintain slavery. That makes them despicable, regardless of other motives.

The slavery issue wasn't even a major part of the civil war , and while I don't agree with everything the Confederates did I applaud them for having the balls to at least stand up to the government instead of being it's bitch like everyone seems to do today.

WOAH WOAH WOAH slooooooow down there, Nelly. Anyone who tries to tell you that slavery was not intimately and inextricably linked with Southern secession is selling you a bill of goods.

I didn't say that wasn't why the south seceded, but the north certainly didn't fight to free the slaves, although it was a factor.

YamiB.

DarkDragoon wrote: »

Because the Confederacy's whole reason for seceding was slavery and nothing else.

An important reason for their secession was maintaining their institution of racially based slavery.

These decelerations of secession from some confederate states mention hostility towards slavery in the North and failure in the North to enforce the fugitive slave law as reasons.

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

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

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

The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees it its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

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

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

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

e General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

Hachface

Toxin01 wrote: »

I didn't say that wasn't why the south seceded, but the north certainly didn't fight to free the slaves, although it was a factor.

Well what you said was that slavery wasn't a big factor in the Civil War. If slavery is the reason the South seceded, than slavery is very much a big factor in the Civil War.

wwtMask

Slavery was absolutely the reason for the Civil War. Name any reason that you think led to the civil war and I'll bet it has something to do with slavery.

Also, Confederate Heritage is funny stuff. Besides the racial implications of people celebrating it, there's also the fact that they're celebrating a group of people who were clearly anti-American radicals. Is it normal to praise and glorify the losing side in a civil war?

matt has a problem

Toxin01 wrote: »

Hachface wrote: »

Toxin01 wrote: »

Jason Todd wrote: »

Even if we assume the war wasn't completely about slavery, they were still fighting in part to maintain slavery. That makes them despicable, regardless of other motives.

The slavery issue wasn't even a major part of the civil war , and while I don't agree with everything the Confederates did I applaud them for having the balls to at least stand up to the government instead of being it's bitch like everyone seems to do today.

WOAH WOAH WOAH slooooooow down there, Nelly. Anyone who tries to tell you that slavery was not intimately and inextricably linked with Southern secession is selling you a bill of goods.

I didn't say that wasn't why the south seceded, but the north certainly didn't fight to free the slaves, although it was a factor.

Lincoln only freed the slaves as a political and military move. The original freeing of the slaves only applied to slaves in Confederate held territories, not in any of the Union states. The idea being, the slaves in the south would flee and weaken the infrastructure, and also give the Confederate government more to worry about with having to track them down.

Only after the war was over was slavery actually abolished.

Free blacks also owned land in the south, and fought on the Confederate side.

Fencingsax

wwtMask wrote: »

Slavery was absolutely the reason for the Civil War. Name any reason that you think led to the civil war and I'll bet it has something to do with slavery.

Also, Confederate Heritage is funny stuff. Besides the racial implications of people celebrating it, there's also the fact that they're celebrating a group of people who were clearly anti-American radicals. Is it normal to praise and glorify the losing side in a civil war?

The thing is, America also romanticizes the underdog in almost any fight. Fighting against superior numbers and technology and whatnot.

noir_blood

I think it can be argued(and has), that to the NORTH, Slavery wasn't the main factor for the war, that is, it wasn't "We have to abolish slavery and free them all!", but to the South, it was a driving point.

And I'm sure many people that show off the Confederate flag is that they are honoring the very ideals of America, the whole fighting for your beliefs and everything.

Hachface

Qingu will be in here any minute to tell us that we should have just left the South secede.

DevoutlyApathetic

Apparently the stars and bars is synonymous with "rebel" or "outlaw" in Europe without the racial overtones. That could lead to some awkward conversations.

matt has a problem

noir_blood wrote: »

I think it can be argued(and has), that to the NORTH, Slavery wasn't the main factor for the war, that is, it wasn't "We have to abolish slavery and free them all!", but to the South, it was a driving point.

And I'm sure many people that show off the Confederate flag is that they are honoring the very ideals of America, the whole fighting for your beliefs and everything.

It was a driving point because slavery to the south was their industry. It's as if you told the north they couldn't use smelters any more, and instead had to melt iron ore by rubbing it really fast. The south being a primarily agricultural society depended on slaves to produce that agriculture.

