Um, pretty much everyone who supported the Confederacy?
2 Likes
I mean to say,
Anyone who would defend the Confederacy?
3 Likes
Iâd like to know who is? You see, my question, âWho here would deny the end of slavery is a step forward?â, is of a rhetorical nature.
Why bring up the issue of ghettos, except to make some kind of comparison? You were saying it, just not in those exact words.
My point this entire time has been that the north was just as willing to exploit the slaves in the south as the southerners as is evidenced bu the situation that endured for decades after the war. I wish that there was some just cause behind either side of the war. Sadly I fear the real motivations on each side was a combination of greed and/or jealousy. Some few people on either side believed in a just cause. Most were interested in their own best interests. The northern interests became happy as soon as they were the ones benefiting from slavery by another name.
1 Like
As usual, no?
Frederick Douglass was a die-hard Union supporter who became a personal friend of President Lincoln. You want to argue that he wasnât fighting for a just cause?
6 Likes
What you donât seem to understand is that saying that slavery was a major cause of the war on both sides isnât painting the entirety of the north as saints, any more than itâs painting the entire south as devils. The north wasnât entirely against slavery, as evidenced by how much contention there was over laws regarding escaped slaves or slaves being taken through their states - and no one claims otherwise. The majority in the north was, however, very clearly swinging hard in that direction⌠which is what the southern states themselves complained loudly and often about in their grievances when they seceded.
7 Likes
There (again) is the comparison you claim you are not making, that post-war citizenship for freed slaves was somehow the same as slavery.
And you still havenât explained how the North was exploiting âslavesâ in the South after the war (when by definition they were no longer slaves, legally considered property.) I wonât deny that life for a freedman in the South was brutal after the war, but whatever indignities they may have suffered at the hands of a tiny minority of northerners still pales in comparison to the treatment they would receive from their former owners; it wasnât carpetbaggers that instituted Jim Crow laws or formed the KKK.
I will grant that humans all over can be selfish and predatory, but you canât simply shrug off the moral aims of the North because there was an economic element to the war. Northern states didnât outlaw slavery because doing so benefited them economically.
I will also grant that the issue of slavery in the US is a lot more complicated than we can get into here, and that the country as a whole benefited from a huge pool of free labor that was mainly concentrated in the South. There is a lot of dirt to go around, but pretending everyone is equally dirty is dishonest.
10 Likes
Then why not go back? Oh, yeah: because it was many times worse there.
Winning the war didnât solve racism. This is the point youâre fighting so hard for?
5 Likes
JUST as willing? Thatâs so wrong, your absolutes arenât even worth laughing at.
4 Likes
Yeah. As bad as Africans got the short end of the stick, the natives got it worse on pretty much every front. They were both taken from their homes and enslaved, but at least an African slave was a valuable investment. The natives were considered disposable labor at best, and vermin to be exterminated at worst. Both got economically assfucked since then, but a significantly higher percentage of black people currently have access to things like electricity and running water than do some of the reservations right now.
I mean, fuck- black people arenât in danger of going extinct. There were as many as 100 million people here before Columbus. There are barely over 5 million of their descendants alive today. By contrast, the Nazis killed off a little over a third of the worldâs 15-16 million Jews, and their numbers have recovered to around 14 million since then. I mean, really think about that for a minute- Jews lose 35% of their population, recover in 60 years, and itâs considered one of the worst atrocities in history- Native Americans lose 95% of their population and never recover, and itâs barely even mentioned as having happened.
And weâre still screwing them again and again and again and again⌠With no public outcry, no politicians forced to make a statement, no trending hashtag activism.
Just sort of a sad shrug and a âwell-what-are-you-gonna-doâ.
10 Likes
I had Native American friends in school and itâs incredible how hard those kids had to try just to get off the Res and out to the college for classes. It wasnât like the rules were stacked against them like Jim Crow, it was like since theyâre technically sovereign weâve washed our hands of serving them socially like we serve everyone else. They just werenât included. We donât serve their kind by default, not by active policy.
3 Likes
Lincoln, âIâm not racist. I have a black friend!â 
What you donât seem to understand is that my main source of contention with the post is the authorâs statement, âAmericans should be proud that their government waged a war to end slaveryâ
It isnât true. Itâs fairy tale thinking. Itâs revisionist history. Itâs oversimplified. Itâs dishonest. Itâs disingenuous. Itâs a disservice to the black lives that were marginalized and exploited by the north and south before, during and after the war.
Many did go back. Many stayed. Iâm sure they all had their own reasons. Maybe youâve never suffered from poverty. Let me tell you, if you spend your last dime to go somewhere it may not be easy to get back if things donât work out as planned.
Considering that the government did exactly what the southern states said they were afraid they would do (i.e., end slavery), itâs difficult to see your point. The existence of exploitation that wasnât the same as slavery after that point doesnât change things.
4 Likes
Slavery under another name is still slavery. The north abolished slavery in name only and then continued to exploit the black population just as the plantation owners had. They didnât free the slaves. They gave slavery another name and took the newly named ̡s̡l̡a̡v̡e̡s̡ ̡ sharecroppers and leased convicts for themselves. They didnât want to end what the south had. They wanted to take what the south had.
So your contention is that sharecropping is exactly like slavery in absolutely every way except for the name? And that the government of the northern states was entirely responsible for its creation?
3 Likes
