Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => General Topics => Topic started by: The True Adonis on February 01, 2013, 01:38:23 PM
-
-
-
(http://www.usflag.org/historical/scross.gif)
-
She shouldn't be attacked for her misguided-ness.
-
She shouldn't be attacked for her misguided-ness.
???
-
Could somebody explain to me why in hell is that black woman flying the confederate flag? Its not the first time I see a black person doing it and its just apalling.
-
Could somebody explain to me why in hell is that black woman flying the confederate flag? Its not the first time I see a black person doing it and its just apalling.
many times certain "people" like to be included in things...whether it be an ancestor fought in the Civil War on the Confederate side or whatever...
-
Nice - I was waiting for Obama to join in. :D
-
.
-
many times certain "people" like to be included in things...whether it be an ancestor fought in the Civil War on the Confederate side or whatever...
And sometimes they just wanna be slightly better than their own.
-
;D
-
Could somebody explain to me why in hell is that black woman flying the confederate flag? Its not the first time I see a black person doing it and its just apalling.
Learn American History. Many, many Blacks were Confederates and fought for the Confederacy.
-
Learn American History. Many, many Blacks were Confederates and fought for the Confederacy.
Oh, I know that, and its a funny thing too. I am just amazed black people TODAY fly such flag proudly, I didnt know there were proud black confederates still, considering how history treated the confederation (and by this I mean, what in the actual fuck would motivate you to be a proud black condeferate today). I guess its like the "neonazi" movements in latin america.
-
Oh, I know that, and its a funny thing too. I am just amazed black people TODAY fly such flag proudly, I didnt know there were proud black confederates still, considering how history treated the confederation (and by this I mean, what in the actual fuck would motivate you to be a proud black condeferate today). I guess its like the "neonazi" movements in latin america.
as I said, certain people want a "me too" moment...makes them feel important.
-
Its a historical flag. Did you know the Song, Dixie, The anthem of the Confederacy is about a black freedman wishing to be back on the Plantation of his birth.
-
Oh, I know that, and its a funny thing too. I am just amazed black people TODAY fly such flag proudly, I didnt know there were proud black confederates still, considering how history treated the confederation (and by this I mean, what in the actual fuck would motivate you to be a proud black condeferate today). I guess its like the "neonazi" movements in latin america.
You couldn`t be further from the truth. Blacks had a much better life in the South than the North, pre civil war. There were many black men who attained great wealth and even had slaves of their own. The largest slave owner in Craven County, North Carolina was a black man, John Carruthers Stanly and was one of the largest in the state.
His house still stands today.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_TGfl23VjLM/TZHmwUVJt6I/AAAAAAAACnU/x9bWfE8Mc9I/s640/John+Wright+Stanley+House.jpg)
-
“By 1860, so many Black women in Charleston had inherited or been given slaves and
other property by white men, and used their property to start successful businesses, that
they owned 70% of the Black owned slaves in the city.”[36]
-
According to the federal census of 1830, free blacks owned more than 10,000 slaves
in Louisiana, Maryland, South Carolina, and Virginia. The majority of black slave owners lived in
Louisiana and planted sugar cane
-
“The largest black slaveholder in the South, John Carruthers Stanly of North Carolina, faced
a number of problems in the 1820s in dealing with a slave labor force on his three
turpentine plantations in Craven County. With a total of 163 slaves, Stanly was a harsh,
profit-minded taskmaster, and his field hands would run away. Stanley dealt with this
through his two white overseers and with a spy network that included a few trusted
slaves. Brister, his slave barber in New Bern, was responsible for relaying to his owner
rumors of planned escapes …Nor did Stanly have any pangs of conscience about selling
children away from their parents or holding free blacks in bondage.”
“Free black slave owners who lived in urban areas – Charleston, Savannah, Mobile, Natchez, and
New Orleans – also faced difficulties with their slave property. Free mulatto barber William
Johnson of Natchez was not certain what had happened to his recently purchased slave,
Walker, when he disappeared in 1835. He had either been stolen or had run away to
Kentucky to rejoin his wife. When on 4 July 1833, authorities in Ascension Parish,
Louisiana, jailed the twelve- or fourteen-year-old black boy named Isaac taken off
the steamer Watchman, he admitted he was owned by a ‘free woman of color in
New Orleans named Jane’.”[38]
-
best country song ever written by a black man
-
You couldn`t be further from the truth. Blacks had a much better life in the South than the North, pre civil war. There were many black men who attained great wealth and even had slaves of their own. The largest slave owner in Craven County, North Carolina was a black man, John Carruthers Stanly and was one of the largest in the state.
Their slaves were white right? ???
-
Another Negro slave magnate in
Louisiana, with over 100 slaves, was Antoine Dubuclet, a sugar planter whose estate
was valued at (in 1860 dollars) $264,000 (3). That year, the mean wealth of southern
white men was $3,978 (4).
-
You couldn`t be further from the truth. Blacks had a much better life in the South than the North, pre civil war. There were many black men who attained great wealth and even had slaves of their own. The largest slave owner in Craven County, North Carolina was a black man, John Carruthers Stanly and was one of the largest in the state.
His house still stands today.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_TGfl23VjLM/TZHmwUVJt6I/AAAAAAAACnU/x9bWfE8Mc9I/s640/John+Wright+Stanley+House.jpg)
Is this the majority of the cases?
Im pretty sure you know about more about the civil war than I do, but I find it a tad misleading that you say "Blacks had a much better life in the South than the North", maybe some blacks...
-
an estimated 65,000 Southern blacks in the Confederate military, including over
13,000 who fought against the North in battle.
-
Bravo, TA, for giving a history lesson that society has become too pussified to give.
-
Is this the majority of the cases?
Im pretty sure you know about more about the civil war than I do, but I find it a tad misleading that you say "Blacks had a much better life in the South than the North", maybe some blacks...
I can name countless wealthy blacks Pre-Civil War. The North, not so much. If you were a black man in the North, you were worthless.
-
Bravo, TA, for giving a history lesson that society has become too pussified to give.
Larry, I found a picture of you, me and Jezebelle that I need to post. Remember when they all used to say she wasn`t real. ROFLMAO.
-
Some Freed Blacks would even petition their Masters and Plantations to be accepted as slaves again as they were not able to take care of themselves on their own.
-
Larry, I found a picture of you, me and Jezebelle that I need to post. Remember when they all used to say she wasn`t real. ROFLMAO.
Oh, she was real...and easy on the eyes!
-
Oh, she was real...and easy on the eyes!
I sense cuckoldry.
-
Learn American History. Many, many Blacks were Confederates and fought for the Confederacy.
brings a tear to my eye to know how much he respec the white man, and aswell we should do the same
-
If American History were taught as it should be, decades and decades ago, I believe there would be less racial tension and animosity between races.
Think about it, if Blacks learned that they too, owned Plantations and slaves as well as held positions in Society, the victim mentality would not be permissible nor would the stereotypical memes that they assume exist.
It has been a disservice to the Black Race that this has occurred. Even Booker T. Washington had no idea that Blacks were Plantation owners and slave holders.
-
So, the blacks who owned slaves. There slaves were white? ???
-
I sense cuckoldry.
Yes! Larry even let me try on his Posing trunks afterwards.
-
So, the blacks who owned slaves. There slaves were white? ???
The majority were non-whites but many were indeed white. Being white was not an automatic dis-qualifier to becoming a slave.
-
Indentured servitude
-
There were white slaves and I have posted on this before. Not only that, Poor Whites were worse off than Black Slaves and were considered a lot of the times lower than the Black Slaves in society.
The many (Negro) ex‑slaves who recalled the lot of the small farmers and Poor Whites as Hard and Even as Bad as Their Own knew what they were talking about...The slaves saw enough abject poverty, disease, and demoralization among the Poor Whites...to see their own condition under Old Massa's protection as perhaps not the worst of evils." [55]
[55] Rather Be a guy Than a Poor White Man, Eugene D. Genovese; Slave Perceptions of Southern Yeoman and Poor Whites, in Toward a New View of America, pp. 79, 81‑82, 84, 90‑91
-
"People at the North are disposed to be incredulous when they hear of white slaves at the South: and yet a little reflection would convince them not only that there must be such slaves under the present system, but that in process of time a large proportion of the slaves must be as white as their masters."
B William Jay, Miscellaneous Writings on Slavery (1853)
-
The majority were non-whites but many were indeed white. Being white was not an automatic dis-qualifier to becoming a slave.
So, do I qualify for reparations? Do I get a mule? Surely somebody owes me something? :D
-
Very interesting watch.. thank you..
this is a good site to go to if you like Docs.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/
-
Some Freed Blacks would even petition their Masters and Plantations to be accepted as slaves again as they were not able to take care of themselves on their own.
"Oh please Massa, take me back...I cants make it on my own. I cants read nor write. I ain't got much skills. I need yo to take care of me. I haven't learnt to be my own man."
So used to being kept, that they didn't realize that freedom means making your own path, and putting food on your own table.
-
(http://s3-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/web04/2012/2/27/13/enhanced-buzz-14641-1330368235-95.jpg)
(http://s3-ak.buzzfed.com/static/enhanced/terminal05/2012/2/27/13/enhanced-buzz-5949-1330368342-190.jpg)
-
While Whites Languished in Chains Blacks Were Free Men in Virginia Throughout the 17th Century.[48]
A Documentary History of Slavery in North America, Willie Lee Rose, p. 15; Free Negro in Virginia, John Henderson Russell, 1619‑1865, p. 233ff; Who Built America?, Bruce Levine, et al., Vol. 1, p. 52.
In 1717, it was proposed that a qualification for election to the South Carolina Assembly was to be, "the ownership of one white man." [49]
[49] Journals of the Commons House of Assembly of the Province of South Carolina: 1692‑1775, Vol. 5, pp. 294‑295.
-
"Oh please Massa, take me back...I cants make it on my own. I cants read nor write. I ain't got much skills. I need yo to take care of me. I haven't learnt to be my own man."
