Understanding History: Slavery and the American South

EverVigilant.net ^ | 06/09/2005 | Lee R. Shelton IV

[Non-Sequitur]

Are you now arguing in favor of Confederate jurisdiction?

No, and I can't imagine how you could come to that conclusion. But how can someone be convicted of treason against a place he has never lived in? Could a U.S. soldier have been tried and convicted of treason against Germany in World War 2?

[justshutupandtakeit]

No there are none that back it up.

Secession makes the Constitution meaningless. With such a "right" there is no such thing as a constitution.

[Non-Sequitur]

Secession wasn't spelled out, because most considered it a more or less basic right.

Turns out they were confused, didn't it?

[RegulatorCountry]

"Could a U.S. soldier have been tried and convicted of treason against Germany in World War 2?"

By using this comparison in the context of US or Union versus Confederate jurisdiction, you're validating the CSA as a nation. For some reason, it strikes me as odd that you would choose to do this. John Brown very likely would have been convicted of treason by the United States, or Union, government. So, your beef with presiding Judge Parker is... what? That he didn't follow common law precedent?

[TexConfederate1861]

Your words: "It is an impossibility and God certainly does not give any of us a right to own another."

Seems pretty clear to me that is EXACTLY what you are saying.

The scriptures give instructions on how a slave must be treated.

[RegulatorCountry]

"Turns out they were confused, didn't it?"

They were only confused in the sense of "might makes right." They were quite lucid in a constitutional sense.

[TexConfederate1861]

4 CJ has plenty of documentation and research, maybe he can "enlighten" you.

[TexConfederate1861]

Not confused, just scr*wed by the Federal Government. Kinda set a precedence didn't it?

[Non-Sequitur]

By using this comparison in the context of US or Union versus Confederate jurisdiction, you're validating the CSA as a nation. For some reason, it strikes me as odd that you would choose to do this.

That could be because you haven't looked into the Brown execution. Brown was convicted of treason against the Commonwealth of Virginia, which was a crime outlined in the state constitution. The confederate states doesn't enter into it. And I still don't understand how someone who had neved lived in Virginia and who wasn't a citizen of Virginia could be convicted of treason against the commonwealth.

[sheltonmac]

I can say all that because Greco-Roman slavery was much more like indentured servitude than American chattel slavery. That is why Paul doesn't condemn it outright. I agree with Paul. Paul would have condemned American chattel slavery.

To say that "Slavery was once part of the social construct. The institution itself was neither evil nor good" is one of the most profoundly deconstructionist, relativistic, anti-Christian things I have ever seen on Free Republic. Congratulations!

The Roman Empire was a slave society, one of the most slavery-dependent cultures in history. Slavery was everywhere and existed in many forms. Slave labor could be found in virtually every line of work: industrial, agricultural, military, domestic. POWs were routinely enslaved by the thousands, and, unlike the vast majority of Confederate soldiers, it was not unusual for low-ranking Roman soldiers to own slaves.

And Slaves were constantly brutalized. While there were exceptions, I would have to say that plantation slavery in the antebellum South was, on the whole, relatively mild compared to what many slaves had to endure in ancient, pagan Rome: drafted into military service, prostitution, mass crucifixions, fighting to the death in the Colosseum, etc.

[Non-Sequitur]

They were quite lucid in a constitutional sense.

Not according to the Supreme Court.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Those who seek to defend slavery as practiced in the United States and Confederate States of America should, in the interest of leading by example, agree to become slaves themselves, and agree to have their descendants become slaves in turn.

[sheltonmac]

Those who seek to defend slavery as practiced in the United States and Confederate States of America should, in the interest of leading by example, agree to become slaves themselves, and agree to have their descendants become slaves in turn.

Who here is defending slavery? Seeking to understand slavery in its historical context constitutes a defense of slavery? You do realize that slavery was practiced throughout the American colonies since the 1600s, right? It wasn't unique to the CSA.

[RegulatorCountry]

"Those who seek to defend slavery as practiced in the United States and Confederate States of America should, in the interest of leading by example, agree to become slaves themselves, and agree to have their descendants become slaves in turn."

I've not read a single post on this thread in literal defense of the institution of slavery, as practiced in the USA or the CSA. Fact of the matter is that it existed prior to the formation of either; it was a practice of the European colonists as well as many of the native peoples present on this continent. Chattel slavery as it was understood legally was something of a throwback to feudalism. It was abolished, in large part, by Christians, both here and in England. Save the high-mindedness for those nations, such as Cuba and Brazil, where the vast majority of African slave descendants reside. Or, better yet, try it out on the Sudanese Arabs, who practice slavery to this day.

[Ditto]

Why?

BTW. The Confederates sure didn't think that. They sacked every armory in the South. And even before Lincoln's election in November of 1860, Northern armories were being systematically looted under the orders of Sec. of War, Floyd.

Floyd also spent the year before the war began assigning officers who were considered to be secessionist to command Southern forts so they would be turned over without resistance once the secession was declared. He assumed Major Anderson, a slave owner from Kentucky, was in favor of secession when he was assigned to command Sumter. He assumed wrong.

Floyd was a total mole for the Slave Power and spent his time in office activly conspiring to weaken the US Army. Only in December of 1860, after the citizens of Pittsburgh physically blocked a major shipment of large guns and ammo from the Allegheny Arsenal bound to a "Fort" in the South that was only in the planning stages, did Buchanan force Floyd to resign. He promptly accepted a commission in the Confederate Army.

They were conspiring for war and were convinced by their own BS macho rhetoric, that they would easily win because everyone knows that "Yankees can't fight". You still hear a lot of that regional nonsense on these threads. They were amply warned by some of their own including Toombs and Houston that they were getting into a war they could not win.

They were stupid, arrogant, greedy men who caused lots of poor, non slave owning Southern boys to die needlessly.

[RegulatorCountry]

"Floyd was a total mole for the Slave Power"

Like, totally 60's dude. Fight the power.

[RegulatorCountry]

" BS macho rhetoric"

And the picture gets clearer...

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

"I've not read a single post on this thread in literal defense of the institution of slavery, as practiced in the USA or the CSA."

If you're defending the Confederate cause, you're defending slavery. I don't care if said defense is "literal" or not. Slavery was the cause of the Confederacy. Any effort to defend the one must necessarily defend the other.

So, if the Confederate cause was good, then slavery must, in turn, be equally good.

"Fact of the matter is that it existed prior to the formation of either; it was a practice of the European colonists as well as many of the native peoples present on this continent."

None of which actually makes slavery morally good in and of itself. But that's the case being argued by the Lost-Cause folks. So, which is it? Is slavery evil, or is it good?

"Or, better yet, try it out on the Sudanese Arabs, who practice slavery to this day."

If you're saying that the Confederate cause is good, then you're saying you have absolutely zero moral objection to slavery. So, if I just described you, get on a plane to Khartoum and volunteer for slavery.

Or is it a case of "slavery is good, as long as I'm not a slave myself?"

[Paige]

The North was as guilty of slave owning themselves. BTW, Slaves ownership was still very prevalent in the North after the Emancipation Proclamation. The Northerners were nothing more then Hypocrites. They were as guilty of the slave trade as was some Southerners. I find people such as yourself very difficult to have a discussion with when you won't adhere to all the facts involved in this particular matter. In other words, picking and choosing history to support some agenda you have is utterly ridiculous.

[RegulatorCountry]

"Or is it a case of "slavery is good, as long as I'm not a slave myself?"

This appears to be a case of your seeing only what you want to see. We have been debating back and forth on the causes and effects of the war. You cannot apply your own individual interpretation upon me by force, thank God. Now, that would be slavery.