It wasn't like a bunch of white guys in the south said "man I love owning black people!" As screwed up as it was, slaves were just farm equipment to them. It'd be the equivalent of abolishing grain threshers today.

This doesn't excuse the owning of another person of course.

Hachface

The rich and powerful in the South, from the time before the Revolution, were keenly aware of how vital chattel slavery was to their livelihood. Virtually every single political action taken by the southern states from revolutionary times to the end of the Civil War was bent toward the preservation of slavery. It is frankly mindboggling how anyone can say the Civil War wasn't about slavery.

Edit: And by "livelihood" I mean of course "extravagant wealth."

Kipling217

matthasaproblem wrote: »

noir_blood wrote: »

I think it can be argued(and has), that to the NORTH, Slavery wasn't the main factor for the war, that is, it wasn't "We have to abolish slavery and free them all!", but to the South, it was a driving point.

And I'm sure many people that show off the Confederate flag is that they are honoring the very ideals of America, the whole fighting for your beliefs and everything.

It was a driving point because slavery to the south was their industry. It's as if you told the north they couldn't use smelters any more, and instead had to melt iron ore by rubbing it really fast. The south being a primarily agricultural society depended on slaves to produce that agriculture.

It wasn't like a bunch of white guys in the south said "man I love owning black people!" As screwed up as it was, slaves were just farm equipment to them. It'd be the equivalent of abolishing grain threshers today.

This doesn't excuse the owning of another person of course.

Dude, Slavery is the idea of owning people as property. In a country founded on the ideal of "All men created equal" thats a pretty big blow. You can say that the Founding Fathers owned slaves and all that, but they still put those words down as a justification for the USA's existans.

The wait to free the slaves had millitary and political justifications. The fear that Pro-union slave states would secede and join the CSA was one of them (Maryland was a big issue here). Also Lincon didn't want to free the slaves in a sour-grapes gesture. He wanted to free them from a position of strenght and unabashed legitimacy. Thats the reason for slavery only being illegal post war.

Couscous

matthasaproblem wrote: »

noir_blood wrote: »

I think it can be argued(and has), that to the NORTH, Slavery wasn't the main factor for the war, that is, it wasn't "We have to abolish slavery and free them all!", but to the South, it was a driving point.

And I'm sure many people that show off the Confederate flag is that they are honoring the very ideals of America, the whole fighting for your beliefs and everything.

It was a driving point because slavery to the south was their industry. It's as if you told the north they couldn't use smelters any more, and instead had to melt iron ore by rubbing it really fast. The south being a primarily agricultural society depended on slaves to produce that agriculture.

It wasn't like a bunch of white guys in the south said "man I love owning black people!" As screwed up as it was, slaves were just farm equipment to them. It'd be the equivalent of abolishing grain threshers today.

This doesn't excuse the owning of another person of course.

It was important to the agriculture for the really rich planters. The average farmer got by without slaves except for maybe hiring them out from the planters. That wouldn't be much affected by the end of slavery as they would mostly just start hiring them directly instead of going through their owners.

Hachface

Also I'm pretty tired of the idea that Lincoln was personally ambivalent about slavery and used emancipation only as a political tool. You can argue about the extent to which realpolitik let him carry out his convictions, but the man detested slavery.

Lanz

YamiB. wrote: »

DarkDragoon wrote: »

Because the Confederacy's whole reason for seceding was slavery and nothing else.

An important reason for their secession was maintaining their institution of racially based slavery.

These decelerations of secession from some confederate states mention hostility towards slavery in the North and failure in the North to enforce the fugitive slave law as reasons.

Spoiler:

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

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst.

It has made combinations and formed associations to carry out its schemes of emancipation in the States and wherever else slavery exists.

It seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better.

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

The Presidential election of 1852 resulted in the total overthrow of the advocates of restriction and their party friends. Immediately after this result the anti-slavery portion of the defeated party resolved to unite all the elements in the North opposed to slavery an to stake their future political fortunes upon their hostility to slavery everywhere. This is the party two whom the people of the North have committed the Government. They raised their standard in 1856 and were barely defeated. They entered the Presidential contest again in 1860 and succeeded.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories, hostility to it everywhere, the equality of the black and white races, disregard of all constitutional guarantees it its favor, were boldly proclaimed by its leaders and applauded by its followers.