So used to being kept, that they didn't realize that freedom means making your own path, and putting food on your own table.
"When I was a boy, 'recalled Waters McIntosh, who had been a slave in Sumter, South Carolina, 'we used to sing, 'Rather be a N I G G E R than a poor White Man,' Even in slavery we used to sing that.' Mr. McIntosh's remarks reveal...that the poor whites of the South ranked below blacks in social standing...slaves felt unbridled contempt for lower‑class whites...Frederick Douglas opened his famous Life and Times with an account of Talbot County, Maryland, which he said housed a 'White population of the lowest order..
-
Yes! Larry even let me try on his Posing trunks afterwards.
larrys sholders are as wide as a trailer , no receeding hairline either , calves like cows
-
larrys sholders are as wide as a trailer , no receeding hairline either , calves like cows
Reminds me of a tall and ripped Gary Busey.
-
http://www.learnnc.org/lp/editions/nchist-antebellum/5431
A petition to free a white slave
Petition of Gurdon Deming to the North Carolina General Assembly, December 1800. Records of the General Assembly, Session Records, North Carolina Division of Archives and History.
To the Honorable the General Assembly of the State of North Carolina.
The Petition of Gurdon Deming a citizen of the county of Cumberland Humbly sheweth, that he is the owner of a Certain woman named Lucy and her child Laura Who were represented to be slaves and as such purchased by your petitioner –
That he has reason to believe and doth believe from diligent inquires made, that the Said Lucy ought not to be held in bondage. Your petitioner is aware that legal proof cannot be made of the fact, yet your petitioner is fully satisfied, that the Said Lucy is the daughter of a free white Woman – that to conceal this circumstance, so as to protect the reputation of the real mother, Lucy at her birth was placed in charge of a woman slave of one John Selph – Your petitioner learns from a number of the most respectable citizens of Fayetteville, that it was always the intention of Mr. Selph to manumit the Said Lucy at his death – but the death of Mr. Selph being sudden and his estate providing insolvent, his intentions were frustrated – Lucy was sold by his administrator and she was purchased at a mere nominal Sum by Several Gentlemen with the View to Carry out the wishes of Mr. Selph; Owing however to the insolvency of the person delegated to bid her off, occurring soon after, She was again Sold and has subsequently fallen with into the hands of your petitioner –
The History of Lucy is a romantic one, and if your petitioner could detail it without giving offense and bringing to light, what has long been forgotten and thereby do injury perhaps to persons now residents of a distant state, he is certain your honorable body would not hesitate a moment in assisting him in doing simple justice to this injured Girl, by authorizing her immediate Emancipation –
Lucy in colour is perfectly White, and cannot be distinguished from the purest of the race, her associations have been distinct from the coloured population, and her whole demeanor that of the whites to which class she evidently belongs.
In consideration of these things your petitioner humbly prays your honorable body to pass a law authorizing the Emancipation of the Said Lucy, and her child Laura, And as in duty bound, your petitioner will ever pray.
Gurdon Deming
Next: Black codes
-
You couldn`t be further from the truth. Blacks had a much better life in the South than the North, pre civil war. There were many black men who attained great wealth and even had slaves of their own. The largest slave owner in Craven County, North Carolina was a black man, John Carruthers Stanly and was one of the largest in the state.
His house still stands today.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_TGfl23VjLM/TZHmwUVJt6I/AAAAAAAACnU/x9bWfE8Mc9I/s640/John+Wright+Stanley+House.jpg)
Yea...funny thing is that he was actually born into slavery, bought his freedom, became a barber, freed his family, and then bought a shitload of slaves.......one of the irony's of history.... ;D
-
We had one President of the United States who was in the same class of slaves and treated as such. Andrew Johnson. He was bonded to a man called James Selby in Raleigh, NC who made Andrew Johnson become a tailor. He was legally bound to Mr. Selby until Andrew turned 21. Andrew Johnson ran away and J. Selby sent out a "Slave Bill" with a reward for anyone who would return Andrew Johnson. Johnson eventually came back and tried to buy his way out of bondage but was unable to do so. He was forced to move West.
Andrew Johnson`s boyhood home is located on a Jewish Plantation in Raleigh, Mordecai Plantation Manor.
Here is the Jewish Plantation.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fd/Historic_Mordecai_House-Raleigh-NC-13_Sept_2010.jpeg/800px-Historic_Mordecai_House-Raleigh-NC-13_Sept_2010.jpeg)
And here is Andrew Johnson`s boyhood home on the Plantation.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Andrew_Johnsons_First_Home_2006.jpg)
-
my head is going to explode over here... so much good information
its gonna take me a bit to read through it all...
I was on this whole "real history of Scotland" trip for the last 2 weeks...
I think ill research wealthy blacks during pre civil war times..
TA... look up a woman named Biddy Mason of GA... she has a crazy story
-
Yeah , slavery is /was awesome ::)
-
Yeah , slavery is /was awesome ::)
Fack no.. that shit sucked...
I just like information, im not making an opinion... just getting some information
-
Yea...funny thing is that he was actually born into slavery, bought his freedom, became a barber, freed his family, and then bought a shitload of slaves.......one of the irony's of history.... ;D
Here you go my friend. Here is another irony. A black Slave Holder who is ultimately killed by a slave that was helped to escape by a White Man.
Among these was William Johnson, a slave turned free man of color in Natchez, Mississippi. Granted his freedom in 1830, Johnson set up business in Natchez as a barber and moneylender until he purchased a nearby farm. At the time of his death in 1851 he owned fifteen slaves, with an eye to turning a profit. And yet, his diary indicates, some of them evoked in him a turbulent mixture of emotions. “To day has been to me a very Sad Day,” he wrote on December 31, 1843. “Many tears were in my Eyes to day On acct. of my Selling poor Steven. I went under the hill this Evening to See him of[f] but the Boat did not Cross over again and Steven got drunk in a few minutes and 1 took him Home & made him Sleep in the garret and Kept him Safe.” Johnson, who had bought Steven in 1832 for $455, had just sold him for $600. The next day the former slave still grappled with his conscience: “I felt hurt but Liquor is the Cause of his troubles; I would not have parted with Him if he had Only have Let Liquor alone but he Cannot do it I believe.”
As a black slaveholder Johnson was caught in a tangle of ironies. His diaries reveal the rancor he felt toward the arrogant white slaveowners of his area, though he was cautious to keep his resentment under wraps. While he expressed considerable compassion for his slaves, the only one who ever escaped from him was helped to freedom by a man he called “a white scoundrel.” Johnson was murdered in 1851, apparently by a mulatto whose race the courts had difficulty ascertaining.
-
I sense cuckoldry.
Yeeesh...not quite! I just believe in giving credit where it's due! ;)
-
my head is going to explode over here... so much good information
its gonna take me a bit to read through it all...
I was on this whole "real history of Scotland" trip for the last 2 weeks...
I think ill research wealthy blacks during pre civil war times..
TA... look up a woman named Biddy Mason of GA... she has a crazy story
European History sucks compared to American History. :D
-
If American History were taught as it should be, decades and decades ago, I believe there would be less racial tension and animosity between races.
Think about it, if Blacks learned that they too, owned Plantations and slaves as well as held positions in Society, the victim mentality would not be permissible nor would the stereotypical memes that they assume exist.
It has been a disservice to the Black Race that this has occurred. Even Booker T. Washington had no idea that Blacks were Plantation owners and slave holders.
TRUTH.
And the primary function of such black "heroes" as Jackson, Sharpton, etc.. has been to exacerbate tension between the races. If we "all got along" there would be a lot of worthless rabble-rousers going broke.
Which church do the aforementioned "Revs." serve, anyway?
-
Yes! Larry even let me try on his Posing trunks afterwards.
Dude! Secret!!!! ;D
-
Here you go my friend. Here is another irony. A black Slave Holder who is ultimately killed by a slave that was helped to escape by a White Man.
Among these was William Johnson, a slave turned free man of color in Natchez, Mississippi. Granted his freedom in 1830, Johnson set up business in Natchez as a barber and moneylender until he purchased a nearby farm. At the time of his death in 1851 he owned fifteen slaves, with an eye to turning a profit. And yet, his diary indicates, some of them evoked in him a turbulent mixture of emotions. “To day has been to me a very Sad Day,” he wrote on December 31, 1843. “Many tears were in my Eyes to day On acct. of my Selling poor Steven. I went under the hill this Evening to See him of[f] but the Boat did not Cross over again and Steven got drunk in a few minutes and 1 took him Home & made him Sleep in the garret and Kept him Safe.” Johnson, who had bought Steven in 1832 for $455, had just sold him for $600. The next day the former slave still grappled with his conscience: “I felt hurt but Liquor is the Cause of his troubles; I would not have parted with Him if he had Only have Let Liquor alone but he Cannot do it I believe.”
As a black slaveholder Johnson was caught in a tangle of ironies. His diaries reveal the rancor he felt toward the arrogant white slaveowners of his area, though he was cautious to keep his resentment under wraps. While he expressed considerable compassion for his slaves, the only one who ever escaped from him was helped to freedom by a man he called “a white scoundrel.” Johnson was murdered in 1851, apparently by a mulatto whose race the courts had difficulty ascertaining.
I read about that in an old book in the library regarding Southern History. If history was not so twisted to where one side was demonized, then we would have more equality.
-
Fack no.. that shit sucked...
I just like information, im not making an opinion... just getting some information
The Holocaust is nothing compared to the crimes of slavery .
-
So used to being kept, that they didn't realize that freedom means making your own path, and putting food on your own table.
A lesson that, if learned, would keep certain politicians out of office.
"Gimme, gimme, gimme...government PLEASE take care of me!"
Starve, if you're not willing to work.
-
I read about that in an old book in the library regarding Southern History. If history was not so twisted to where one side was demonized, then we would have more equality.
