The Debate on Slavery

I know I'm opening a can of worms here, so I only hope I can do the South justice. This topic is of course for discussion on the institution of slavery as it existed in the United States and the Confederate States before and during the Civil War. Let's try to keep this serious and on topic, with focused posts. I very well could be the only one representing the South, so please don't think that I'm prejudiced or racist in any way, I am merely presenting the side that no one else really wants to, from a very important part of our nation's history.

So, without further ado: Let the debate begin.

Oh yeah! COME ON YANKS! WE"RE AWAITIN!

I'm afraid i'm not equipped to take you up on that offer Stuart. Wish I was, but I have a lot of studying still to do. All I know is that the slavery issue was exaggerated many times fold.

This is a disscussion on the institution of Slavery... not on how slavery effected the war.

Yes, that's right.

I think I'll take that debate.

One thing about it that should be pointed out

There were many immigrants coming from all over Europe in hopes of a better life than what they had in their own countries, most of them couldn't even read or write, so they were forcefully enlisted in the Union's military when they didn't even had the slightest idea of what they got themselves into...Until they got on the battlefield that is.

And with a butcher for a Commanding officer such as Grant...Well you get the idea right?

And what had been "overlooked" by many history books was that many of the North's industries also used slaves for workers.

Quite obvious for facts in those days, the military industries were getting huge profits out of slavery, why paying those who work to get you a lot of profits if giving them a salary could mean cutting off a share of the profits?

And even for anyone working in a factory during these days, having to work in these conditions was in fact dreadful, those who owned the factories jobs was to make money, the President's real cause was to keep the Union around, nothing more.

Some black men did go on the battlefields but they weren't proud of this since the only jobs they were ordered to do were jobs that white soldiers never wanted to do.

Let me repeat... This is a disscussion on the INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY! (In other words discuss what slavery in the South was like and why it was bad or not bad.)
Your friend General Lee

It was bad(from my point of view) because it subjected people based on there skin color to forced labor and/or abuse/exploitation.

And from some peoples point of view it was good because it was the backbone of the southern economy. Thousands of enslaved black tilled the fields everyday to harvest cotton to export to other countries.

I have heard of kind plantation owners that treated their workers with the upmost respect, but such cases are usually documented by the owners themselves and therefore biased by their perception of what good treament is. So in my humble oppinion, they could have been falsefied by the author in order to hold his reputation in good standing.

But that's just my oppinion.

Your last sentence disproves most of your post. Ill be back soon to post some facts... (Right now I have to go sorry)

The Opposition wrote:

It was bad(from my point of view) because it subjected people based on there skin color to forced labor and/or abuse/exploitation.

And from some peoples point of view it was good because it was the backbone of the southern economy. Thousands of enslaved black tilled the fields everyday to harvest cotton to export to other countries.

I have heard of kind plantation owners that treated their workers with the upmost respect, but such cases are usually documented by the owners themselves and therefore biased by their perception of what good treament is. So in my humble oppinion, they could have been falsefied by the author in order to hold his reputation in good standing.

But that's just my oppinion.

First you said... "...subjected people based on skin color." This is an unbased statement which I highly disagree with. Mainly because the reason Africans were subjected was not because of their skin color but because Africa was the easiest place to get slaves.

Also it is stupid reasoning to say that slavery was wrong because it subjected people "...based on their skin color to forced labor and/or abuse/exploitation" You make racism the evil instead of the wrongs that were supposedly imposed on the slaves.

Second... I have NEVER heard of anyone holding to the belief that slavery was good because of the reasons you stated above. (paragraph 2 in your quote)

Third... the reason you use to discredit good slaveholders is rather pathetic... There were MANY slaves who documented their masters kindness in the Slave Narratives (Narratives compiled in the 1930s from interviews with 2300 former slaves.) So unless you think that the slaves were liars too your argument falls through.

Your Friend
General Lee

I didnt intend to spark an argument Lee, I was only stating my oppinion.

Wow, great points, Gen. Lee. It is true, Oppie, you are entirely unbased when you state that slavery "subjected people based on their skin color to forced labor..." This statement enbodies the common mistaken views of today on this subject. Your statements imply that any black person in America automatically becomes a slave purely because of their skin color, when in reality a large portion of the blacks living in the South were free men. When we think of slaves being captured in Africa, some might commonly think of white slave-catchers lying in wait and kidnapping innocent africans, and then shipping them to the US. Of course, some businessmen will do anything to get their profits, however, the common way of obtaining slaves for these (Northern) shipping merchants was first buying them from a tribe who had captured them in inter-tribal wars, or buying those doomed to die as a consequences of crimes committed. This is the case for a huge percentage of Africans sold into slavery, and a large part of the time it was because of crimes or actions committed by the African that sent them on this road.

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

The Opposition wrote:

It was bad(from my point of view) because it subjected people based on there skin color to forced labor and/or abuse/exploitation.

And from some peoples point of view it was good because it was the backbone of the southern economy. Thousands of enslaved black tilled the fields everyday to harvest cotton to export to other countries.

I have heard of kind plantation owners that treated their workers with the upmost respect, but such cases are usually documented by the owners themselves and therefore biased by their perception of what good treament is. So in my humble oppinion, they could have been falsefied by the author in order to hold his reputation in good standing.

But that's just my oppinion.

First you said... "...subjected people based on skin color." This is an unbased statement which I highly disagree with. Mainly because the reason Africans were subjected was not because of their skin color but because Africa was the easiest place to get slaves.

