White slavery

[Art]

The war of the states was NOT fought over slavery. Don't get that false story going again.

Read the Declaration of Secession of the State of Mississippi.

[clintonhater]

In 1816, Edward Pellew commanded a joint Royal Navy-Dutch fleet against Algiers, pretty much wrecked the place and freed 1,200 slaves...

Recently read a history of the Viking attacks on Britain. Of course, gold, silver, & jewels were their first preference for plunder, but most of the countryside was devoid of anything of monetary value--except young men & women peasants suitable for enslavement. (The very young & old were merely slaughtered.) The highest bidders for white slaves were the Islamic kingdoms in what is now Morocco & Algeria, although they were also traded as far as Constantinople. No records exist to document the numbers kidnapped this way, but over the 200 yrs of intermittent Viking raids in the British Isles, the number of whites sold into slavery is estimated at many tens of thousands, at least. Should Britain also seek reparations?

[dave]

Read the Declaration of Secession of the State of Mississippi.

And the one from Arkansas and several other succeeding states. Those guys are revisionist history mongers, you will never convince them or educate them. And they will not answer or read what you say! "STATE RIGHTS" my ass, the 'states right' to have legal slavery! And the same people who are all for a Fed. law that denies a state the "right" to determine its own concealed carry regulations!

[Marty T.]

Yes I will answer. The South did have slaves. Some of the northern states had slaves. Lincoln himself said that if he could keep the states together without having to do away with slavery, he would do so. But the war was fought for the same reason EVERY war is fought, which is power or money. The north was trying to determine who the South could and could not do business with. And that is what the war was over. Money and power. Slavery was done away with in the South to keep them from being able to rebuild and become independent and go through the same thing again. You need to get educated. Slavery was just a second thought in the business side of things.

[RED]

And the one from Arkansas and several other succeeding states. Those guys are revisionist history mongers, you will never convince them or educate them. And they will not answer or read what you say! "STATE RIGHTS" my ass, the 'states right' to have legal slavery! And the same people who are all for a Fed. law that denies a state the "right" to determine its own concealed carry regulations!

Arkansas became a State in 1836. The people freely voted to join the Union, they were not forced to join. Many of the same legislators and citizens that voted to join the Union voted to leave it. Today those people are criticized for the second vote but not the first. Slavery is not mentioned in relation to either proposition. The people didn't vote to join the union because they wanted to own slaves and they didn't leave the Union so they could keep them. Many, many, Arkansans from the north and western 1/2 of the State had never even seen a slave let alone owned one. If you look at the rank and file list of Confederate soldiers, the vast majority of them had never owned a slave. Then look at all the big Civil War battles... How many happened in Nebraska, Iowa, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, New Hampshire, Vermont, Ohio, Wisconsin, California, Nevada, and Oregon? Then name one Confederate State that didn't have major losses in battles in their own home State.

When asked, why he was fighting, one Confederate soldier said, "Because Y'all are here!"

When you say the Civil War was about slavery, is is the same thing as saying that WWII happened because Hitler invaded Poland! It was WAY, WAY, more complicated than that... as was the Civil War.

[Roadkingtrax]

Period writings seem to conflict with modern opinions.

No one is saying the individual soldier fought absent honor in defense of their home as they saw themselves required to do.

[Allen]

How do you convince an already divided nation that it is OK to kill each other? Neighbors against neighbors, friends and even brothers against brothers. You introduce the issue of human rights, in this case slavery. Can't miss right?

133 years later, how do you convince the voters and the public that it is OK to ban or restrict many models of so called "assault rifles" and limit pistol ammo capacity? You make up a glorious name like "Crime Control Bill" and this bill also allocates money to hire additional police officers. Who can say no once all this is added? Can't miss right?

[dave]

Ark. actually had a vote weather to succeed or not. The Unionist's won by high number but the powers that be, in the Government, were slave owners and they voted otherwise.
I would like to know which "Northern" states had slaves, never mind the 'border states'. The war actually started when the federal gov. passed the law that any new states taken into the Union could not be slave states. The seat of the Confederate Gov. was in the east and south. The North had stronger forces and equipment , altho plagued with bad leaders for awhile, so yeh, that is where the fighting was concentrated, the south did get into Ind. and the border states, but were never strong enough to get very far!

[jon_norstog]

Recently read a history of the Viking attacks on Britain. Of course, gold, silver, & jewels were their first preference for plunder, but most of the countryside was devoid of anything of monetary value--except young men & women peasants suitable for enslavement. (The very young & old were merely slaughtered.) The highest bidders for white slaves were the Islamic kingdoms in what is now Morocco & Algeria, although they were also traded as far as Constantinople. No records exist to document the numbers kidnapped this way, but over the 200 yrs of intermittent Viking raids in the British Isles, the number of whites sold into slavery is estimated at many tens of thousands, at least. Should Britain also seek reparations?

Well, speaking as a mostly Norwegian/Sami person, the family HAS been aware that some earlier generations were into pillaging, burning, raping, etc. What can I say? Viking thralldom (slavery) was pretty lenient compared to USA-type chattel slavery. A thrall was bound to his/her master like a feudal serf but could rise to become a teacher or manager, could buy their freedom and could marry into the "owner's" family. What happened in the US and the Caribbean some kind of mercantile-capitalist hell that destroyed the lives and integrity of millions of men and women, and if it hadn't been for the Civil War, any just and loving God would have had to come down him/herself and set things straight.

Anyway, my family wanted us to be proud of the Viking heritage ... were we all that bad?

jn

[clintonhater]

Viking thralldom (slavery) was pretty lenient compared to USA-type chattel slavery.

There was no profit in keeping slaves for personal use, and since even slaves had to be fed & clothed, only a very limited number of them could be accommodated into the poor & primitive (by the standards of southern Europe) societies of Scandinavia. Therefor, the vast majority of slaves were exported to the rich kingdoms of the Mediterranean
basin, especially the Islamic ones, where a high price was placed on light-skinned concubines, and were the creation of eunuchs from male slaves was a thriving business.