This. Great point.
-
Also, slavery would have ended without the Civil War as it had ended every where else had Lincoln not decided to send to send an army to invade the South. It really was a War of Northern Aggression. Slavery would have ended very soon, (especially with advances in Agriculture and the Industrial Age) much more cleanly and without a war.
-
You couldn`t be further from the truth. Blacks had a much better life in the South than the North, pre civil war. There were many black men who attained great wealth and even had slaves of their own. The largest slave owner in Craven County, North Carolina was a black man, John Carruthers Stanly and was one of the largest in the state.
His house still stands today.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_TGfl23VjLM/TZHmwUVJt6I/AAAAAAAACnU/x9bWfE8Mc9I/s640/John+Wright+Stanley+House.jpg)
did he have any white slaves ?
-
did he have any white slaves ?
Probably. I will have to look at the census which is available. Most likely he did.
-
did he have any white slaves ?
Actually he did have many white slaves.....many of them he trained to be a barber to work at his shops as an apprrenticeship. Others kept maintenence on his rental properties...they were given room, board, and a stipend to go into town on the weekend.
Think about it....the United States at the time was a harsh enviroment to live in. Lots of people became indentured servants rather than struggle to survive
-
Also, slavery would have ended without the Civil War as it had ended every where else had Lincoln not decided to send to send an army to invade the South. It really was a War of Northern Aggression. Slavery would have ended very soon, (especially with advances in Agriculture and the Industrial Age) much more cleanly and without a war.
doesnt change the fact that the southern states seceeded to protect the institution of slavery, and therefore the confederate flag represents nothing more than states willing to fight to protect slavery.
stop with your romanticism of the south.
-
Actually he did have many white slaves.....many of them he trained to be a barber to work at his shops as an apprrenticeship. Others kept maintenence on his rental properties...they were given room, board, and a stipend to go into town on the weekend.
Think about it....the United States at the time was a harsh enviroment to live in. Lots of people became indentured servants rather than struggle to survive
given a stipend to me is not qualification to be a slave. One is in effect, a "live in employee".
-
Also, Lincoln himself knew invading the South was Unconstitutional and not founded in any law whatsoever. The "Legal" Justification he used to raise troops and invade was simply the Oath of Office he took when he was sworn in, the same Barack Obama took a few weeks ago.
Lincoln also suspended Habeas Corpus in the ENTIRE state of Maryland. Many journalists were imprisoned during that time. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger Taney, overturned the order as being Unconstitutional and Lincoln just ignored the ruling completely.
-
given a stipend to me is not qualification to be a slave. One is in effect, a "live in employee".
They weren't allowed to leave the area otherwise they would be hunted down by a slave catcher....no different than Andrew Johnson. They signed the contacts to be slaves so that they would be taken care of and/or learn a particular skill
And a stipend isn't a paycheck...it was basically an allowance. They usually got about 25 cents to buy some beer and whisky and shoot a few games of pool....nothing to write home about
-
They weren't allowed to leave the area otherwise they would be hunted down by a slave catcher....no different than Andrew Johnson. They signed the contacts to be slaves so that they would be taken care of and/or learn a particular skill
And a stipend isn't a paycheck...it was basically an allowance. They usually got about 25 cents to buy some beer and whisky and shoot a few games of pool....nothing to write home about
entering into a contract to voluntarily be an indentured servant is not the same thing as being a slave
-
doesnt change the fact that the southern states seceeded to protect the institution of slavery, and therefore the confederate flag represents nothing more than states willing to fight to protect slavery.
stop with your romanticism of the south.
Your logic is flawed beyond belief and the facts certainly are not on your side. You can call me whatever name you wish as it will not change the course of history one iota, nor will you ever be correct. When North Carolina drafted their Ordinance of Secession, Slavery was not even considered an issue. The same applies to Four other states, including mighty Virginia.
If this is the best of the California Public School system, where I presume you learned such incorrect drivel, I am not impressed one bit and they have failed you and you have failed yourself.
Afterall, California has moved to teach "Gay History" now in Schools which is the most absurd thing I have ever heard in my life. As if anyone did anything in History because they were motivated by the cock. Roll Eyes
Perhaps you can be the first in the History books there, my dear TDongz.
-
The Permanent Slavery Act
During his first inaugural speech, given on March 4, 1861, President Abraham Lincoln stated that he approved of a Constitutional amendment which would guarantee permanent slavery in the United States. The “Great Emancipator” said, "I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. Holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable." This amendment, supported by Lincoln, is shown here.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yxa-CnOl8fc/TeWsltqgwNI/AAAAAAAAAFk/wqN0loi_HW0/s1600/Northern+Permanent+Slavery+Amendment.jpg)
This act was passed on March 2, 1861 (The same day the Morrill Tariff was passed ) by both houses of Congress with a 66% vote. This was after the first seven states seceded from the Union, forming the Confederate States of America.
It is interesting that we are talking about the Federal Government, and not the Confederate Government, passing an amendment to the Constitution guaranteeing permanent slavery. If this amendment had been ratified by ľ of the states, the federal government would have been prevented from abolishing slavery in any state! Again, that is was the Northern Congress, and not the Southern Congress that passed this amendment – with President Lincoln’s approval, is to me amazingly hypocritical.
Moreover, this indicates that slavery was not the issue that caused the Civil War. Clearly the North approved of slavery, and was willing to try enacting a Constitutional amendment to preserve slavery. If the Confederate states wanted to ensure the protection of slavery, then all they would have had to do is return to the Union and ratify this amendment. Something the South did not do. The South did not ratify the Northern Congressionally passed Permanent Slavery Act.
There are many who believe that Lincoln’s support of the Permanent Slavery Act was nothing more than a political maneuver to manipulate the Southern states into returning to the Union, and thus being subject to the new 40% tax imposed on them by the Morrill Tariff. With the South importing and exporting as much as 80% of the nations goods, they would have paid an equal amount of the nation’s import taxes. All from an area which made up only 33% of the nations population. The South complained that the tax was unfair and burdensome to its population, and they were right, especially when one considers that the revenue from the tax would have been spent on Northern interests and not in the South.
The South also questioned Lincoln’s right to serve as President, as he was elected with only 39% of the popular vote. A question that has plagued numerous presidential election since then. In addition, in his inaugural speech Lincoln stated that he would not invade the South, except to collect taxes and possess tax collection stations (such as Fort Sumter). He stated, “The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts [import taxes]; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.” I am confident that the South, especially South Carolina clearly remembered the broken promise of President Buchanan to not take over Fort Sumter. A promise made only a few months before Lincoln took office, and broken almost immediately.
The South’s concern was that Lincoln would invade the South, abolish State sovereignty, and establish a centralist federal government, all powerful, and impose higher taxes and reduce personal freedoms. Similar to the current situation in America today.
-
There is no reason for the black race to continue to exist.
They do nothing but drain the earth's natural resources and contribute nothing to human progress, if anything they hinder it.
-
Decentralization of Federal Power to each state under a loose Confederacy is the very crux of Secession. Perhaps you should read the Confederate Constitution, the same one that states that each State has the power to Permanently BAN SLAVERY if they wish. The United States Constitution never went that far. Why would the Confederacy include that IN THEIR CONSTITUTION if they weren`t eventually planning to follow suit and end the practice? Surely they would have left that entire part out if they so dearly wanted to protect slavery as you wrongly assert.
The other ignorant thing you claim is that all States explicitly state they want to protect Slavery. This is immediately PROVEN FALSE as nowhere in the Secession Ordinance of North Carolina is this even remotely stated.
TBombz, it would really help if you actually knew your history and it is clear you don`t. Please educate yourself.
http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/52/entry/
On April 15, Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to “put down the rebellion.” Governor Ellis responded: “You can get no troops from North Carolina.” When word arrived of Lincoln’s summons, Zebulon Vance, with arms upraised, was pleading for the preservation of the Union: “When my hand came down from that impassioned gesticulation,” he said, “it fell slowly and sadly by the side of a secessionist.”
Ellis called a special session of the legislature for May 1 and ordered seizure of all federal property. The Assembly voted to have a delegate election on May 13 to an unrestricted convention to meet in Raleigh on May 20. The campaign that followed was characterized more by resignation than enthusiasm, as evidenced by former Unionists’ and secessionists’ speeches disparaging aggression.
When the convention met, delegates debated whether to secede, as some Unionists suggested, on the basis of “the right of revolution.” Radical secessionists, however, favored repealing the state’s ratification of the U.S. Constitution as the most appropriate means of leaving the Union.
North Carolinians seceded reluctantly. Jonathan Worth (1802-1869) stated publicly: “Lincoln had made us a unit to resist until we repel our invaders or die.”
The Tar Heel State, which only acted after Lincoln called for troops, became a bulwark of the Confederate defense, providing more men and supplies to the CSA and suffering more casualties than any other Southern state. In the end, most Tar Heels seceded in the name of self-defense.
-
TrueAdonis what are you trying to achieve with this ranting, the blacks will still hate you deep down inside no matter how much you try to convince them that life in the South was better for them than life in the North or back home in Africa. They hate the glory of the white race and nothing you can say or do will ever get rid of their jelousy. They are our rivals in a constant struggle for control of the earth, in this struggle the true purpose for every living organism's existance can be found.
-
The Confederacy grew from seven states to eleven states when Lincoln made it clear he was going to launch an invasion to force the seceded states to rejoin the Union. Voters in the Upper South states of Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia initially rejected secession by substantial margins. They were willing for their states to remain in the Union as long as Lincoln allowed the Deep South states to leave in peace. However, when Lincoln left no doubt he was going to use force, new votes were held in the Upper South states, and this time the results were strongly in favor of secession. It should be noted that these four states did not secede because of slavery but because they believed it was illegal and immoral to maintain the Union by violence.
-
TA would be a great advocate for the merits of fucking 12 year olds.
Seriously I don't know if he's just trolling or a fucking fucktard.
