The Origins and Causes of the U.S. Civil War, 2nd Edition

[Captain Seafort]

There is no realistic ethical framework that would equate these two actions.

Other than the basic fact, which I have repeatedly pointed out, that the US had already, by its very existence, validated the principle of quitting if they didn't like the way things were run. The minor details of "how things were run" doesn't affect the overriding principle.

The good Captain just refuses to concede the argument, even though it's been shown repeatedly that there's a big fucking difference between the colonies seceding from the Crown and the Southern states seceding from the Union.

Indeed - one is seceding from a country that, by its very existence, has validated the principle of secession if they don't like the way things work.

Here's one for ya, Cap. If a mugger named Smith is fatally wounded by the person he is mugging and it is decided the use of force was justified, does that mean any killings of men named Smith are justified? Two civilians in the first encounter. One named Smith is pointing a knife, sharpened screw driver, gun, whatever, at the other guy. The other guy manages to kill Smith in self-defense. Now, we both know that killing another person is illegal by default. There can be exceptions made, and this ends up being one. Does that mean that all men named Smith can be killed legally if we want to remain consistent?

Already dealt with above - go and read it.

[Simon_Jester]

Not at all - in your example, Smith the agent shoots Smith the druggie while performing his duty. It is therefore a justifiable homicide (not a crime) rather than murder (a crime). In my example, Bob and Tim are both thieves and therefore both criminals from the perspective of a third party observer. It is, however, the height of hypocrisy for Bob to complain about Tim for committing the exact same crime he himself is guilty of.

So you've now come out and said that the difference between a crime and not-a-crime can lie in whether the act was 'justifiable.'

And earlier you were explicitly refusing to talk about whether the rebellion of the colonies in the 1770s was justified, and whether the rebellion of the Confederacy in the 1860s was justified, claiming the justification did not matter.

But now you've changed your mind and think justification matters- while still, I assume, being unwilling to discuss the actual question of what acts are or aren't justified.

The only way for you to avoid that question is to drop the whole subject, unless you just want to keep contradicting yourself. Since I assume you believe in truth... well.

I accept your concession.

[Captain Seafort]

So you've now come out and said that the difference between a crime and not-a-crime can lie in whether the act was 'justifiable.'

If you're incapable of recognising a specific legal term in the context of a discussion of specific crimes I'm afraid I can't help you.

The only way for you to avoid that question is to drop the whole subject, unless you just want to keep contradicting yourself. Since I assume you believe in truth... well.

Unfortunately I can't "keep" doing something I haven't done in the thread. Sorry.

[Napoleon the Clown]

The scenario you previously dismissed was a government agent shooting a man named Smith in the course of a drug raid. My example was a civilian shooting a civilian.


So are you a slavery apologist? Or just too dense to realize that context fucking matters?

[Alyrium Denryle]

You're talking about the details of each situation - I'm talking about the overarching principle being applied. In 1776, the colonists didn't like the way Great Britain was doing things, so they quit. In 1860/61, the southern states didn't like the way the US was doing things, so they quit. I don't consider the differences between the details of "the way X was doing things" to override the fact that the basic principle being applied was the same. Personally, I don't consider that principle to be valid under any circumstances, but the Confederacy wasn't seceding from the Grand Empire of Seafortistan or somesuch - it was seceding from the United States, which was founded on said principle, and in doing so validated it.

It does not matter what principles a state was founded on. No state can survive that permits unilateral secession. The US colonists asserted that the british crown had violated their fundamental liberties under the social contract that existed between said colonies and great britain. So they fought a war to break away. They acknowledged that what they were doing was most definitely treason and that they had no legal right to do so. Rather, they asserted they had a moral justification. These two are not the same thing.

They did not found the US on the concept of a legal right to secede, and they acknowledged no such legal right in the constitution (just the opposite in fact when the constitution specified that Habeas Corpus can be suspended in the event of rebellion).

You are just failing at basic logic and history. Stop.

