New Lynching Memorial Offers Chance to Remember and Heal

Yep, I knew someone was going to say that.

Link: http://www.thomaslegion.net/black_confederate_soldier_and_african_american_soldiers.html

"So why did so many Southern black men choose to wear Confederate gray?"

"Blacks fought for the very same reason as whites – to defend their homes and their families. Historical data can sometimes be a matter of interpretation and the facts can sometimes contradict themselves. But, one must remember that day and time and judge it accordingly, for a man of the 19th century should not be compared to a man of today’s world and evaluated by current standards. Regardless of how black Southerners participated, whether voluntary or involuntary, one thing is certain: the thousands of slaves and free persons of color in the South are the most forgotten group of the Civil War. They, too, should be remembered for the suffering, sacrifices and contributions they made."
Hmm, I've never seen this. Thanks for posting!

Oh, and I have read that about Bedford Forrest. I remember now. He brought most of his slaves with him and they fought along side with him until the end.
 
Actually, where they came from was slavery or death, so, their condition was at worst the same as where they came from. Also, there were many justifications for slavery:


They argued that if all the slaves were freed, there would be widespread unemployment and chaos. This would lead to uprisings, bloodshed, and anarchy. They pointed to the mob's "rule of terror" during the French Revolution and argued for the continuation of the status quo, which was providing for affluence and stability for the slaveholding class and for all free people who enjoyed the bounty of the slave society.


They argued that slavery had existed throughout history and was the natural state of mankind. The Greeks had slaves, the Romans had slaves, and the English had slavery until very recently.


They noted that in the Bible, Abraham had slaves. They point to the Ten Commandments, noting that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, ... nor his manservant, nor his maidservant." In the New Testament, Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master, and, although slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, Jesus never spoke out against it.


Defenders of slavery turned to the courts, who had ruled, with the Dred Scott decision, that slaves had no legal standing as persons in our courts — they were property, and the Constitution protected slaveholders' rights to their property.


They argued that the institution was divine, and that it brought Christianity to the heathen from across the ocean. Slavery was, according to this argument, a good thing for the enslaved. John C. Calhoun said, "Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and intellectually."


They argued that by comparison with the poor of Europe and the workers in the Northern states, that slaves were better cared for. They said that their owners would protect and assist them when they were sick and aged, unlike those who, once fired from their work, were left to fend helplessly for themselves.


African slaves were captives or already slaves before they were shipped to America. In most cases, prisoners of West African tribal wars were sold into slavery. Some were enslaved as punishment for crimes or indebtedness. Others were kidnapped by black slave traders. Defenders of slavery would argue that their treatment in America was far more humane than that of Africa.


However, my intention is not to defend slavery, it is an institution that can't be defended. These were views from a different time. My intention is to show that the North was in no way the morally conscious saints that we are led to believe they were. That the war was far more complicated than just "slavery".


“So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils. The quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.”

Charles Dickens,
“All The Year Round”
December 28, 1861



"The pretense that the "abolition of slavery" was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of "maintaining the national honor." Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established slavery? Or what government, except one resting upon the sword, like the one we now have, was ever capable of maintaining slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general -- not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only "as a war measure," and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white. And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man -- although that was not the motive of the war -- as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before. There was no difference of principle -- but only of degree -- between the slavery they boast they have abolished, and the slavery they were fighting to preserve; for all restraints upon man's natural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ from each other only in degree".

From No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority, (Chapter XIX) by Lysander Spooner a leading abolitionist of the era.

I would agree with what you bolded.

As to the rest, regardless of the rationalizations involved, some of which are absurd, I would say the underlying motivation was profit.

And yes, they are views from a different time. There were opposing sentiments as well, as @IngaVovchanchyn already pointed out.

I'm curious if you also view things like the 2ndA within the context of the time it was written?
 
Hmm, I've never seen this. Thanks for posting!

Oh, and I have read that about Bedford Forrest. I remember now. He brought most of his slaves with him and they fought along side with him until the end.

Did they forget to ask him not to become the Grand Wizard of the KKK?

I agree that Lincoln was morally against slavery, but he didn't care enough about it to wage war over it. His concern was keeping the Union together, even if it meant shitting all over the Constitution to do it.