He post anecdote after anecdote, sure there were poor white people, and sure their were uncle toms owning slaves themselves, but your ignoring a whole fucking lot.
The way in which black children would of been vulnerable to sexual abuse alone would of made the whole dam thing crazy.
Far too many of you are just ignorant or just going for wishful thinking,(something I'm sure alot of whites and blacks did during slavery)
But again it's getbig, where folks can't acknowledge anything bad ever happens, unless it's the victims fault. ::)
-
TA would be a great advocate for the merits of fucking 12 year olds.
Seriously I don't know if he's just trolling or a fucking fucktard.
He post anecdote after anecdote, sure there were poor white people, and sure their were uncle toms owning slaves themselves, but your ignoring a whole fucking lot.
The way in which black children would of been vulnerable to abuse alone would of made the whole dam thing crazy.
Far too many of you are just ignorant or just going for wishful thinking,(something I'm sure alot of whites and blacks did during slavery)
You're a whiny man child.
-
You're a whiny man child.
Eat shit fuckrod, I deal with shit you couldn't even fucking imagine.
-
TA would be a great advocate for the merits of fucking 12 year olds.
Seriously I don't know if he's just trolling or a fucking fucktard.
He post anecdote after anecdote, sure there were poor white people, and sure their were uncle toms owning slaves themselves, but your ignoring a whole fucking lot.
The way in which black children would of been vulnerable to abuse alone would of made the whole dam thing crazy.
Far too many of you are just ignorant or just going for wishful thinking,(something I'm sure alot of whites and blacks did during slavery)
Every race is in a battle for control of the earth, in this battle there is no inherent wrong or right, there is only MIGHT. To say or think otherwise you are either a liar or an idiot.
-
Eat shit fuckrod, I deal with shit you couldn't even fucking imagine.
True, I'm not a lazy whiny virgin with no friends and no job with a fake disability.
-
I just finished reading "Team of Rivals" two days ago -- so a lot of this information is fresh in my mind.
I don't recall the book ever talking about an "invasion force" before the outbreak of war. What was happening was that Lincoln was in the delicate situation of resupplying Federal military forts in states that had left the union.
Lincoln claimed that although these states had left the union, the federal forts were still U.S. property under U.S. authority. I have NO IDEA as to the legality of this one way or the other. It's a complex political scene, to be sure.
The last thing he wanted was war -- so, when the time came to resupply these forts -- he not only gave the confederates advanced notice -- he sent only food/medical supplies only -- no weapons or artillery.
-
There is no reason for the black race to continue to exist.
They do nothing but drain the earth's natural resources and contribute nothing to human progress, if anything they hinder it.
So, exterminate the black race (or just the black men, and keep the womenfolk)? So who will be your buffer against the Asian race?
-
entering into a contract to voluntarily be an indentured servant is not the same thing as being a slave
Not exactly....the vast majority of contacts were signed by their parents so that they could learn a skill and/or have a way to live life if they were poor and destitute. Some were also sold as indentured servants to work off the debts of parents.
Call it what you like but it was still pretty much slavery
-
Why not!? It's what you've been working on for the last 6 months, or so.
-
TA would be a great advocate for the merits of fucking 12 year olds.
Seriously I don't know if he's just trolling or a fucking fucktard.
He post anecdote after anecdote, sure there were poor white people, and sure their were uncle toms owning slaves themselves, but your ignoring a whole fucking lot.
The way in which black children would of been vulnerable to sexual abuse alone would of made the whole dam thing crazy.
Far too many of you are just ignorant or just going for wishful thinking,(something I'm sure alot of whites and blacks did during slavery)
But again it's getbig, where folks can't acknowledge anything bad ever happens, unless it's the victims fault. ::)
I don`t think the word anecdote means what you think it does.
Everything I have posted is verifiable fact.
-
The Confederacy used slaves for manual labor in military excursions. Trenches, supplies, hauling. It was free, raw manpower that put the Union at a disadvantage. In fact, Lincoln commented on this quite a bit and it's one of the reasons he cites during the formation of the Emanicaption Proclamation.
The Emanciapation Proclamation didn't free ALL slaves -- just the ones in the rebel states. And it made clear that military aged males were welcome and encouraged to join the Union forces. At first, these Union black troops did not get equal pay as the whites. This was remedied.
Frederick Douglas (a former slave who learned to read and write and became a BRILLIANT orator/writer) played a big role at this juncture. Lincoln wanted to ship the free slaves to Central America (there was a lot of debate on whether or not freed slaves were U.S. citizens).
Douglas made it clear to Lincoln that the slaves were born here and it was just as much their country as anybody else's. Douglas convinced the black troops to join the Union army and said to the effect "get that uniform, put on that U.S. pin, and go fight and nobody can tell you that you can't be a citizen."
Douglas, I believe, was absolutely instrumental in changing Lincoln's mind. Lincoln considered Douglas a friend and even held council with him at the White House while leaving white governers waiting! (Douglas couldn't believe this!)
A very interesting time in all of history.
-
I just finished reading "Team of Rivals" two days ago -- so a lot of this information is fresh in my mind.
I don't recall the book ever talking about an "invasion force" before the outbreak of war. What was happening was that Lincoln was in the delicate situation of resupplying Federal military forts in states that had left the union.
Lincoln claimed that although these states had left the union, the federal forts were still U.S. property under U.S. authority. I have NO IDEA as to the legality of this one way or the other. It's a complex political scene, to be sure.
The last thing he wanted was war -- so, when the time came to resupply these forts -- he not only gave the confederates advanced notice -- he sent only food/medical supplies only -- no weapons or artillery.
That book is somewhat biased.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_Lincoln%27s_75,000_Volunteers
-
The Confederacy used slaves for manual labor in military excursions. Trenches, supplies, hauling. It was free, raw manpower that put the Union at a disadvantage. In fact, Lincoln commented on this quite a bit and it's one of the reasons he cites during the formation of the Emanicaption Proclamation.
The Emanciapation Proclamation didn't free ALL slaves -- just the ones in the rebel states. And it made clear that military aged males were welcome and encouraged to join the Union forces. At first, these Union black troops did not get equal pay as the whites. This was remedied.
Frederick Douglas (a former slave who learned to read and write and became a BRILLIANT orator/writer) played a big role at this juncture. Lincoln wanted to ship the free slaves to Central America (there was a lot of debate on whether or not freed slaves were U.S. citizens).
Douglas made it clear to Lincoln that the slaves were born here and it was just as much their country as anybody else's. Douglas convinced the black troops to join the Union army and said to the effect "get that uniform, put on that U.S. pin, and go fight and nobody can tell you that you can't be a citizen."
Douglas, I believe, was absolutely instrumental in changing Lincoln's mind. Lincoln considered Douglas a friend and even held council with him at the White House while leaving white governers waiting! (Douglas couldn't believe this!)
A very interesting time in all of history.
You can't "free" people from places that have declared themselves not at part of the union. It (The Emancipation Proclamation) was Purely a political move. A flesh light compared to the real thing.
-
The Confederacy used slaves for manual labor in military excursions. Trenches, supplies, hauling. It was free, raw manpower that put the Union at a disadvantage. In fact, Lincoln commented on this quite a bit and it's one of the reasons he cites during the formation of the Emanicaption Proclamation.
The Emanciapation Proclamation didn't free ALL slaves -- just the ones in the rebel states. And it made clear that military aged males were welcome and encouraged to join the Union forces. At first, these Union black troops did not get equal pay as the whites. This was remedied.
Frederick Douglas (a former slave who learned to read and write and became a BRILLIANT orator/writer) played a big role at this juncture. Lincoln wanted to ship the free slaves to Central America (there was a lot of debate on whether or not freed slaves were U.S. citizens).
Douglas made it clear to Lincoln that the slaves were born here and it was just as much their country as anybody else's. Douglas convinced the black troops to join the Union army and said to the effect "get that uniform, put on that U.S. pin, and go fight and nobody can tell you that you can't be a citizen."
Douglas, I believe, was absolutely instrumental in changing Lincoln's mind. Lincoln considered Douglas a friend and even held council with him at the White House while leaving white governers waiting! (Douglas couldn't believe this!)
A very interesting time in all of history.
-
I just finished reading "Team of Rivals" two days ago -- so a lot of this information is fresh in my mind.
I don't recall the book ever talking about an "invasion force" before the outbreak of war. What was happening was that Lincoln was in the delicate situation of resupplying Federal military forts in states that had left the union.
Lincoln claimed that although these states had left the union, the federal forts were still U.S. property under U.S. authority. I have NO IDEA as to the legality of this one way or the other. It's a complex political scene, to be sure.
The last thing he wanted was war -- so, when the time came to resupply these forts -- he not only gave the confederates advanced notice -- he sent only food/medical supplies only -- no weapons or artillery.
http://www.northcarolinahistory.org/encyclopedia/52/entry/
On April 15, Lincoln called for 75,000 troops to “put down the rebellion.” Governor Ellis responded: “You can get no troops from North Carolina.” When word arrived of Lincoln’s summons, Zebulon Vance, with arms upraised, was pleading for the preservation of the Union: “When my hand came down from that impassioned gesticulation,” he said, “it fell slowly and sadly by the side of a secessionist.”
Ellis called a special session of the legislature for May 1 and ordered seizure of all federal property. The Assembly voted to have a delegate election on May 13 to an unrestricted convention to meet in Raleigh on May 20. The campaign that followed was characterized more by resignation than enthusiasm, as evidenced by former Unionists’ and secessionists’ speeches disparaging aggression.
When the convention met, delegates debated whether to secede, as some Unionists suggested, on the basis of “the right of revolution.” Radical secessionists, however, favored repealing the state’s ratification of the U.S. Constitution as the most appropriate means of leaving the Union.
North Carolinians seceded reluctantly. Jonathan Worth (1802-1869) stated publicly: “Lincoln had made us a unit to resist until we repel our invaders or die.”