[cmdrjones]

You're talking about the details of each situation - I'm talking about the overarching principle being applied. In 1776, the colonists didn't like the way Great Britain was doing things, so they quit. In 1860/61, the southern states didn't like the way the US was doing things, so they quit. I don't consider the differences between the details of "the way X was doing things" to override the fact that the basic principle being applied was the same. Personally, I don't consider that principle to be valid under any circumstances, but the Confederacy wasn't seceding from the Grand Empire of Seafortistan or somesuch - it was seceding from the United States, which was founded on said principle, and in doing so validated it.

It does not matter what principles a state was founded on. No state can survive that permits unilateral secession. The US colonists asserted that the british crown had violated their fundamental liberties under the social contract that existed between said colonies and great britain. So they fought a war to break away. They acknowledged that what they were doing was most definitely treason and that they had no legal right to do so. Rather, they asserted they had a moral justification. These two are not the same thing.

They did not found the US on the concept of a legal right to secede, and they acknowledged no such legal right in the constitution (just the opposite in fact when the constitution specified that Habeas Corpus can be suspended in the event of rebellion).

You are just failing at basic logic and history. Stop.

This is a good point. Now, when does something that was Morally correct become legal?
If the formation of the USA was Illegal, yet a moral act, then it became legal at some point, correct? At the signing of The treaty of Paris I assume?

If the colonists had lost then it would have been found to be illegal AND immoral yes? Then the Brits would have had them all hanged.

I suppose the same would apply to the CSA then, IF had they won of course.

I'll give an example from our own time. Some assert that the right to self defense would still exist (i.e. be moral) even if the 2nd amendment were repealed.

Would you agree with that?

[Alyrium Denryle]

This is a good point. Now, when does something that was Morally correct become legal?
If the formation of the USA was Illegal, yet a moral act, then it became legal at some point, correct? At the signing of The treaty of Paris I assume?

If the colonists had lost then it would have been found to be illegal AND immoral yes? Then the Brits would have had them all hanged.

Illegal yes, but not a necessarily immoral cause. This was the enlightenment, and the notion of a social contract between subject and people existed for a long time, as did the right of a taxed people to be represented in parliament. But no state can permit secession, so no matter what mistakes that state makes, it must respond to insurrection the same way. To crush it.

Eventually, what likely would have happened is the same thing that happened with the Canadian and Australian dominions. Increasingly devolved self-governance until a de facto and then de jure sovereign state existed.

Also, a conflict of arms does not determine whether or not a cause is just.

I suppose the same would apply to the CSA then, IF had they won of course.

No. Because they were fighting to preserve and in fact expand the most brutal form of slavery ever practiced on an institutional level in the history of human kind. Whether they won the war or not does not change that base fact. Win or lose, everyone who fought for the confederacy by choice was fighting to preserve and expand chattel slavery, and were thus human trash. Scum who, win or lose, got a better fate than they deserve.

I'll give an example from our own time. Some assert that the right to self defense would still exist (i.e. be moral) even if the 2nd amendment were repealed.

No shit. The right to defend oneself exists independently of the 2nd amendment. You can tell because other countries that dont have a 2nd amendment equivalent recognize a right to use force in defense of one's self and others. In fact, virtually all of them.

[Esquire]

There is no realistic ethical framework that would equate these two actions.

Other than the basic fact, which I have repeatedly pointed out, that the US had already, by its very existence, validated the principle of quitting if they didn't like the way things were run. The minor details of "how things were run" doesn't affect the overriding principle.

Yes it absolutely does, you loon. The founding principle is 'unjust governments have no validity,' not 'I'm taking my marbles and going home.' How can you possibly not get that?

EDIT: Typo

[Isolder74]

You know this entire discussion is a massive side tract to entire point of this thread. All I've seen from Seafort so far is a massive whine fest about the colonies staging, and succeeding, at a revolution against Great Britian.

While the two rebellions can be made to look similar there are massive differences in the context of them.

Using Seafort's logic the Nazi(insert any other agresser here) occupation of Poland(pick the place) was a justifiable act because the Normans suceeded in invading and conquering England. Like everyone has been trying to point out over and over context matters.

[Zinegata]

The problem with Seafort's argument is that he forgets that the original American Revolution explicitly defined itself as being against rebellion for "light and transient causes".

