Respect for the Confederacy?

There economy survived after slavery. They weren't just fighting for their economic survival. They were fighting, first and foremost, for slavery, which you keep defending as somehow being okay.

 

Stephens only came up with those "corrections" after the war, when the former Confederates were trying to save face. He had made similar speeches in the past, including one a month before where he had also called slavery the "cornerstone" of the CSA. You can also look at his own state's declaration of causes if you wish. Yes, it was about slavery.

 

Sherman punished soldiers for targeting civilians in this way. Meanwhile, the Confederates were stealing food from their own civilians, civilian travel was outlawed, they had suspended habeas corpus twice, they hung those who refused conscription, and CSA law said you could be imprisoned for the "crime" of refusing to swear allegiance to the CSA.

 

Do you really think that a Southern slave owner wouldn't have traded 100 field hands that he had to house, feed, and clothe for a John Deere harvester and a single driver?

 

Also, there is no "right" to be a slave based economy. This is what happens when people adopt the authoritarian mindset that the collective "rights" of a government are more important than actual rights to individual liberty.

 

He also called slavery the cornerstone of the USA as well. His POINT, if your side wasnt being SO disingenuous, was correct. That being that without the institution of slavery, neither the constitution nor the country would exist. Therefore to simply declare it immoral and refuse to uphold that part of the constitution is tantamount to sedition.

 

Unfortunately America was founded at a time where that was just starting to be hashed out in civilized countries philosophically. Prior to that, slavery had been a way of life for thousands and thousands of years.
Once the enlightenment rediscovered basic principles (like Aristotle, Plato, and others) and built on those, they started formulating the rights and liberties etc., that we take for granted they should have known about then.

I have no doubt that by the time America became a nation instead of a group of English colonies, most, including the slave owners, KNEW that slavery was false. The challenge, which I think America failed on, was getting rid of it in an orderly fashion, instead of fighting a knee-jerk civil war over it that cost 500,000 lives.

Just like we've become more advanced in math and science, we've become more advanced, to a degree, in moral philosophy. Although America, today, is reversing that trend rapidly, and has been since the 60s.

 

Eh, no. No. No. He specifically bragged that the CSA's Constitution had fixed the USA's Constitution by "settling" the issue of slavery. He said the CSA WAS THE FIRST COUNTRY IN HISTORY THAT HAD SLAVERY AS ITS CORNERSTONE. I repeat: THE FIRST. Please, please read what he actually wrote.

 

Other countries laid their entire foundation on the slave trade. Meh. I don't think there's a person in this thread actually arguing for the morality of slavery. Although, I certainly could do that, from an ANE perspective.

 

Tsk tsk. Sherman was one of our greatest Americans. He also became a model for 20th century commanders in mobile warfare. Please see the works of B.H. Liddell Hart. You've obviously imbibed a propaganda cocktail.
As for Stephens, there's no evidence he was misquoted.

 

Owning slaves for the giggles is your phrase, not mine.

 

Yhey actually didn't do so OK. Neither did the former slaves who became sharecroppers which is just as bad as slavery.

I am not defending slavery, but I am not condemning it either. How other countries arrange their affairs is not my concern.

 

As bad as sharecropping was, no, it wasn't "just as bad as slavery." If you can't condemn a country for practicing slavery, then yes, you are defending slavery. Sorry.

 

Their is as much right to a chattel slave economy as there is to a wage slave economy.

 

This sentence only makes sense to those who 1) Don't understand what rights are 2) Don't understand what slavery is or 3) Don't understand what wages are. Could be some combination. But, no, don't believe the knuckle-dragging idiots who tell you that working for a wage is the same thing as slavery.

 

We all have our opinions. And now you are defending sharecropping!

 

You keep claiming that the South wanted to own slaves just for the sake of owning slaves. I disagreed and clearly said that slavery was the basis for their economy, and that ultimately, this was an economic issue as well. Taking the North's side here, which I actually agree with generally, the Southern arguments for the morality of slavery were an ad hoc set of arguments to defend their livlihoods.

How anyone cannot understand that is beyond me.

In fact, I'd go so far to say that it was every bit as much an economic issue for the North, except for they had the correct moral argument.

 

I encourage you to read instead of making **** up. No, I never "defended sharecropping." All I said is that it wasn't as bad as slavery, which is objectively true. But since you have admitted that you can't criticize a country for practicing slavery, I'm curious how you can criticize them for practicing sharecropping. Look who is "defending sharecropping" now!

 

You haven't condemned it, so you are defending it.

My contention is that sharecropping is no better than slavery so the Civil War was a pointless and bloody exercise in futility that all righteous people ought to condemn.

 

Someone needs to try to read their own posts before making **** like this up.

Just to remind you of what you said previously (I can't wait to hear the desperate excuses for this hot garbage):

"I am not defending slavery, but I am not condemning it either"
vs
"You haven't condemned it, so you are defending it"

Both of those are direct quotes from you.

Keep reading that over and over until you can come up with a new excuse for why it makes sense in your head. This will be hilarious. No, seriously, you need to come up with an excuse for this blatant contradiction if you want to even pretend to be honest . . . which I don't foresee happening.

And since slavery was, objectively, worse than sharecropping, as terrible as sharecropping was, your "contention" is full of ****.

 

Oh, that is easy. I am holding you to your own standard, i.e. ." If you can't condemn a country for practicing slavery, then yes, you are defending slavery. Sorry."

Just replace sharecropping with slavery.
-------------------------

BTW, I disagree that sharecropping is objectively better than slavery.

 

I've lived in Virginia virtually my entire life and I have no sympathy for the Confederacy and the hypocrisy that enabled slavery to endure beyond the Founding, either. Had people listened to James Otis, Jr.,et al, and recognized that Blacks possessed the same natural rights as Whites it would have saved this country and its people a lot of suffering.

However, to the Confederate flag at the Civil War battlefield, I think it should stay. Our history is not all sweetness and light and we shouldn't be sanitizing it.

 

Except I've criticized sharecropping and you won't criticize slavery. And your disagreement won't change the objective facts of the situation.

 

Share croppers were at more risk of starving than slaves. Slave owners wanted to protect their investments, especially when a female slave of breeding age might fetch $1,400 at the time. Share cropper land owners simply found new share croppers - for free. Both bad, but no, it's not that simple.

 

But nor should we idolize it on public property. Timothy McVeigh is part of our history. That doesn't mean we should erect statues for him.