Also it is stupid reasoning to say that slavery was wrong because it subjected people "...based on their skin color to forced labor and/or abuse/exploitation" You make racism the evil instead of the wrongs that were supposedly imposed on the slaves.

Second... I have NEVER heard of anyone holding to the belief that slavery was good because of the reasons you stated above. (paragraph 2 in your quote)

Third... the reason you use to discredit good slaveholders is rather pathetic... There were MANY slaves who documented their masters kindness in the Slave Narratives (Narratives compiled in the 1930s from interviews with 2300 former slaves.) So unless you think that the slaves were liars too your argument falls through.

Your Friend
General Lee

Slaves could have been paid off, threatened, or had there writings forged. I'm just saying we cant overlook what might have been. We need to consider all possibilities.

The 'what ifs'. Man's greatest enemy. lol.

The Opposition wrote:

Slaves could have been paid off, threatened, or had there writings forged. I'm just saying we cant overlook what might have been. We need to consider all possibilities.

That is a foolish unbased statement. Give me proof that HUNDREDS of slaves got paid off and I might change my oppinion about its stupidity.

The Opposition wrote:

Slaves could have been paid off, threatened, or had there writings forged. I'm just saying we cant overlook what might have been. We need to consider all possibilities.

:afro:

Oppie, this line of reasoning might be acceptable in "he said/she said" scenarios, however, in this situation, you sound naive and ignorant. When you have such a debate that has been going on for over 200 years, and has been so thoroughly scrutinized, there is no room for "we need to consider all possibilities". It's not as though there is such a lack of evidence, that we have no other choice but to use logic and common sense. To the contrary, Lee provided a good bit of evidence, and you wrote it off in a very closed-minded way, basically saying that no matter what proof is provided, you will refuse to accept it because "we can't overlook what might have been." Your last post was a pathetic waste of space and the time it took me to read it. Please remember that though you are entitled to your opinion, it isn't that valuable to any of us, unless you have reached that opinion by research, and can readily back it up with facts. Otherwise, it is nothing but a biased opinion belonging to a closed-minded person who can do nothing but detract from the discussion. So, if you're trying to say that former slaves were forced to give false accounts, either by bribes or threats, please give at least one example of such a thing happening. Until then, don't discount others' facts and statistics, that they took the time to research and provide.

General Stuart wrote:

The Opposition wrote:

Slaves could have been paid off, threatened, or had there writings forged. I'm just saying we cant overlook what might have been. We need to consider all possibilities.

Oppie, this line of reasoning might be acceptable in "he said/she said" scenarios, however, in this situation, you sound naive and ignorant. When you have such a debate that has been going on for over 200 years, and has been so thoroughly scrutinized, there is no room for "we need to consider all possibilities". It's not as though there is such a lack of evidence, that we have no other choice but to use logic and common sense. To the contrary, Lee provided a good bit of evidence, and you wrote it off in a very closed-minded way, basically saying that no matter what proof is provided, you will refuse to accept it because "we can't overlook what might have been." Your last post was a pathetic waste of space and the time it took me to read it. Please remember that though you are entitled to your opinion, it isn't that valuable to any of us, unless you have reached that opinion by research, and can readily back it up with facts. Otherwise, it is nothing but a biased opinion belonging to a closed-minded person who can do nothing but detract from the discussion. So, if you're trying to say that former slaves were forced to give false accounts, either by bribes or threats, please give at least one example of such a thing happening. Until then, don't discount others' facts and statistics, that they took the time to research and provide.

Well excuse me for speaking the thoughts going on inside my head. I wasnt dicrediting Lee, I said ALL possibilities, including what he stated. I never declared my oppinion more valid then his;you take all of my statements as an act of aggression. And may I say, you are taking offence to something that had no ill intention. I doubt if Lee even took it as an attack on himself, because it wasnt.
Sorry about that, I was under the oppinion that this was a discussion board.

I didnt take it as an attack on myself... After all I am probalbly hundreds of miles away from you. lol.

Your Friend
General Lee
PS If you do have proof for your statement please post it.

DCCCfC aka General Lee wrote:

I didnt take it as an attack on myself... After all I am probalbly hundreds of miles away from you. lol.

Your Friend
General Lee
PS If you do have proof for your statement please post it.

Nope. nothing as of yet, which is why I said it was my oppinion in the first place.

Oppie, I would hope that you base your opinions upon facts, otherwise, though it may be your opinion, it is a baseless opinion. And no, I didn't consider your post as an act of aggression. I did consider it very rude though, the way you discounted others' educated opinions and researched facts. Please, have a better response next time. That's all.

Is that supposed to be an apologee?

I accept, now, moving on.

An apology? Yeah right! I'm telling you, stop dismissing others' opinions without backing up your own with facts. Otherwise, I'll have to start deleting your posts.

I've just awakened from a trance................where am I?

Who wrote these infernal statents under my name? May he rot forever!


Yeah Lee sorry about that, I kinda got carried away with my last few posts; and you to Stuart. I didnt intend to discredit anything you said, but the way I put it sounded like I was. I am sincerely so..........I mean I apologize.


Ah hem, now then......MOVING ON.

Thanks for that Oppie, now back to the debate.

Discussion you mean? What was the name of that individual you were telling me about the other day over the phone, all I remember is that he gave one of his slaves land and genorous wages. If you could post that it would be appreciated.