From the declaration of independence:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Given that Lincoln could be voted out of office in the next election and the South didn't wait until he had even before sworn in before rebelling, it becomes exceedingly easy to demonstrate that the argument that Southern Rebellion = American Revolution is complete horseshit if we use the Declaration of Independence as its basis. The Founding Fathers were in fact AGAINST rebelling for "light and transient" reasons, and the South's nonsense was made particularly galling by the fact they were the ones railroading the country for most of the pre-Civil War period!

If anything, the Civil War was the country overthrowing the Southern Slaver Tyrants and restoring democracy.

[Isolder74]

The problem with Seafort's argument is that he forgets that the original American Revolution explicitly defined itself as being against rebellion for "light and transient causes".

From the declaration of independence:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

Given that Lincoln could be voted out of office in the next election and the South didn't wait until he had even before sworn in before rebelling, it becomes exceedingly easy to demonstrate that the argument that Southern Rebellion = American Revolution is complete horseshit if we use the Declaration of Independence as its basis. The Founding Fathers were in fact AGAINST rebelling for "light and transient" reasons, and the South's nonsense was made particularly galling by the fact they were the ones railroading the country for most of the pre-Civil War period!

If anything, the Civil War was the country overthrowing the Southern Slaver Tyrants and restoring democracy.

It gets better than that. Not only did they leave without any real justification, they did so in many cases against the wishes of the majority of many of the citizens of their own states. This is best shown with the secession of the state of Texas even after it was vetoed by the state's own governor, Sam Houston(they deposed him in fact, he did step down to keep things peaceful but that is beside the point). Virginia took as long as it did to finally seceed for similar reasons, the dicenting opinions had to be crushed or silenced first. That is why we have a West Virginia you know.

All that this really shows is by the time of the election of Lincoln, which was really their own fault, the South was no longer willing to compromise unless it was to force the North to do things their way. When it was obvious they no longer had a yes man, yes I'm looking at you Buchannan, in the White House they acted like spoiled children and threw a temper tantrum.

They croon on and on about 'state's rights' but up to this point they had no problem themselves violating those same 'states rights' on the behalf of their own interests against the north. The Fugitive Slave Act immediatally come to mind but that is only one example. The slavocrats not caring about the slave hunters validated by this law going about and unilaterally arresting any black man, even some free for generations, as escaped slaves proves this even more. When those happen to have their papers proving this on them it sometimes didn't matter as those slave hunters didn't think twice about just destroying those things just for another massive bounty into their pockets.

The south needed the continued expansion of slave territory not only because of a desire to maintain power but because of their short-sighted nature they refused to employ good agriculture practices often depleting the land their cash crops grew on. This meant that plantions contantly needed to expand in order to keep producing their cash crops. I'm not sure what they were hoping to grow on the deserts of the west, but they sure wanted to make sure it was available!

[Steve]

That's why they wanted slavery opened up in the territories, so they could convert the territories of the upper Midwest (the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, etc.) into slave states as well. And why you had movements like the Knights of the Golden Circle and William Walker's attempts to take over Nicaragua, the Oostend Manifesto proclaiming a right to take over Cuba (where slavery still existed as well), etc. Southerners who believed expansion was the best way to keep their society alive, by increasing the amount of territory under control, and thus the places where they could sell excess slaves as their own slave populations became larger than they needed (just as Virginia and other eastern slave states had an ongoing export market in excess slaves being sold to owners in the Mississippi Valley region).

[cmdrjones]

This is a good point. Now, when does something that was Morally correct become legal?
If the formation of the USA was Illegal, yet a moral act, then it became legal at some point, correct? At the signing of The treaty of Paris I assume?

If the colonists had lost then it would have been found to be illegal AND immoral yes? Then the Brits would have had them all hanged.

Illegal yes, but not a necessarily immoral cause. This was the enlightenment, and the notion of a social contract between subject and people existed for a long time, as did the right of a taxed people to be represented in parliament. But no state can permit secession, so no matter what mistakes that state makes, it must respond to insurrection the same way. To crush it.

Eventually, what likely would have happened is the same thing that happened with the Canadian and Australian dominions. Increasingly devolved self-governance until a de facto and then de jure sovereign state existed.