With these principles on their banners and these utterances on their lips the majority of the people of the North demand that we shall receive them as our rulers.

The prohibition of slavery in the Territories is the cardinal principle of this organization.

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

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

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

e General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

[spoilered for long]

Don't forget Vice President of the Confederacy Alexander Stephens Cornerstone speech

Excerpt wrote:

[SIZE=-1]But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other —though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution—African slavery as it exists amongst us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

http://www.teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76
[/SIZE]

Der Waffle Mous

DevoutlyApathetic wrote: »

Apparently the stars and bars is synonymous with "rebel" or "outlaw" in Europe without the racial overtones. That could lead to some awkward conversations.

I blame the Duke brothers.

Thanatos

Hachface wrote: »

Also I'm pretty tired of the idea that Lincoln was personally ambivalent about slavery and used emancipation only as a political tool. You can argue about the extent to which realpolitik let him carry out his convictions, but the man detested slavery.

Abolition was one of the founding planks of the Republican party. To say it wasn't a reason the North went to war with the South is fucking ridiculous. I can see saying it wasn't the only reason, but to say it had nothing to do with it is pretty fucking stupid.

Thanatos

matthasaproblem wrote: »

Free blacks also owned land in the south, and fought on the Confederate side.

This is like how because black men raped white women, that made it okay for slave owners to rape their slaves, right?

Couscous

Thanatos wrote: »

matthasaproblem wrote: »

Free blacks also owned land in the south, and fought on the Confederate side.

This is like how because black men raped white women, that made it okay for slave owners to rape their slaves, right?

Hitler wasn't anti-Jewish because some Jews fought for Nazi Germany.

YamiB.

Thanatos wrote: »

Hachface wrote: »

Also I'm pretty tired of the idea that Lincoln was personally ambivalent about slavery and used emancipation only as a political tool. You can argue about the extent to which realpolitik let him carry out his convictions, but the man detested slavery.

Abolition was one of the founding planks of the Republican party. To say it wasn't a reason the North went to war with the South is fucking ridiculous. I can see saying it wasn't the only reason, but to say it had nothing to do with it is pretty fucking stupid.

I would say that the bigger reason is that the North considered the unilateral secession of the Southern states to be illegal and that they would need to enforce this rule to promote the stability of the country. Of course I think this kind of became moot when the South attacked the North at Fort Sumter. Does anybody else knowing this think it is extremely weird that the Confederate Apologists are fond of calling it the war of Northern aggression?

I do think that on a personal level there were certainly those who joined up against the Confederacy because they had abolitionist beliefs and because the Confederacy so strongly represented slavery.

Bama

Couscous wrote: »

Thanatos wrote: »

matthasaproblem wrote: »

Free blacks also owned land in the south, and fought on the Confederate side.

This is like how because black men raped white women, that made it okay for slave owners to rape their slaves, right?

Hitler wasn't anti-Jewish because some Jews fought for Nazi Germany.

Say what you will about Hitler, but those guys were fucked up in the head.

Fencingsax

Kipling217 wrote: »

matthasaproblem wrote: »

noir_blood wrote: »

I think it can be argued(and has), that to the NORTH, Slavery wasn't the main factor for the war, that is, it wasn't "We have to abolish slavery and free them all!", but to the South, it was a driving point.

And I'm sure many people that show off the Confederate flag is that they are honoring the very ideals of America, the whole fighting for your beliefs and everything.

It was a driving point because slavery to the south was their industry. It's as if you told the north they couldn't use smelters any more, and instead had to melt iron ore by rubbing it really fast. The south being a primarily agricultural society depended on slaves to produce that agriculture.

It wasn't like a bunch of white guys in the south said "man I love owning black people!" As screwed up as it was, slaves were just farm equipment to them. It'd be the equivalent of abolishing grain threshers today.

This doesn't excuse the owning of another person of course.

Dude, Slavery is the idea of owning people as property. In a country founded on the ideal of "All men created equal" thats a pretty big blow. You can say that the Founding Fathers owned slaves and all that, but they still put those words down as a justification for the USA's existans.