Also, in the 1864 election, Democrats charged the Republicans with favoring blacks. The Republicans needed to separate themselves from this idea, so they took steps at deflecting. They abandoned the "Republican" label and ran under the "National Union Party", which was a transparent attempt to make loyalty to the Union, rather than showing support for Emancipation. Next, they removed the current vice-president, from the ballot. Hannibal Hamlin was considered a radical and even supposedly a mulatto. They replaced him with Andrew Johnson, a Southern Unionist, who was known to hate slaveholders and slaves alike. Johnson would later would later proclaim in the 1867 State of the Union address that blacks possessed “less capacity for government than any other race of people. No independent government of any form has ever been successful in their hands. On the contrary, wherever they have been left to their own devices they have shown a constant tendency to relapse into barbarism."


In the presidential election of 1864, Lincoln received 2,216,067 votes, while McClellan received 1,808,725 votes; the latter receiving very nearly as many votes in the Northern States alone as Lincoln had received in the whole country when he was elected in 1860, his vote at that time being only 1,866,352. These votes included soldiers in the Union, who one would expect to vote in favor of the cause in which they were fighting.


So, if the people in the North were overwhelmingly supportive of Lincoln’s cause, it didn’t translate according to their voting. Nearly one-half of the voters in the North voted against Lincoln.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quotes by Abraham Lincoln on race and slavery:

“I have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”- Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861


“I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.” - Abraham Lincoln, First Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Ottawa, Illinois, August 21, 1858


“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery.” - Abraham Lincoln's response to Horace Greeley, editor of the New York Tribune’s, editorial to Lincoln called "The Prayer of Twenty Millions," making demands and implying that Lincoln's administration lacked direction and resolve.


In his 1858 4th debate with Sen. Steven Douglas, Lincoln maintained, “And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”


while debating Douglas in 1858, Lincoln declared the following: “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.” - The Lincoln-Douglas Debates, 4th Debate Part I


“I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes.” - Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865). Political Debates Between Lincoln and Douglas 1897. Page 252


When addressing the Dred Scott Decision of 1857, Lincoln quoted the following: “There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas…” - Speech on the Dred Scott Decision, Abraham Lincoln, Speech at Springfield, Illinois, June 26, 1857


“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]---that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife.”

—Lincoln's Fourth Debate with Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858


“I thought that whatever negroes can be got to do as soldiers, leaves just so much less for white soldiers to do, in saving the Union.”
  • Taken from Lincoln’s Letter to James C. Conkling, August 26, 1863.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From "The Life of Billy Yank" by Bell Irvin Wiley”, here are a couple of snippets from his book:

"Some fought to free slaves, but a polling of the rank and file through their letters and diaries indicated that those whose primary object was the liberation of slaves comprised only a small part of the fighting forces. It seems doubtful that one soldier in ten at any time during the conflict had any real interest in emancipation per se. A considerable number originally indifferent or favorable to slavery eventually accepted emancipation as a necessary war measure, but in most cases their support appeared lukewarm. Even after the Emancipation Proclamation zealous advocates of African American freedom were exceptional" (p.40)

"In marked contrast to those whose primary interest was in freeing the slaves stood a larger group who wanted no part in a war of emancipation. A soldier newspaper published at Williamsburg, Virginia, in 1862, which carried on its masthead the motto, "The Union Forever and Freedom to all", stated in its first issue: In construing this part of our outside heading let it be distinctly understood that 'white folks' are meant. We do not wish it even insinuated that we have any sympathy with abolitionism".

"Some Yanks opposed making slavery an issue of the war because they thought the effect would be to prolong the conflict at an unjustifiable cost in money and lives. Others objected on the score of the slaves ignorance and irresponsibility, while stills others shrank from the thought of hordes of freedmen settling in the North to compete with white laborers and to mix with them on terms of equality. The opposition of many seemed to have no other basis than an unreasoning hatred of people with black skins". (Pg. 42)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In 1830, William Lloyd Garrison, a prominent American abolitionist, was not safe in Boston either. An angry mob came to an anti-slavery lecture and proceed to lynch him. He was dragged through the streets, his clothes being torn off. He was finally rescued by the Boston Police who took him to jail. The crowd followed and demanded he be turned over to them. The police were finally able to sneak Garrison out of town.

Riots followed him and his fellow abolitionists everywhere: New York, Philadelphia, Utica, Albany, and Providence, Rhode Island.