Also, a conflict of arms does not determine whether or not a cause is just.

I suppose the same would apply to the CSA then, IF had they won of course.

No. Because they were fighting to preserve and in fact expand the most brutal form of slavery ever practiced on an institutional level in the history of human kind. Whether they won the war or not does not change that base fact. Win or lose, everyone who fought for the confederacy by choice was fighting to preserve and expand chattel slavery, and were thus human trash. Scum who, win or lose, got a better fate than they deserve.

I'll give an example from our own time. Some assert that the right to self defense would still exist (i.e. be moral) even if the 2nd amendment were repealed.

No shit. The right to defend oneself exists independently of the 2nd amendment. You can tell because other countries that dont have a 2nd amendment equivalent recognize a right to use force in defense of one's self and others. In fact, virtually all of them.

So in theory, if I can show a more brutal form of slavery that is practiced on an institutional level then will the south be bumped up one on the "most evilest ever" scale? I find it humorous that your argument veers into hyperbole here when compared to the incredible tyrannies of Rome and the Mongol Yoke which spanned over much larger areas, much longer time frames and affected much larger shares of the worlds population percentage wise. But, as those below have pointed out, it isn't the secession that bothers you, it is the difference of opinion on what constitutes "light and transient causes"

That being the case I propose this thought experiment: Imagine that Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is conclusively proved and accepted and, starting in 2016-2020 the newly inaugurated US president Bernie Sanders will begin a crash program to eliminate the use of non-green sources of electricity which WILL over the course of his presidency reduce the use of electiricy in the US by at least 90%. fisrt imagine how this will affect your family. Will you object or go along with the program? If drafted will you fight against the opposition and burn down thier homes?

Remember, electricity usage coming from non-green sources is now a moral evil on the level of slavery and the federal government is now embarking on a plan to eliminate it. it's destroying the bio-sphere remember? Think of the children!!

[Ralin]

So, necroing a months old topic specifically to argue a pro Confederacy position.

Is he trying to get banned now?

[Rogue 9]

Oh wow, we're really doing this?

So in theory, if I can show a more brutal form of slavery that is practiced on an institutional level then will the south be bumped up one on the "most evilest ever" scale? I find it humorous that your argument veers into hyperbole here when compared to the incredible tyrannies of Rome and the Mongol Yoke which spanned over much larger areas, much longer time frames and affected much larger shares of the worlds population percentage wise. But, as those below have pointed out, it isn't the secession that bothers you, it is the difference of opinion on what constitutes "light and transient causes"

Of course the secession in the abstract isn't the bothersome thing morally speaking, and rightly so; law can have very little to do with morality, after all. That said, the Slave Power was legally in the wrong as well per Article IV giving the power to regulate the territory of the United States to Congress and barring anything in the Constitution from being construed to compromise the claims of the United States. And even if you can find some worse regime than the chattel slave system of the antebellum American South, that does not lessen the evil of that peculiar institution.

That being the case I propose this thought experiment: Imagine that Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is conclusively proved and accepted and, starting in 2016-2020 the newly inaugurated US president Bernie Sanders will begin a crash program to eliminate the use of non-green sources of electricity which WILL over the course of his presidency reduce the use of electiricy in the US by at least 90%. fisrt imagine how this will affect your family. Will you object or go along with the program? If drafted will you fight against the opposition and burn down thier homes?

Remember, electricity usage coming from non-green sources is now a moral evil on the level of slavery and the federal government is now embarking on a plan to eliminate it. it's destroying the bio-sphere remember? Think of the children!!

Oh, Jesus Christ. First of all, the scenario is ridiculous; if we decided to undertake a crash program like that it would be dead simple to simply ramp up nuclear power production and scale up solar and wind, especially now that the latter two have become so much cheaper than they were just a few years ago, and that's presuming that the government (even under a hypothetical President Sanders) would attempt such a drastic shift to begin with. Second, you're comparing the evils of chattel slavery to scaling down electricity production? Are you serious?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Rogue 9 pretty much covers half of what I was going to say. But here is the rest.