The Tar Heel State, which only acted after Lincoln called for troops, became a bulwark of the Confederate defense, providing more men and supplies to the CSA and suffering more casualties than any other Southern state. In the end, most Tar Heels seceded in the name of self-defense.
-
You can't "free" people from places that have declared themselves not at part of the union. It (The Emancipation Proclamation) was Purely a political move. A flesh light compared to the real thing.
I agree. The logic was that any slave escaping and making his way to Union states would be considered free (in the U.S. government's eyes). Strictly speaking, Lincoln had no authority in the Confederate states, but this is still a strong move.
-
Your logic is flawed beyond belief and the facts certainly are not on your side. You can call me whatever name you wish as it will not change the course of history one iota, nor will you ever be correct. When North Carolina drafted their Ordinance of Secession, Slavery was not even considered an issue. The same applies to Four other states, including mighty Virginia.
If this is the best of the California Public School system, where I presume you learned such incorrect drivel, I am not impressed one bit and they have failed you and you have failed yourself.
Afterall, California has moved to teach "Gay History" now in Schools which is the most absurd thing I have ever heard in my life. As if anyone did anything in History because they were motivated by the cock. Roll Eyes
Perhaps you can be the first in the History books there, my dear TDongz.
sorry adam, fact is the south was formed to protect slavery. and the confederate flag resembles nothing more than that. a couple states not mentioning slavery directly doesnnt mean shit, especially since the rest of them made it VERY clear that slavery was THE issue they were concerned about.
confederacy = protection of slavery
get it through your fucking head and stop trying to make excuses for the people who lived in your region 150 years ago.
-
TA - I'm not disputing anything you say -- I'm reiterating information as I recall it from "Team of Rivals".
That book makes it quite clear that Lincoln was not spoiling for a fight. If this book is to be believed -- Lincoln was not itching for war.
The link you posted suggests the book is biased -- but have you read it? The pulitizer prize winning author makes comments on her extensive 20 years of research into the book in the afterwords. It's a 900 page, thorough, well-written book. I recommend it.
I'm not so naive to say it's the final authority -- but it should be considered.
-
I agree. The logic was that any slave escaping and making his way to Union states would be considered free (in the U.S. government's eyes). Strictly speaking, Lincoln had no authority in the Confederate states, but this is still a strong move.
yeah...but, it doesn't help a slave in say S. Carolina...or the Deep South who has no chance of escaping, maybe Va or a Midwest state/territory.
-
TA - I'm not disputing anything you say -- I'm reiterating information as I recall it from "Team of Rivals".
That book makes it quite clear that Lincoln was not spoiling for a fight. If this book is to be believed -- Lincoln was not itching for war.
The link you posted suggests the book is biased -- but have you read it? The pulitizer prize winning author makes comments on her extensive 20 years of research into the book in the afterwords. It's a 900 page, thorough, well-written book. I recommend it.
I'm not so naive to say it's the final authority -- but it should be considered.
the south fired first --- draw your own conclusions
-
yeah...but, it doesn't help a slave in say S. Carolina...or the Deep South who has no chance of escaping, maybe Va or a Midwest state/territory.
It didn't really help many slaves as Frederick Douglas informed Lincoln. Douglas informed Lincoln that slaves were kept in the dark and not informed of any new events and that most of them probably did not know the Emanicpation Proclamation existed. Lincoln then asked Douglas to gather black leaders and see if there might be a way to smuggle "informants" onto plantations to spread the news. Douglas said he would look into it.
-
TA - I'm not disputing anything you say -- I'm reiterating information as I recall it from "Team of Rivals".
That book makes it quite clear that Lincoln was not spoiling for a fight. If this book is to be believed -- Lincoln was not itching for war.
The link you posted suggests the book is biased -- but have you read it? The pulitizer prize winning author makes comments on her extensive 20 years of research into the book in the afterwords. It's a 900 page, thorough, well-written book. I recommend it.
I'm not so naive to say it's the final authority -- but it should be considered.
Bias was probably too strong of a word. I should say Romanticize. I read it around six years ago and found it to be lacking in parts. I may reread it again at some point.
-
TA- This text is from your link re: 75K volunteers.
President Lincoln's 75,000 Volunteers was a call by the President of the United States on April 15, 1861 to summon 75,000 militia to serve for three months following the bombardment and surrender of Fort Sumter. The proclamation further divided the Union and led to more states to secede from the United States of America to join the Confederate States of America.
I argue that after armed hostilities have commenced, Lincoln is well within in right as Commander in Chief to raise the necessary force required to respond.
-
What I find most amusing though is today`s Republicans try to claim Lincoln as one of their own, despite the fact that he is the embodiment of centralized power.
-
What I find most amusing though is today`s Republicans try to claim Lincoln as one of their own, despite the fact that he is the embodiment of centralized power.
Agreed. One of Lincoln's keys to success was his stance right down the center. A deviation left or right would've probably destroyed him (and the U.S.).
-
TA- This text is from your link re: 75K volunteers.
President Lincoln's 75,000 Volunteers was a call by the President of the United States on April 15, 1861 to summon 75,000 militia to serve for three months following the bombardment and surrender of Fort Sumter. The proclamation further divided the Union and led to more states to secede from the United States of America to join the Confederate States of America.
I argue that after armed hostilities have commenced, Lincoln is well within in right as Commander in Chief to raise the necessary force required to respond.
South Carolina had already legally seceded on December 20, 1860.
-
South Carolina had already legally seceded on December 20, 1860.
Yes, but the difference here is armed hostilites and the fall of Federal forts.
-
Yes, but the difference here is armed hostilites and the fall of Federal forts.
Virginia Legally Seceded from the Union without action or hostility (as did the rest of the Confederate States), yet was invaded.
-
The Confederate States wanted to go in Peace. Lincoln wouldn`t let them.
-
Virginia Legally Seceded from the Union without action or hostility (as did the rest of the Confederate States), yet was invaded.
con·fed·er·ate (kn-fdr-t)
n.
1. A member of a confederacy; an ally.
2. One who assists in a plot; an accomplice. See Synonyms at partner.
3. Confederate A supporter of the Confederate States of America.
adj.
1. United in a confederacy; allied.
2. Confederate Of or having to do with the Confederate States of America.
tr. & intr.v. (--rt) con·fed·er·at·ed, con·fed·er·at·ing, con·fed·er·ates
To form into or become part of a confederacy.
Once at war with the Confederacy -- then all members and allys are targets. Nature of warfare. Mainland Japan didn't bomb Pearl Harbor, it was an aircraft carrier -- we still declared war on Japan and all its interests.
-
Also, slavery would have ended without the Civil War as it had ended every where else had Lincoln not decided to send to send an army to invade the South. It really was a War of Northern Aggression. Slavery would have ended very soon, (especially with advances in Agriculture and the Industrial Age) much more cleanly and without a war.
The key to making your mark in history though is to find the inevitable and take credit for it :).
-
Bravo, TA, for giving a history lesson that society has become too pussified to give.
x 1,000,000
-
If American History were taught as it should be, decades and decades ago, I believe there would be less racial tension and animosity between races.
Think about it, if Blacks learned that they too, owned Plantations and slaves as well as held positions in Society, the victim mentality would not be permissible nor would the stereotypical memes that they assume exist.
It has been a disservice to the Black Race that this has occurred. Even Booker T. Washington had no idea that Blacks were Plantation owners and slave holders.
History is written by the victors
-
The key to making your mark in history though is to find the inevitable and take credit for it :).
That is a very profound statement and beautiful quote. I am definitely going to have to save that one!
-
Eat shit fuckrod, I deal with shit you couldn't even fucking imagine.
That's nothing to be proud of you worthless sack of shit.
-
Fack no.. that shit sucked...
I just like information, im not making an opinion... just getting some information
Read at your own risk, once you find out the truth you aren't gonna be able to play the victim anymore.
-
The Holocaust is nothing compared to the crimes of slavery .
You might be the biggest fool in the history of the internet, all 5'7" of you.
-
con·fed·er·ate (kn-fdr-t)
n.
1. A member of a confederacy; an ally.
2. One who assists in a plot; an accomplice. See Synonyms at partner.
3. Confederate A supporter of the Confederate States of America.
adj.
1. United in a confederacy; allied.
2. Confederate Of or having to do with the Confederate States of America.
tr. & intr.v. (--rt) con·fed·er·at·ed, con·fed·er·at·ing, con·fed·er·ates
To form into or become part of a confederacy.
Once at war with the Confederacy -- then all members and allys are targets. Nature of warfare. Mainland Japan didn't bomb Pearl Harbor, it was an aircraft carrier -- we still declared war on Japan and all its interests.
Would you have voted for Lincoln?
I like the lie he espoused in his Inaugural Address:
Lincoln stated emphatically that he had "...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.
-
Would you have voted for Lincoln?
I like Lincoln. He preserved the union. Many historians regard him as the best president. I am caught between a few books right now. I am only 100 pages into Lincoln. Currently reading Sigma Lean Six for Numb Nuts.
-
Would you have voted for Lincoln?
I like the lie he espoused in his Inaugural Address:
Lincoln stated emphatically that he had "...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.
Lincoln was a creature of the Constitution. He believed that since the Constitution (at that time!) permitted slavery, he was duty bound to uphold it. The key words in your quote are "where it exists".
That's where Lincoln drew the line. He was ABSOLUTELY against slavery being incorporated into new states. The South very much wanted slavery to be incorporated into new states. This is a HUGE source of conflict and one of the biggest causes of the Civil War.
The outbreak of hostilities gave Lincoln a freedom of action that didn't exist when he made the quote. Later, he championed the Consitutional amendment outlawing slavery in the U.S. forever.
Lincoln thought that if slavery didn't spread to new states, it would eventually die out.
Would I have voted for him? Hard to say -- am I a Southerner owning 200 slaves or a Northerner? I think upbrining would play a role.