After his release from jail in 1830, Garrison returned to Boston where he joined the American Colonization Society, an organization that promoted the idea that free blacks should emigrate to Africa. When it became clear that most members of the group did not support freeing slaves, but just wanted to reduce the number of free blacks in the United States, Garrison withdrew from membership.

Garrison faced stubborn opposition throughout the North. Influential Unitarians thought slavery was no concern of Northerners. Presbyterians refused to preach against slavery. A majority of Baptist ministers refused. In 1836, the General Conference of the Methodist Church ordered members not to participate in anti-slavery agitation. Bills to restrict abolitionist literature were introduced in the legislatures of Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Rhode Island. Free blacks were banned in Illinois, Iowa, Indiana and Oregon. A Marblehead, Massachusetts mob wrecked the printing press and home of publisher Amos Dresser who had previously suffered a public lashing for abolitionist agitation in Nashville. In New Canaan, New Hampshire, local people used oxen to drag a school into a nearby swamp, because the teacher was educating black children. A pro-slavery mob burned down Pennsylvania Hall, an abolitionist gathering place on Philadelphia’s Sixth Street between Race and Arch Streets, and then the mob torched an orphanage for black children.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Liberty Party was a minor political party in the United States in the 1840s (with some offshoots surviving into the 1860s). The party was an early advocate of the abolitionist cause and it broke away from the American Anti-Slavery Society (AASS) to advocate the view that the Constitution was an anti-slavery document. William Lloyd Garrison, leader of the AASS, held the contrary view that the Constitution should be condemned as an evil pro-slavery document. The party included abolitionists who were willing to work within electoral politics to try to influence people to support their goals. By contrast, the radical Garrison opposed voting and working within the system. Many Liberty Party members joined the anti-slavery (but not abolitionist) Free Soil Party in 1848 and eventually helped establish the Republican Party in the 1850s.


The Liberty Party nominated James G. Birney, a Kentuckian and former slaveholder, for President in 1840 and 1844. The second nominating convention was held in August 1843 in Buffalo, New York. The Liberty Party platform of 1843 resolved "to regard and to treat" the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution "as utterly null and void, and consequently forming no part of the Constitution of the United States" on grounds of "natural right" (natural law). It also contained the following plank:

The Liberty Party...will demand the absolute and unqualified divorce of the general [i.e., federal] government from slavery, and also the restoration of equality of rights among men, in every State where the party exists, or may exist.


The party did not attract much support. In the 1840 election, Birney received only 6,797 votes and in the 1844 election 62,103 votes (2.3% of the popular vote).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These are just a few examples of attitudes in the North at that time.
It's always good to take it all in. I have read that before and I take the point. Mine, about the 1860 election, still stands. You don't have to convince me that the North was terribly racist, and I'm familiar with Lincoln's tragically mainstream public statements as well as his private turmoil. The most instructive letters of his, imo are the ones to Greeley and Pierce.

-----
"If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery."

-----

"One would start with great confidence that he could convince any sane child that the simpler propositions of Euclid are true; but, nevertheless, he would fail, utterly, with one who should deny the definitions and axioms. The principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of free society.

And yet they are denied and evaded, with no small show of success.

One dashingly calls them "glittering generalities"; another bluntly calls them "self evident lies"; and still others insidiously argue that they apply only to "superior races."

These expressions, differing in form, are identical in object and effect--the supplanting the principles of free government, and restoring those of classification, caste, and legitimacy. They would delight a convocation of crowned heads, plotting against the people. They are the van-guard--the miners, and sappers--of returning despotism.

We must repulse them, or they will subjugate us.

This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it."

------


To describe Lincoln as anything less than absolutely tormented and conflicted to his soul is a mistake. But I think there's a simple and decisive method of showing the moral grand canyon that existed between Lincoln and the South on the issue.

If we were to wave a magic wand where the South says "Hey Abraham, we've been thinking, and we've decided that we want to abolish slavery" then Lincoln would not have been able to trip over his log cabin dick fast enough to sign the order. On the other hand, the response of the South would be (and was), "You can pry my slaves from my cold, dead hands."
 
I would agree with what you bolded.

As to the rest, regardless of the rationalizations involved, some of which are absurd, I would say the underlying motivation was profit.

And yes, they are views from a different time. There were opposing sentiments as well, as @IngaVovchanchyn already pointed out.