The wait to free the slaves had millitary and political justifications. The fear that Pro-union slave states would secede and join the CSA was one of them (Maryland was a big issue here). Also Lincon didn't want to free the slaves in a sour-grapes gesture. He wanted to free them from a position of strenght and unabashed legitimacy. Thats the reason for slavery only being illegal post war.

Speaking of Maryland, one of the justifications Booth gave for shooting Lincoln was that he basically threw a bunch of pro-Confederate people in Maryland in jail without a trial.

Jokerman

Hachface wrote: »

Also I'm pretty tired of the idea that Lincoln was personally ambivalent about slavery and used emancipation only as a political tool. You can argue about the extent to which realpolitik let him carry out his convictions, but the man detested slavery.

While I generaly think and feel like you do, someone had used this quote against me saying that lincoln actualy didnt believe in the equality of the black man.

Abraham Lincoln wrote:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

Dunadan019

the people who i know that own a confederate flag don't own it because they want to return to slavery or hate all black people. the reason i've gotten most frequently is that it represents the power and supremecy of the south.

some of them probably are racist, but heck there are racist people everywhere in this country. it may be easy to label anyone who owns a confederate flag as ignorant or racist but that doesn't make it right.

it flows along the same lines of christians are all deluded old people who want to force their religion on you, atheists are all assholes, republicans are all evil and out to destroy this country and liberals are all dirty jobless hippies with bleeding hearts.

Quid

DevoutlyApathetic wrote: »

Apparently the stars and bars is synonymous with "rebel" or "outlaw" in Europe without the racial overtones. That could lead to some awkward conversations.

I'd been wondering why Lister had that patch on his jacket.

Leitner

DevoutlyApathetic wrote: »

Apparently the stars and bars is synonymous with "rebel" or "outlaw" in Europe without the racial overtones. That could lead to some awkward conversations.

Uh, not that I've ever seen in the very few times I've come across it. Though it's not like the flags ever really seen outside the US.

enlightenedbum

Jokerman wrote: »

Hachface wrote: »

Also I'm pretty tired of the idea that Lincoln was personally ambivalent about slavery and used emancipation only as a political tool. You can argue about the extent to which realpolitik let him carry out his convictions, but the man detested slavery.

While I generaly think and feel like you do, someone had used this quote against me saying that lincoln actualy didnt believe in the equality of the black man.

Abraham Lincoln wrote:

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

No one ever sources that quote. Considering Frederick Douglass' admiration for the man, it doesn't exactly ring true.

matt has a problem

Thanatos wrote: »

matthasaproblem wrote: »

Free blacks also owned land in the south, and fought on the Confederate side.

This is like how because black men raped white women, that made it okay for slave owners to rape their slaves, right?

Hell, free blacks owned black slaves themselves. This is like how it wasn't the white man owning the black man.

Hachface

Jokerman wrote: »

Hachface wrote: »

Also I'm pretty tired of the idea that Lincoln was personally ambivalent about slavery and used emancipation only as a political tool. You can argue about the extent to which realpolitik let him carry out his convictions, but the man detested slavery.

While I generaly think and feel like you do, someone had used this quote against me saying that lincoln actualy didnt believe in the equality of the black man.

The idea that whites were superior to blacks was, unfortunately, rampant even in abolitionist circles during the 19th century. Many abolitionists even favored sending freed slaves to Liberia because they basically didn't want to live anywhere near black people. But you don't have to believe that whites and blacks are equal to hate slavery; you just need to regard blacks as human.

Couscous

matthasaproblem wrote: »

Thanatos wrote: »

matthasaproblem wrote: »

Free blacks also owned land in the south, and fought on the Confederate side.

This is like how because black men raped white women, that made it okay for slave owners to rape their slaves, right?

Hell, free blacks owned black slaves themselves. This is like how it wasn't the white man owning the black man.

That doesn't mean slavery wasn't primarily justified using race. It isn't exactly unusual for a group of people to be hypocritical.

Hachface

enlightenedbum wrote: »

No one ever sources that quote. Considering Frederick Douglass' admiration for the man, it doesn't exactly ring true.

It's from the Lincoln-Douglas debates.

Corvus

wwtMask wrote: »

Is it normal to praise and glorify the losing side in a civil war?

Not sure about the civil war part specifically, but there are endless examples of romanticization of the losing side in various historical conflicts.