Res ipsa loquitur. The thing speaks for itself.
Therefore, we considered freedom to be the norm -- our birthright -- and slavery was an anomaly or exception.
Eh? Come again? How do you jibe that sentence with the preceding one?
But if your professed values are freedom and self-determination and you are forever complaining about being reduced to slavery and yet you own slaves, than clearly, you are acting against your own professed principles and are a hypocrite.
Don't pretend to be dense. The Southerners believed they should be free, but many were ambivalent and many if not most were hostile to the idea that blacks should be free.
This is *EXACTLY* how the original 13 states believed in 1776. The Declaration of Independence was written for the White colonials, and the majority of the founders had absolutely no intention of applying it to slaves, with the notable exception being Thomas Jefferson who was outvoted on the point.
You are trying to make the Southern states feel hypocritical by analyzing their actions with Northern sentiments that were only comparatively recently adopted. They won't feel hypocritical because they did not share that world view of the Northern states. In fact, the northern populations didn't share that world view either. The vast majority of the northern population considered blacks inferior and cursed by nature to never be the equal of themselves.
It was only the nuts, kooks and intellectuals in the north that saw things differently, much in the same way that these same groups of people are now pushing the Transgender agenda, trying to make everyone think a man in a dress is a woman.
That is also how they were viewed by the majority of the population back then. "Nuts, kooks and intellectuals."
The majority of the northern population didn't want slavery, but not because they gave a crap about black people. Their opposition to slavery was all self interest for themselves.
The mission was to resupply the fort.
That was what the publicly announced claim was. That was not the truth. You don't need warships and troop carriers to supply the fort. You need those things to engage in belligerent acts.
Anderson himself said that the only thing it would accomplish is to trigger a war, and he specifically said it was a dirty underhanded rotten trick to start a war.
The DDR felt the same way about West Berlin. The PRC felt the same way about Hong Kong. Spain feels the same way about Gibraltar. But still, attacking those places would be a clear act of aggression.
All of those places were won by conquest. Fort Sumter was seized in the dark of night by hostile forces who pretended to be friends.
In other words, they had been historically disadvantaged and demanded federal action in the name of equity, also known as affirmative action, also known as reparations.
They had been rendered impoverished by violent action of invaders. "Equity" had nothing to do with it. A shipwrecked man reaches for anything that will keep him afloat.
We could discuss the legitimacy of that further, but I think the main point here is that you probably aren't so approving when other groups make those claims.
Looking for racism under every bush? My philosophy of governance is that the Feds defend the nation against enemies, and do precious little else. I don't like social engineering, I don't like "stimulus" or "pump priming", and most of our current social disasters are the consequence of federal meddling.
Again, same thing as above. You probably aren't so sympathetic when those who aren't Southern whites make claims like that.
When a man has been beaten and robbed by a robber, I feel more sympathy for him than I do for the lazy bums who layabout in the streets. My friends and I were just talking earlier today about San Fransisco. One of my friends is from California, and he tells me it is absolutely terrible there. He says the homeless have more rights than ordinary people. He said people get arrested for stopping a homeless man from beating someone. Poop on the street. Sheer filth everywhere.
So yeah, the US government robbed them, and should have taken responsibility for the destruction they directly caused. Feeding bums? Not so much.
Northerners were always like controlling and troublemaking,...
Not all Northerners. From what I can see, it is mostly Massholes and New Yorkers. Puritan influence is my current operating theory. (For Massachusetts) Remember the Witch trials? Remember homosexual marriage? Remember where that started and how? Shades of Abolition! A Massachusetts court overriding the will of the people! John Brown? Charles Sumner? Dred Scot's owner Chaffe?
Lot of trouble stirred up by that small area.
That is exactly what hypocrisy is.
And "many if not most" is weaselly language. It was most.
This is *EXACTLY* how the original 13 states believed in 1776. The Declaration of Independence was written for the White colonials, and the majority of the founders had absolutely no intention of applying it to slaves, with the notable exception being Thomas Jefferson who was outvoted on the point.