I'm curious if you also view things like the 2ndA within the context of the time it was written?
Sure. That's why (removing slavery because it's a non factor) the Confederate Constitution is superior to the US Constitution. It was more in line with what the forefathers intended. The states were meant to have more sovereign power. They didn't want the Federal government to be all encompassing, similar to what they actually committed treason to escape from.
 
Did they forget to ask him not to become the Grand Wizard of the KKK?


It's always good to take it all in. I have read that before and I take the point. Mine, about the 1860 election, still stands. You don't have to convince me that the North was terribly racist, and I'm familiar with Lincoln's tragically mainstream public statements as well as his private turmoil. The most instructive letters of his, imo are the ones to Greeley and Pierce.

-----
"If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery."

-----

"One would start with great confidence that he could convince any sane child that the simpler propositions of Euclid are true; but, nevertheless, he would fail, utterly, with one who should deny the definitions and axioms. The principles of Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of free society.

And yet they are denied and evaded, with no small show of success.

One dashingly calls them "glittering generalities"; another bluntly calls them "self evident lies"; and still others insidiously argue that they apply only to "superior races."

These expressions, differing in form, are identical in object and effect--the supplanting the principles of free government, and restoring those of classification, caste, and legitimacy. They would delight a convocation of crowned heads, plotting against the people. They are the van-guard--the miners, and sappers--of returning despotism.

We must repulse them, or they will subjugate us.

This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it."

------


To describe Lincoln as anything less than absolutely tormented and conflicted to his soul is a mistake. But I think there's a simple and decisive method of showing the moral grand canyon that existed between Lincoln and the South on the issue.

If we were to wave a magic wand where the South says "Hey Abraham, we've been thinking, and we've decided that we want to abolish slavery" then Lincoln would not have been able to trip over his log cabin dick fast enough to sign the order. On the other hand, the response of the South would be (and was), "You can pry my slaves from my cold, dead hands."
I will never be an Abe Lincoln fan, but I will say in all honesty, he was a brilliant politician and a true genius.

And the character trait differences between Lincoln and Davis were what made Lincoln the superior politician. Lincoln had absolutely zero loyalty to anyone. Davis was loyal to a fault and it costed him many times, especially with appointing generals and cabinet members.
 
Last edited:
Provide a source that says a significant number of slaves stayed with their masters after they were free. When you find that source read why that may have been the case.

Yes, and your point being?
The South lost and the slaves were free, or maybe, the South lost and the slaves were not free. Some stayed with their owners and others didn't. What's your point?
 
Human evil needs to be remembered and studied, not as a stick to beat our neighbors with (which is inevitable, unfortunately) but as a reminder to each individual to be vigilant against evil in their own hearts.

Yes, that sounds brilliant, but do we really learn from our historical mistakes or just keep repeating them? I think the latter.
 
Yes, that sounds brilliant, but do we really learn from our historical mistakes or just keep repeating them? I think the latter.
I think both.

Either way, monuments to commemorate historic events, eras, etc have value. I totally oppose the ignorant iconoclasm of the far left, but I support the instinct to raise monuments to commemorate the past of the center left.
 
Either way, monuments to commemorate historic events, eras, etc have value.

...or to pursue a specific agenda - victimization. Blacks use slavery and the Jews use the holocaust. The Israelis have now turned the table on this concept and applied it to the Palestinians.

"The question to be asked is how long can the history of anti-semitism and the Holocaust be used as a fence to exempt Israel from arguments and sanctions against it for its behavior towards the Palestinians, arguments and sanctions that were used against other repressive governments, such as South Africa? How long are we going to deny that the cries of the people of Gaza... are directly connected to the policies of the Israeli government and not to the cries of the victims of Nazism? You cannot continue to victimize someone else just because you yourself were a victim once, there has to be a limit." Edward Said
 
...or to pursue a specific agenda - victimization. Blacks use slavery and the Jews use the holocaust. The Israelis have now turned the table on this concept and applied it to the Palestinians.

"The question to be asked is how long can the history of anti-semitism and the Holocaust be used as a fence to exempt Israel from arguments and sanctions against it for its behavior towards the Palestinians, arguments and sanctions that were used against other repressive governments, such as South Africa? How long are we going to deny that the cries of the people of Gaza... are directly connected to the policies of the Israeli government and not to the cries of the victims of Nazism? You cannot continue to victimize someone else just because you yourself were a victim once, there has to be a limit." Edward Said
1. Edward Said is full of shit, like most of the rest of the postcolonialists.