-
Lincoln was a creature of the Constitution. He believed that since the Constitution (at that time!) permitted slavery, he was duty bound to uphold it. The key words in your quote are "where it exists".
That's where Lincoln drew the line. He was ABSOLUTELY against slavery being incorporated into new states. The South very much wanted slavery to be incorporated into new states. This is a HUGE source of conflict and one of the biggest causes of the Civil War.
The outbreak of hostilities gave Lincoln a freedom of action that didn't exist when he made the quote. Later, he championed the Consitutional amendment outlawing slavery in the U.S. forever.
Lincoln thought that if slavery didn't spread to new states, it would eventually die out.
Would I have voted for him? Hard to say -- am I a Southerner owning 200 slaves or a Northerner? I think upbrining would play a role.
If you would have listened to everything Lincoln said Prior to March 4, 1861 as a Southerner owning 200 slaves (incredibly rare unless you were EXTREMELY wealthy), you would have had nothing to fear if you were to take him at his word. (although Lincoln had Zero support in the South)
That, I think, is the wisdom of Lincoln. He had an incredible wisdom and political mind. Moreso incredible being that he was elected on a complete minority.
-
If you would have listened to everything Lincoln said Prior to March 4, 1861 as a Southerner owning 200 slaves (incredibly rare unless you were EXTREMELY wealthy), you would have had nothing to fear if you were to take him at his word.
That, I think, is the wisdom of Lincoln. He had an incredible wisdom and political mind. Moreso incredible being that he was elected on a complete minority.
Agreed. However, the statements he makes have to be weighed in the light of pre-hostilities. War changes everything. Esp. for a President.
-
Lincoln was a tyrant. Any leader who turns the troops on his own people is a barbarous tyrant.
-
Lincoln was a tyrant. Any leader who turns the troops on his own people is a barbarous tyrant.
I don`t think the majority of the Founders would have sided with Lincoln, thats for sure.
-
I don`t think the majority of the Founders would have sided with Lincoln, thats for sure.
I've studied Lincoln and I've never understood the admiration. People suddenly going nuts over Lincoln because of Daniel Day-Lewis is sickening. They should have done 'Washington' or 'Jefferson'.
-
Well.. I knew Adonis would drag me into his ;).. First offif the black women is proud of her ancestors then why is any appalled if she isn't? Most don't understand history in the least and those that profess to understand only know what academia has "taught" them..
what Adonis had said is 100 percent correct.. Numerous blacks, both freed and enslaved fought for the south.. Matter of fact when LEE invading the north before the battle of sharpsburg as they passed through some towns in Maryland many citizens were astounded at the number of blacks in the ranks.. Armed.. Some estimates put the number close to 3000 in this invasion alone..
Many slaves and freed blacks knew that the north was no safe haven for them and stayed in the south.. One only has to look at the Draft riots in New York ect to see what northern citizens did to freed blacks.. They burned orphanages killing many children..
As for how the whole "affair" started.. Lincoln instigated the war.. The southern states seceded legally.. Northern fortifications were only fired on after they were given deadlines together out of various southern states.. Lincoln choose to keep the there to initiate the motive for war.. It was a calculated move that killed more than half a million men.. At this time the south was the "money maker" for the nation in cotton exports ect.. Lincolncould not lose that revenue.. It was not a holy war to save the union.. It was a war to subjugate the states to make the nation more money..
One only had to look at the lack of charges against the confederate president after the war.. He ws in prisoner for many years but was finally released.? Why? He legally did nothing wrong..
I could go on about Lincoln and the slavery myth ..but the only thing needed is his quote of " if I could preserve the union by getting rid of slavery I would do it.. If I could preserve the union by keeping slavery I would do that too.." As late as 1864 he was talking to confederate representatives about letting them keep their slaves if they would come back into the union under his rule.. He also had plans in place to ship all blacks back to colonize places in Africa.. Again, well documented but never brought up to protect his legacy..
The south already had plans to gradually eliminate slavery in place to appease England who wanted to see the south seceded but would only back them with troops if slavery was eliminated..
If you know history you will not be a fan of Lincoln.. Imprisoning thousands for espousing any view opposite of his.. Rigging elections ect.. Not a man that most have been taught to know.. As my father always told me " your 16th president was Jeff Davis.. Not that Lincoln fella" ;D
-
Well.. I knew Adonis would drag me into his ;).. First offif the black women is proud of her ancestors then why is any appalled if she isn't? Most don't understand history in the least and those that profess to understand only know what academia has "taught" them..
what Adonis had said is 100 percent correct.. Numerous blacks, both freed and enslaved fought for the south.. Matter of fact when LEE invading the north before the battle of sharpsburg as they passed through some towns in Maryland many citizens were astounded at the number of blacks in the ranks.. Armed.. Some estimates put the number close to 3000 in this invasion alone..
Many slaves and freed blacks knew that the north was no safe haven for them and stayed in the south.. One only has to look at the Draft riots in New York ect to see what northern citizens did to freed blacks.. They burned orphanages killing many children..
As for how the whole "affair" started.. Lincoln instigated the war.. The southern states seceded legally.. Northern fortifications were only fired on after they were given deadlines together out of various southern states.. Lincoln choose to keep the there to initiate the motive for war.. It was a calculated move that killed more than half a million men.. At this time the south was the "money maker" for the nation in cotton exports ect.. Lincolncould not lose that revenue.. It was not a holy war to save the union.. It was a war to subjugate the states to make the nation more money..
One only had to look at the lack of charges against the confederate president after the war.. He ws in prisoner for many years but was finally released.? Why? He legally did nothing wrong..
I could go on about Lincoln and the slavery myth ..but the only thing needed is his quote of " if I could preserve the union by getting rid of slavery I would do it.. If I could preserve the union by keeping slavery I would do that too.." As late as 1864 he was talking to confederate representatives about letting them keep their slaves if they would come back into the union under his rule.. He also had plans in place to ship all blacks back to colonize places in Africa.. Again, well documented but never brought up to protect his legacy..
The south already had plans to gradually eliminate slavery in place to appease England who wanted to see the south seceded but would only back them with troops if slavery was eliminated..
If you know history you will not be a fan of Lincoln.. Imprisoning thousands for espousing any view opposite of his.. Rigging elections ect.. Not a man that most have been taught to know.. As my father always told me " your 16th president was Jeff Davis.. Not that Lincoln fella" ;D
I disagree with your post. And I question if you have been influenced by your upbringing.
-
Disagree all ya want... Point out what you have "issue with and we will debate it..
-
I disagree with your post. And I question if you have been influenced by your upbringing.
What specifically do you disagree with? I find it to be 100 percent accurate.
-
Even Vince gets in on the act! Yeeehhaaa!
-
As for how the whole "affair" started.. Lincoln instigated the war.. The southern states seceded legally.. Northern fortifications were only fired on after they were given deadlines together out of various southern states.. Lincoln choose to keep the there to initiate the motive for war.. It was a calculated move that killed more than half a million men.. At this time the south was the "money maker" for the nation in cotton exports ect.. Lincolncould not lose that revenue.. It was not a holy war to save the union.. It was a war to subjugate the states to make the nation more money..
Legally leaving the Union and firing shots on U.S. troops are two different things. When armed hostilities commenced, Lincoln was fully justifed in taking any steps necessary.
I could go on about Lincoln and the slavery myth ..but the only thing needed is his quote of " if I could preserve the union by getting rid of slavery I would do it.. If I could preserve the union by keeping slavery I would do that too.." As late as 1864 he was talking to confederate representatives about letting them keep their slaves if they would come back into the union under his rule.. He also had plans in place to ship all blacks back to colonize places in Africa.. Again, well documented but never brought up to protect his legacy..
Which goes to show Lincoln wasn't a bloodthirsty tyrant out for war. He didn't want war..at all. He wanted to preserve the United States.
-
How about that Income Tax and Internal Revenue Service Lincoln set up. Great Wartime Measure. ::)
-
How about that Income Tax and Internal Revenue Service Lincoln set up. Great Wartime Measure. ::)
Maybe it was. Maybe is wasn't.
He went into office with states leaving the fucking Union. Riots/death everywhere. Here in his own country. He had to fund a war. What solutions do you propose in that situation? I don't understand the chronic crucifying of the man.
-
Your logic is flawed beyond belief and the facts certainly are not on your side. You can call me whatever name you wish as it will not change the course of history one iota, nor will you ever be correct. When North Carolina drafted their Ordinance of Secession, Slavery was not even considered an issue. The same applies to Four other states, including mighty Virginia.
If this is the best of the California Public School system, where I presume you learned such incorrect drivel, I am not impressed one bit and they have failed you and you have failed yourself.
Afterall, California has moved to teach "Gay History" now in Schools which is the most absurd thing I have ever heard in my life. As if anyone did anything in History because they were motivated by the cock. Roll Eyes
Perhaps you can be the first in the History books there, my dear TDongz.
The winner of the civil war gets to write the history books, you know that TA. They don't mention ANY of the other issues of succession from the north but slavery in history books even in our southern schools. The union loved to demonize the confederacy.
-
Legally leaving the Union and firing shots on U.S. troops are two different things. When armed hostilities commenced, Lincoln was fully justifed in taking any steps necessary.
Which goes to show Lincoln wasn't a bloodthirsty tyrant out for war. He didn't want war..at all. He wanted to preserve the United States.
He wanted to preserve the United States via War. You don`t just call for 75,000 troops because you want to make point.
-
He wanted to preserve the United States via War. You don`t just call for 75,000 troops because you want to make point.
So take the attack on a U.S. military fort lying down? What point would that make? Do nothing?
I ask: What would you do if you were President, TA?
-
Maybe it was. Maybe is wasn't.
He went into office with states leaving the fucking Union. Riots/death everywhere. Here in his own country. He had to fund a war. What solutions do you propose in that situation? I don't understand the chronic crucifying of the man.