Jefferson wanted slavery mentioned in the Declaration, but he had no intention of "applying it to slaves." Franklin and others did push for emancipation in their states. So did John Laurens of South Carolina. They were aware of the contradiction between claiming freedom for oneself and denying it to others. Jefferson and George Mason also recognized the contradiction, though they didn't stop being slaveholders.
You are trying to make the Southern states feel hypocritical by analyzing their actions with Northern sentiments that were only comparatively recently adopted. They won't feel hypocritical because they did not share that world view of the Northern states. In fact, the northern populations didn't share that world view either. The vast majority of the northern population considered blacks inferior and cursed by nature to never be the equal of themselves.
You have things exactly the wrong way around here. You didn't need 21st century values to think slavery was wrong. You did need 20th century values to think that racial equality was mandatory. The hypocrisy of slave owners who demanded freedom for themselves was clear to many Americans at the time. The hypocrisy of demanding freedom for slaves without wanting the freed people to live among us as equals with equal rights was harder to see at the time though it's been assumed by more recent generations.
The majority of the northern population didn't want slavery, but not because they gave a crap about black people. Their opposition to slavery was all self interest for themselves.
I keep pointing out over and over and over again, that they weren't a touchy-feely, overly sensitive "caring" generation. They could see that slavery was morally wrong. They also believed that the unfairness of slavery was unfairness to those who didn't own slaves.
You can't wholly separate out the morals from self-interest. Nazi Germany was evil. It also threatened our self-interest. Our feeling that it was evil wasn't illegitimate because our material interests and security were also involved.
But back to the "caring," Uncle Tom's Cabin sold hundreds of thousands of copies, and thousands of people saw the plays based on it. I suspect that a not inconsiderable number of Americans did believe that they "cared" about the slaves.
The vast majority of the northern population considered blacks inferior and cursed by nature to never be the equal of themselves.
That may not have been entirely wrong about those who read the book or saw the play, but they didn't want to add slavery and being bought and sold or beaten and separated from one's family to the "misfortunes of the Negro."
It was only the nuts, kooks and intellectuals in the north that saw things differently, much in the same way that these same groups of people are now pushing the Transgender agenda, trying to make everyone think a man in a dress is a woman.
That is also how they were viewed by the majority of the population back then. "Nuts, kooks and intellectuals."
That's too much of a generalization, and I don't think it's something you've seriously studied. It is noticeable the way that you always seem to associate those who opposed slavery with those who support things like the transgender agenda, and it may be one of the things that makes people wonder about you.
You don't need warships and troop carriers to supply the fort.
The navy doesn't go anywhere unarmed. Just which ships would remain outside the harbor and which would go to the fort was unclear. I doubt they'd be exposing the troopships to rebel fire, but all contingencies had to be considered.
Fort Sumter was seized in the dark of night by hostile forces who pretended to be friends.
It was occupied by the soldiers from the country that had bought and paid and built it. By that point, I don't think they had any illusions about the rebels being their "friends," though they might not yet have thought of them as enemies. The rebels themselves likely did think of them as enemies. You certainly appear to.
A shipwrecked man reaches for anything that will keep him afloat
Others could use that excuse, too, but you aren't so sympathetic to them.
I don't like social engineering, I don't like "stimulus" or "pump priming", and most of our current social disasters are the consequence of federal meddling.
Those were the policies of FDR and they were popular in the South. I'm not saying they were right or wrong under the circumstances, but white Southerners loved them.
Dred Scot's owner Chaffe?
The details of that story are unclear. Chaffee was an abolitionist. He may not have known that his wife's first husband's slave now belonged to him, or he many have arranged the case as a blow against slavery. In any case he transferred ownership to those who would free the Scott family, and he also faced many attacks for the hypocrisy of opposing slavery while owning slaves.
Lot of trouble stirred up by that small area.
I won't say "diversity is our strength," but the country is richer and stronger for not being all one thing and for accommodating different attitudes. All of these attacks look dated now, when urban areas around the country all seem to think alike and rural areas around the country all seem to think in another, opposing way.