2. Yes, people can take the evil done to their ancestors and parade around as victims today. So what? Just because something can be misused does not mean it has no good use.
 
Yes, and your point being?
The South lost and the slaves were free, or maybe, the South lost and the slaves were not free. Some stayed with their owners and others didn't. What's your point?

You are asking questions that you already have the answer to. You make a claim that implies you have read something on the subject, but then ask a question that implies you have no read anything about the subject.

If you read one of the articles that stated that some slaves stayed at their plantation when they were freed, then you have to also know why they stayed, since that is also in the article.

Many people were born into and lived their entire lives in slavery. Being freed one day does not mean you will be able to take your children and start a new successful life. The fear of the unknown means that you are not even sure you will be able to provide shelter and food for your children. You may choose to stay at your plantation simply because you may believe you have no other option for providing the bare essentials.

"Why didn't they run off to the north?" Many of the slaves had no idea what was waiting for them in the North. Somehow they'd have to travel hundreds and hundreds of miles, just hoping something better was waiting for them? There are so many obvious answers here as to why so many slaves stayed in the South.

But any attempt to use that fact to minimize the atrocity that was American slavery should be immediately shut down. Slavery is a stain on human existence. The subtle attempts to minimize that I have noticed are ignorant and disturbing.
 
I will never be an Abe Lincoln fan, but I will say in all honesty, he was a brilliant politician and a true genius.

And the character trait differences between Lincoln and Davis were what made Lincoln the superior politician. Lincoln had absolutely zero loyalty to anyone. Davis was loyal to a fault and it costed him many times, especially with appointing generals and cabinet members.
Remind me to ask you about the Davis stuff some time, because I'm really lacking in knowledge there. I know almost nothing about his personality & the finer points of his politics.
 
Yeah, I'm not sure how the Civil War got dragged into a thread about a monument to lynching.

Well a lot of innocent people were lynched in the post Civil War South so...
 
Here is what you posted:

Provide a source that says a significant number of slaves stayed with their masters after they were free. When you find that source read why that may have been the case.

You are implying here that what I originally posted was false. That is why you asked for a source.

You are asking questions that you already have the answer to. You make a claim that implies you have read something on the subject, but then ask a question that implies you have no read anything about the subject.

My question was directed at you and your doubts. Through your own 'complex' logic, you are merely 'back paddling' your original doubt/question and accepting my statement.

But any attempt to use that fact to minimize the atrocity that was American slavery should be immediately shut down. Slavery is a stain on human existence. The subtle attempts to minimize that I have noticed are ignorant and disturbing.

I really don't know what slavery or the Civil War has to do with this thread. I did not bring it up. The thread is about a monument related to black lynching. Why not erect a monument related to black-on-black murders in America to remember, heal, and stop it from continuing? Way more black lives lost through this ordeal...
 
Here is what you posted:

You are implying here that what I originally posted was false. That is why you asked for a source.

My question was directed at you and your doubts. Through your own 'complex' logic, you are merely 'back paddling' your original doubt/question and accepting my statement.

That's not what that implies at all. I told you to find your source, and actually read it. Why would I tell you to read a source that doesn't exist? My post was implying that you already have the answers that you seek, but you are choosing to ignore them. Which turned out to be true. You have all the answers in your own sources, but you stopped reading when it was convenient for you.

No offense, but you began this thread believing that the vast majority of lynchings occurred in the North. It is common knowledge that the South had the vast majority of lynchings, which leads me to believe you are really not very well read.


The thread is about a monument related to black lynching. Why not erect a monument related to black-on-black murders in America to remember, heal, and stop it from continuing? Way more black lives lost through this ordeal...

I'm going to give you a chance to be honest here. Do you really not see the difference between lynchings during Jim Crow era, and gang violence?
 
You're implying that there are worse things than being a Slave in America.
Well, do you consider death or being a slave in Africa worse?

I do.

However, I've never condoned slavery. That was a different time when people were raised a different way with different customs.

My idealistic views about the Confederacy have nothing to do with slavery. The Confederacy was closer to what the original Constitution was supposed to be.

BTW, the entire country profited from slavery and the North was fine with it. The Southern economy carried the nation for many years leading up to the war. Why do you think Lincoln wanted to leave it alone where it existed? Sure, it was protected by law, but it also carried the country through tough times in the early to mid 1800's.

The entire country was guilty of slavery. That's my point.
 
Back
Top