He didn`t have to wage a war. Diplomacy wasn`t even considered. The only diplomatic measure that Lincoln considered prior to the Civil Was was the Permanent Slavery Act in the United States which was passed by a Northern Congress mind you, not the Confederate States, in hopes to lure them back in the Union. Old Dot Goodwin doesn`t like that inconvenient fact.
-
He didn`t have to wage a war. Diplomacy wasn`t even considered. The only diplomatic measure that Lincoln considered prior to the Civil Was was the Permanent Slavery Act in the United States which was passed by a Northern Congress mind you, not the Confederate States, in hopes to lure them back in the Union. Old Dot Goodwin doesn`t like that inconvenient fact.
Permenant slavery in STATES THAT EXIST. Not new states. Why do you always leave that out/fail to mention it? Everyone knows, it's well known, that Lincoln was fully supportive in leaving slavery in the states that it already existed INTACT because that's how the U.S. Constitution at the time framed it. But you continue, always belaboring this fact in false context. What' s the motivation?
-
Kinda missing the point.. He wanted the action.. He wanted the south to instigate it by not removing troops from the southern states.. So yes,he knew what he was doing.. When the deadlines were given he could have removed them to avoid hostilities..
To your point of him not wanting war.. That is silly.. Basically what Lincoln said is come back and be under my leadership or we will continue the hostilities.. So yes, he either wanted them to submit to his rule or fight.. Pretty damn simple..
-
To your point of him not wanting war.. That is silly.. Basically what Lincoln said is come back and be under my leadership or we will continue the hostilities.. So yes, he either wanted them to submit to his rule or fight.. Pretty damn simple..
He's President of the United States..what do you think he should have done?
-
only looked @ first page. not looking through the rest shame on you's for not having Chappelle on the first page !
-
So take the attack on a U.S. military fort lying down? What point would that make? Do nothing?
I ask: What would you do if you were President, TA?
I would have acted sooner in getting the Federal Troops out of there and let the States Secede.
South Carolina seceded legally and their government repeatedly asked them to leave. Instead, they tried to move their garrison in secret and resupply. President Buchanan was totally unaware that the garrison moved to Sumter and was completely unaware of any authorization to do so.
-
Permenant slavery in STATES THAT EXIST. Not new states. Why do you always leave that out/fail to mention it? Everyone knows, it's well known, that Lincoln was fully supportive in leaving slavery in the states that it already existed INTACT because that's how the U.S. Constitution at the time framed it. But you continue, always belaboring this fact in false context. What' s the motivation?
Motivation is simple. To demonstrate that the Civil War was not fought because of slavery as Lincoln, and the Northern Congress, had no qualms about letting slavery continue as they approved the Permanent Slavery Act by 66 Percent margin on March 2nd, 1861.
-
I would have acted sooner in getting the Federal Troops out of there and let the States Secede.
South Carolina seceded legally and their government repeatedly asked them to leave. Instead, they tried to move their garrison in secret and resupply. President Buchanan was totally unaware that the garrison moved to Sumter and was completely unaware of any authorization to do so.
I agree with this. But in 1860's info wasn't being twittered. Also, Lincoln was still President - elect and couldn't do much but wait. I argue that Lincoln did a kick ass job in the situation he was handed. He had A LOT of complex political issues to deal with. We can second guess him all day long, but at the end of the day, we have 50 states.
-
Motivation is simple. To demonstrate that the Civil War was not fought because of slavery as Lincoln, and the Northern Congress, had no qualms about letting slavery continue as they approved the Permanent Slavery Act by 66 Percent margin on March 2nd, 1861.
Did they approve this pre-hostilities?
-
Daddy.. You are a smart man.. Surely you can read between the lines with what Lincoln was trying to do.. He can not attack the confederacy based on their secededing.. So he needs a angles.. He is given ample time to remove troops from federal forts.. He does not.. He know that they will eventually be attacked.. If he wanted to avoid the hostilities he wold have removed them from the forts.. Hedid not.. He put federals soldiers in harms way.. Period.. He knew they would be forceably removed ...He wanted the action so he could initiate war..or they would not have stayed passed the deadline.. He even tried to get more supplies and munitions to fort sumpter even after the confederacy said they needed to be removed..
-
Daddy basing your admiration for Lincoln inthe fact that we " now have 50 states" belies the fact that he acquired that by waging a war on fellow Americans when he had the ability to avoid all hostilities and not have 600000 causalties..
-
Daddy.. You are a smart man.. Surely you can read between the lines with what Lincoln was trying to do.. He can not attack the confederacy based on their secededing.. So he needs a angles.. He is given ample time to remove troops from federal forts.. He does not.. He know that they will eventually be attacked.. If he wanted to avoid the hostilities he wold have removed them from the forts.. Hedid not.. He put federals soldiers in harms way.. Period.. He knew they would be forceably removed ...He wanted the action so he could initiate war..or they would not have stayed passed the deadline.. He even tried to get more supplies and munitions to fort sumpter even after the confederacy said they needed to be removed..
I agree with you to the point where you say Lincoln wanted to "initate war". No evidence/records ANYWHERE support this. But, as hostilities commenced, he had to act as CIC. Sucky time in our history, but you have to admit..Lincoln pulled it out and we're a 50 state country.
-
Daddy basing your admiration for Lincoln inthe fact that we " now have 50 states" belies the fact that he acquired that by waging a war on fellow Americans when he had the ability to avoid all hostilities and not have 600000 causalties..
Records are numerous as to the cause of the Civil War. Besides taking it right up the ass, there wasn't much else Lincoln could do. (Except: Approve of slavery and let it continue on...)
-
Did they approve this pre-hostilities?
Post-"Hostilities".
December 27, 1860, an assault force of 150 men seized the Union-occupied Castle Pinckney fortification, in the harbor close to downtown Charleston, capturing 24 guns and mortars without bloodshed.
On December 30, the Federal arsenal in Charleston was captured, resulting in the acquisition of more than 22,000 weapons by the militia.
January 9, 1861, Star of the West was fired upon by a battery on Morris Island.
March 2, 1861, The Permanent Slave Act was approved by both Houses of the Northern Congress.
So yes, approved post-"hostilities".
-
Ok.. Lets just break it down.. 1) Lincoln could have avoided all hostilities.. He did not.. What he did cost 600000 lives.. 2) what was Lincoln's motivation for trying to preserve the union? They had the right to leave.. So was it economics? Yes.. The south had much of its revenue.. Like most wars this was motivated by money.. So one needs a excuse to wage war to bring them back to the fold.. That would be not removing troops.. Plain and simple.. War could have been averted..
You state that he only reacted to aggression.. Really? You mean the one he had the ability to avoid? Plus I don't get your reasonings about now having 50 states.. Hat does not mean what he did was just or right..
-
Post-"Hostilities".
December 27, 1860, an assault force of 150 men seized the Union-occupied Castle Pinckney fortification, in the harbor close to downtown Charleston, capturing 24 guns and mortars without bloodshed.
On December 30, the Federal arsenal in Charleston was captured, resulting in the acquisition of more than 22,000 weapons by the militia.
January 9, 1861, Star of the West was fired upon by a battery on Morris Island.
March 2, 1861, The Permanent Slave Act was approved by both Houses of the Northern Congress.
So yes, approved post-"hostilities".
Once a shooting war commences, then all peace time proffers are off the table! C'mon man!
-
You mean the one he could have easily avoided lol..
-
Ok.. Lets just break it down.. 1) Lincoln could have avoided all hostilities.. He did not.. What he did cost 600000 lives.. 2) what was Lincoln's motivation for trying to preserve the union? They had the right to leave.. So was it economics? Yes.. The south had much of its revenue.. Like most wars this was motivated by money.. So one needs a excuse to wage war to bring them back to the fold.. That would be not removing troops.. Plain and simple.. War could have been averted..
You state that he only reacted to aggression.. Really? You mean the one he had the ability to avoid? Plus I don't get your reasonings about now having 50 states.. Hat does not mean what he did was just or right..
SLAVERY!!!
Your post suggests that you accept it. Lincoln did not. Lincoln could have easily avoided all war if he chose to accept slavery. Sure! Why even have a war?
Owning another man as "property" was disgusting for him. And worth the bloody war if it meant ending that institution in the U.S. forever.
-
I agree with this. But in 1860's info wasn't being twittered. Also, Lincoln was still President - elect and couldn't do much but wait. I argue that Lincoln did a kick ass job in the situation he was handed. He had A LOT of complex political issues to deal with. We can second guess him all day long, but at the end of the day, we have 50 states.
Telegraph was very fast and railroad communication was efficient. A little distance off my property lies an old Telegraph Pole. There are still many that stand in the South and an effort is underway to preserve them. You can find many if you look up the old telegraph lines maps. Pretty fun to search them out and walk the line.
-
Again in his own words daddy he did not bri ng this war based on slavery .. His own words daddy..
-
Again in his own words daddy he did not bri ng this war based on slavery .. His own words daddy..
Not understanding this. Can you clarify?
-
Telegraph was very fast and railroad communication was efficient. A little distance off my property lies an old Telegraph Pole. There are still many that stand in the South and an effort is underway to preserve them. You can find many if you look up the old telegraph lines maps. Pretty fun to search them out and walk the line.
Sounds like you can ditch your cell phone and go with telegraph! Let us know how it works out for you! lol :D
I'm kidding, but telegraph wasn't as quick and reliable as one might think.
-
SLAVERY!!!
Your post suggests that you accept it. Lincoln did not. Lincoln could have easily avoided all war if he chose to accept slavery. Sure! Why even have a war?
Owning another man as "property" was disgusting for him. And worth the bloody war if it meant ending that institution in the U.S. forever.
these guys pretend that slavery was a non-issue. when in reality it was the crux of the issue. they say it was about economics, and i say "yeah, about whether economics based on slavery or economics based on industry would prevail".