That being the case I propose this thought experiment: Imagine that Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is conclusively proved

It already is. The fact that idiots like you are idiots does nothing to change the weight of evidence in this respect.

and accepted and, starting in 2016-2020 the newly inaugurated US president Bernie Sanders will begin a crash program to eliminate the use of non-green sources of electricity which WILL over the course of his presidency reduce the use of electiricy in the US by at least 90%. fisrt imagine how this will affect your family.

Really? This is the best you can do? There are sources of electricity other than fossil fuels. But OK. Lets continue with your ridiculously contrived scenario.

Will you object or go along with the program? If drafted will you fight against the opposition and burn down thier homes?

Yes, and no. I am (mostly) a utilitarian. There are better options for dealing with climate change than reducing humanity to the late victorian period in terms of energy use. Ramping up nuclear power through massive state capital investment, for example. Impoverishing millions is the work of a madman.

Remember, electricity usage coming from non-green sources is now a moral evil on the level of slavery

A proclamation by the state does not a moral evil make. Slavery is objectively wrong, made even more wrong by the brutal conditions practiced in the american south.

Now, on to the point I think you were, in your special and incoherent way, trying to make.

What a state is obliged to do in the face of an insurrection and the circumstances that cause an insurrection are two different things. The state has two options when faced with an insurrection. It can acquiesce and either cease to meaningfully exist or change to accommodate the demands of the insurrectionists if practicable (it rarely is), or can crush the insurrection. Those are its options. There is no moral dimension to this. It simply is. No state can survive if it permits insurrection to go un-crushed, so they do not do so. They might fail at the crushing and the government may fall or its borders may be redrawn, but it cannot simply permit armed insurrection for every grievance.

Then there are the complaints that cause insurrection in the first place. These may be justified, or unjustified. This can be on the basis of facts (say, an insurrection caused because the population believes something that is not true as a matter of fact, which would render the insurrection unjustified. An example would be if Bavarians believed that their children were being kidnapped and eaten by members of the Bundestag), or ethics (had the Armenians during WWI rebelled against the genocide being perpetrated by the Ottoman Empire, it would have been justified).

The Slave States were wrong in both. They feared (incorrectly) that Lincoln wanted to take their slaves, and their desire to preserve the institution of chattel slavery was itself monstrous.

Unless of course you want to make an argument regarding the morality of enslaving your fellow human beings.

[LaCroix]

I am not Thanas, but the fact that he compared the US version favourably to the Roman version or the "Mongol Yoke" is laughable. Both Rome and the Mongols would be perceived as beacons of enlightenment (because they actually were) compared with what the Southern Slaveocrats did.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I am not Thanas, but the fact that he compared the US version favourably to the Roman version or the "Mongol Yoke" is laughable. Both Rome and the Mongols would be perceived as beacons of enlightenment (because they actually were) compared with what the Southern Slaveocrats did.

To springboard off this, slaves in the roman empire never became non-persons culturally (legally yes, but ultimately the status of a slave was not much different from that of a child if I remember properly. The pater familias had the power of life and death over relatives etc). They could own property, earn money, buy their freedom, and were often manumitted to freedom for good service.

It was not good by any means, they were subject to getting a bad job (OSHA did not exist back then and mining has always been dangerous) and were subject to sexual exploitation.

The romans did not as a whole practice the same degree of barbarous cruelty toward their entire slave class that the southern slavocrats did. As the empire aged, various emperors granted more and more rights and freedoms to slaves as a class.

Any freed slave in the south was liable to being re-enslaved basically at will, punishments were widespread, arbitrary and of breath-taking cruelty. They were selectively bred, and families separated routinely. Something that, if I recall, romans did not do as frequently (at least not after initial enslavement).

Thanas, feel free to correct me on any of this. I wont even argue.

[cmdrjones]

I am not Thanas, but the fact that he compared the US version favourably to the Roman version or the "Mongol Yoke" is laughable. Both Rome and the Mongols would be perceived as beacons of enlightenment (because they actually were) compared with what the Southern Slaveocrats did.

To springboard off this, slaves in the roman empire never became non-persons culturally (legally yes, but ultimately the status of a slave was not much different from that of a child if I remember properly. The pater familias had the power of life and death over relatives etc). They could own property, earn money, buy their freedom, and were often manumitted to freedom for good service.

It was not good by any means, they were subject to getting a bad job (OSHA did not exist back then and mining has always been dangerous) and were subject to sexual exploitation.

The romans did not as a whole practice the same degree of barbarous cruelty toward their entire slave class that the southern slavocrats did. As the empire aged, various emperors granted more and more rights and freedoms to slaves as a class.

Any freed slave in the south was liable to being re-enslaved basically at will, punishments were widespread, arbitrary and of breath-taking cruelty. They were selectively bred, and families separated routinely. Something that, if I recall, romans did not do as frequently (at least not after initial enslavement).

Thanas, feel free to correct me on any of this. I wont even argue.

Of course, the Confederates were the worstest evar!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31E1gHowYcA

oh wait...

[Alyrium Denryle]

I am not Thanas, but the fact that he compared the US version favourably to the Roman version or the "Mongol Yoke" is laughable. Both Rome and the Mongols would be perceived as beacons of enlightenment (because they actually were) compared with what the Southern Slaveocrats did.

To springboard off this, slaves in the roman empire never became non-persons culturally (legally yes, but ultimately the status of a slave was not much different from that of a child if I remember properly. The pater familias had the power of life and death over relatives etc). They could own property, earn money, buy their freedom, and were often manumitted to freedom for good service.

It was not good by any means, they were subject to getting a bad job (OSHA did not exist back then and mining has always been dangerous) and were subject to sexual exploitation.

The romans did not as a whole practice the same degree of barbarous cruelty toward their entire slave class that the southern slavocrats did. As the empire aged, various emperors granted more and more rights and freedoms to slaves as a class.

Any freed slave in the south was liable to being re-enslaved basically at will, punishments were widespread, arbitrary and of breath-taking cruelty. They were selectively bred, and families separated routinely. Something that, if I recall, romans did not do as frequently (at least not after initial enslavement).

Thanas, feel free to correct me on any of this. I wont even argue.

Of course, the Confederates were the worstest evar!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31E1gHowYcA

oh wait...

Make your own fucking argument, I have better things to do than watch a 40 minute video/rant. You have not addressed the primary thrust of my argument, you will do so.

[Steve]

Would it really matter if they were the absolutely worst period? They were still pretty fucking horrible, especially since the slavery was essentially racial, and I suspect there were probably more slave-owners like James Henry Hammond than Jefferson Davis.

[Thanas]

Of course, the Confederates were the worstest evar!

Yes, in many aspects they were when considering the history of the western world.

In Rome, a slave could own property. Even moreso, he had the right to earn money to buy his freedom. He could marry of his own will. He could have children of his own will. He was protected by law from certain cruel treatments (though at times the law demanded some cruel treatment as well). Still, all of this points to a far different picture than the south. Even moreso, he could, after getting his freedom, became a valued and honored member of society, with some freedmen even getting more power than senators and de facto ruling the entire empire. You show me one instance where that happened in the south.

Note that mine slaves are the exception to this because being sent to the mine was like getting the death penalty, only that you died by mining instead of being executed. It was not the norm.

Even further, slavery was not tied to racism. Neither in the Roman, nor the mongol, nor even the Spanish or French forms of slavery. In all those societies having a certain skin colour was no prerequisite or justification for slavery. Unlike in the south.

[NecronLord]

nor even the Spanish or French forms of slavery. In all those societies having a certain skin colour was no prerequisite or justification for slavery. Unlike in the south.

I would ask which French or Spanish forms of slavery you're referencing there, certainly French and Spanish transatlantic slavery in places such as Haiti and Cuba was substantially racial based, and generally comparable to its northern cousins while it lasted, with its own foibles (sistema de castas vs 'one drop' racism, for instance) certainly it's hard to imagine these countries, while they were involved in the transatlantic slave trade, not regarding 'a certain skin colour' as reason for slavery.

[Thanas]

The argument is that the spanish did not discriminate based on skin colour. They sold captured arabs just as easily as they sold captured africans. In fact, slave raids formed one of the tenets of the economy of their early north African enclaves. Meanwhile, la sistema de castas which you referred to was not a strict system. For example, if you achieved a certain status - even though you had mixed ancestry - you were often regarded as white. And that says nothing of the widespread integration of the Indio upper class (see the dukes of Montezuma for that). Even the mere fact that mestizos rose rapidly even during the early conquest shows that Spaniards had no qualms to practice race-mixing and in fact there was widespread usage of it. The very fact that black people could own weapons and form their own militias as well as own property and have their own communities shows that Spanish slavery, as a whole was not as bad as the south. Can you show one instance of free black units fighting for the south? Or paintings such as this produced by the Government? Or another telling fact - the Spanish in Florida regarded any escaped southern slave as a free man if he could show he was catholic or was willing to convert. No such equivalent exists in the southern states. Even more telling, manumission was practiced way more widely than in the South. By 1800, free Africans in New Spain numbered 650,000 compared to just 271,000 slaves - a ratio of more than 2:1. We never see this in the south. Even more telling, where is the southern Juan Garrido? From the outset spanish colonists and conquistadors included free blacks alongside free whites.

For France, it is worth noting that they had a direct descendant of slaves rise to the rank of General and his son being widely accepted as one of the eminent writers of French culture. Nothing of the sort happened in the south. Nor did the south ever free large numbers of slaves or have slavery-free zones, whereas in France you have decrees as early as the 13th century banning slavery on the royal demesne (later extended to all of France).

So I feel quite comfortable in stating that the Spanish and French forms of slavery were way less racist, at least in practice, than the Anglo form of slavery.

[NecronLord]

The argument is that the spanish did not discriminate based on skin colour. They sold captured arabs just as easily as they sold captured africans. In fact, slave raids formed one of the tenets of the economy of their early north African enclaves. Meanwhile, la sistema de castas which you referred to was not a strict system. For example, if you achieved a certain status - even though you had mixed ancestry - you were often regarded as white. And that says nothing of the widespread integration of the Indio upper class (see the dukes of Montezuma for that). Even the mere fact that mestizos rose rapidly even during the early conquest shows that Spaniards had no qualms to practice race-mixing and in fact there was widespread usage of it. The very fact that black people could own weapons and form their own militias as well as own property and have their own communities shows that Spanish slavery, as a whole was not as bad as the south.

Not under contention. The antebellum South was essentially without equal in racism (certainly of the examples listed). I am saying that I believe you're over-selling your point by saying that there was nothing racial about Spanish slavery, when the spaniards had an elaborate race-purity ideology, sufficient that the main work of the infamous spanish inquisition seemed to be inquiring into people's racial backgrounds. You said that having a certain skin colour wasn't the pre-requisite for slavery. I seriously question that.

Can you show one instance of free black units fighting for the south? Or paintings such as this produced by the Government? Or another telling fact - the Spanish in Florida regarded any escaped southern slave as a free man if he could show he was catholic or was willing to convert. No such equivalent exists in the southern states. Even more telling, manumission was practiced way more widely than in the South. By 1800, free Africans in New Spain numbered 650,000 compared to just 271,000 slaves - a ratio of more than 2:1. We never see this in the south. Even more telling, where is the southern Juan Garrido? From the outset spanish colonists and conquistadors included free blacks alongside free whites.

The point I take issue with is that you're saying that being of an oppressed race wasn't a pre-requisite for slavery in the Spanish Empire. I'm pretty certain it was.

For France, it is worth noting that they had a direct descendant of slaves rise to the rank of General and his son being widely accepted as one of the eminent writers of French culture. Nothing of the sort happened in the south. Nor did the south ever free large numbers of slaves or have slavery-free zones, whereas in France you have decrees as early as the 13th century banning slavery on the royal demesne (later extended to all of France).

So I feel quite comfortable in stating that the Spanish and French forms of slavery were way less racist, at least in practice, than the Anglo form of slavery.

You went way over that mark, and said that Spanish slavery was not racist.

In all those societies having a certain skin colour was no prerequisite or justification for slavery.

This is not 'They were not as racist as the South' this is 'Their slavery was not racist.' Which is true of the Romans and various other cultures, but seems extremely dubious in these two specific cases.