-
the funny thing is TA acts like nobody knows all these facts he is bringing up to defend his case.
back in the fifth grade i was telling kids at school how the civil war had nothing to do with slavery, and that is was all about "tarriffs"(my words exactly, when i was 12 years old).
then i grew up and realized that being the class clown was no longer that great. and i took a real honest look at what happened.
yes, the southern economic system was being oppressed by the northern economic interests.
BUT WHAT WAS THAT SOUTHERN ECONOMIC SYSTEM BASED UPON????
WHY DID THE FIRST STATE DECIDE TO LEAVE THE UNION? THEY GAVE A PRIMARY REASON, THEY STATED IT EXPLICITY = SLAVERY.
-
i mean, honestly. the first state to leave the union could have left their reasoning unknown. just leave, say your no longer interested in being a part of the union, your going to seperate in a totally non violent way, and that you hope relations between you and the union continue to be positive.
and then we could look at their secession and say, you know it looks like they are leaving cuz they dont want slavery banned, but they didnt say that so were gonna give them the benefit of the doubt and think it is simply about economic oppression.
but no, they went ahead and said.. just in case you guys thought we might not be motivated by a desire to protect slavery.. let us make it real clrea for you = WERE LEAVING CUZ OF SLAVERY, BITCH
-
-
the funny thing is TA acts like nobody knows all these facts he is bringing up to defend his case.
back in the fifth grade i was telling kids at school how the civil war had nothing to do with slavery, and that is was all about "tarriffs"(my words exactly, when i was 12 years old).
then i grew up and realized that being the class clown was no longer that great. and i took a real honest look at what happened.
yes, the southern economic system was being oppressed by the northern economic interests.
BUT WHAT WAS THAT SOUTHERN ECONOMIC SYSTEM BASED UPON????
WHY DID THE FIRST STATE DECIDE TO LEAVE THE UNION? THEY GAVE A PRIMARY REASON, THEY STATED IT EXPLICITY = SLAVERY.
::)
Sure you did, pathological liar.
-
i mean, honestly. the first state to leave the union could have left their reasoning unknown. just leave, say your no longer interested in being a part of the union, your going to seperate in a totally non violent way, and that you hope relations between you and the union continue to be positive.
and then we could look at their secession and say, you know it looks like they are leaving cuz they dont want slavery banned, but they didnt say that so were gonna give them the benefit of the doubt and think it is simply about economic oppression.
but no, they went ahead and said.. just in case you guys thought we might not be motivated by a desire to protect slavery.. let us make it real clrea for you = WERE LEAVING CUZ OF SLAVERY, BITCH
What part of the North had no interest in ending slavery at the time do you not understand?
-
::)
Sure you did, pathological liar.
nice rebuttle. :)
-
i mean, honestly. the first state to leave the union could have left their reasoning unknown. just leave, say your no longer interested in being a part of the union, your going to seperate in a totally non violent way, and that you hope relations between you and the union continue to be positive.
and then we could look at their secession and say, you know it looks like they are leaving cuz they dont want slavery banned, but they didnt say that so were gonna give them the benefit of the doubt and think it is simply about economic oppression.
but no, they went ahead and said.. just in case you guys thought we might not be motivated by a desire to protect slavery.. let us make it real clrea for you = WERE LEAVING CUZ OF SLAVERY, BITCH
Can you show me where in the North Carolina Ordinance of Secession, slavery is mentioned? Oh whats that? Nowhere to be found.
-
What part of the North had no interest in ending slavery at the time do you not understand?
are you calling the confederacy complete fucking morons? cuz if the north had no interest in ending slavery, then they are stupid as shit for saying the reason they were leaving was because of slavery! ;D
-
I just love seeing Tdongz get owned in practically every thread by True Adonis and 333386. I guess he is too stupid to learn his lesson. Just comes back for more.
-
Can you show me where in the North Carolina Ordinance of Secession, slavery is mentioned? Oh whats that? Nowhere to be found.
1st state to secede = south carolina.
south carolina= in great detail outlines why slavery is the key issue that motivated their secession.
and south carolina, as historians everywhere do, made note of the fact that the divide between the confederacy was based upon "slave holding" and "non slave holding states" (if the war wasnt about slavery, then why was the division of the country based upon slavery?)
lol
-
are you calling the confederacy complete fucking morons? cuz if the north had no interest in ending slavery, then they are stupid as shit for saying the reason they were leaving was because of slavery! ;D
Slavery wasn`t the reason moron. On March 2,1861 The North passed the Permanent Slavery Act in both houses of Congress which stated that Slavery was not to be meddled with whatsoever by ensuring that Congress could not end Slavery within any state. This was AFTER 7 States had already seceded.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yxa-CnOl8fc/TeWsltqgwNI/AAAAAAAAAFk/wqN0loi_HW0/s1600/Northern+Permanent+Slavery+Amendment.jpg)
-
Slavery wasn`t the reason moron. On March 2,1861 The North passed the Permanent Slavery Act in both houses of Congress which stated that Slavery was not to be meddled with whatsoever by ensuring that Congress could not end Slavery within any state. This was AFTER 7 States had already seceded.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yxa-CnOl8fc/TeWsltqgwNI/AAAAAAAAAFk/wqN0loi_HW0/s1600/Northern+Permanent+Slavery+Amendment.jpg)
if you dont understand, let me make this clear
just because the north was willing to allow slavery
does not mean
that the south believed them
;D
furthermore, the first state to secede, along with a majority of the confederacy, listed slavery as their primary motivation for leaving.
;D
come on dude..
-
if you dont understand, let me make this clear
just because the north was willing to allow slavery
does not mean
that the south believed them
;D
furthermore, the first state to secede, along with a majority of the confederacy, listed slavery as their primary motivation for leaving.
;D
come on dude..
The Confederacy grew from seven states to eleven states when Lincoln made it clear he was going to launch an invasion to force the seceded states to rejoin the Union. Voters in the Upper South states of Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia initially rejected secession by substantial margins. They were willing for their states to remain in the Union as long as Lincoln allowed the Deep South states to leave in peace. However, when Lincoln left no doubt he was going to use force, new votes were held in the Upper South states, and this time the results were strongly in favor of secession. It should be noted that these four states did not secede because of slavery but because they believed it was illegal and immoral to maintain the Union by violence.
-
The Confederacy grew from seven states to eleven states when Lincoln made it clear he was going to launch an invasion to force the seceded states to rejoin the Union. Voters in the Upper South states of Arkansas, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Virginia initially rejected secession by substantial margins. They were willing for their states to remain in the Union as long as Lincoln allowed the Deep South states to leave in peace. However, when Lincoln left no doubt he was going to use force, new votes were held in the Upper South states, and this time the results were strongly in favor of secession. It should be noted that these four states did not secede because of slavery but because they believed it was illegal and immoral to maintain the Union by violence.
4 states. out of how many ? :)
and the first one to secede listed what as its primary reason for doing so? :)
those 4 states, were they slave states, or were they non-slave states? :)
were there any slave states in the union? were there any non-slave states in the confederacy? :)
... i was in fifth grade telling my friends "the civil war wasnt about slavery, it was about tarriffs" :)
-
4 states. out of how many ? :)
and the first one to secede listed what as its primary reason for doing so? :)
those 4 states, were they slave states, or were they non-slave states? :)
were there any slave states in the union? were there any non-slave states in the confederacy? :)
... i was in fifth grade telling my friends "the civil war wasnt about slavery, it was about tarriffs" :)
Delaware, Kentucky and New Jersey continued to have slavery.
-
Maryland was also a northern slave holding state.
-
learn something new every day :)
-
We can also add Missouri as a Union Slave Holding state because they technically never left the Union.
-
no man is a slave if he is truly free in his heart
true story
-
no man is a slave if he is truly free in his heart
true story
okay Viktor Frankl
-
no man is a slave if he is truly free in his heart
true story
:) no man is wealthy if he is poor in spirit
-
Slavery was a feel good issue to mobililze the 'puritan' northern population to join the fighting ranks. Like every other war ever fought this one was about resources and power. The South had all the best sea ports and their was no income tax to fund the Federal gov. If the South seceded they would take with them access to large amounts of tarrif and taxation monies. Their alliance with the English also created a economic challenge to the North. The Federal Gov needed to continue to push back Mexico to the South, England in Canada and the Indian tribes to the West. Elimating the Southern threat and putting their population under 10 years of military occupation was the only viable way to concentrate forces for expanding the empire North, West and Southwest. That and the international bankers looking for a reason to get a central bank re-established after Jackson threw them out 20 years earlier.
That's all it was.
-
[ Invalid YouTube link ]
-
Slavery was a feel good issue to mobililze the 'puritan' northern population to join the fighting ranks. Like every other war ever fought this one was about resources and power. The South had all the best sea ports and their was no income tax to fund the Federal gov. If the South seceded they would take with them access to large amounts of tarrif and taxation monies. Their alliance with the English also created a economic challenge to the North. The Federal Gov needed to continue to push back Mexico to the South, England in Canada and the Indian tribes to the West. Elimating the Southern threat and putting their population under 10 years of military occupation was the only viable way to concentrate forces for expanding the empire North, West and Southwest. That and the international bankers looking for a reason to get a central bank re-established after Jackson threw them out 20 years earlier.
That's all it was.
yes this is all very good and well and i dont argue one bit of it ..
but why did the south secede? ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
-
yes this is all very good and well and i dont argue one bit of it ..
but why did the south secede? ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
A great question. I'll Let John C Calhoun respond first:
"The Government of the absolute majority instead of the Government of the people is but the Government of the strongest interests; and when not efficiently checked, it is the most tyrannical and oppressive that can be devised."
"A power has risen up in the government greater than the people themselves, consisting of many and various and powerful interests, combined into one mass, and held together by the cohesive power of the vast surplus in the banks."
Power always looks first to entrenchment. The Federal branch, weakened by design, in the Constitution had been consolidating power very specifically on behest of Northern industrialists and bankers for years. These elites correctly surmised that the South's continued usage of free labor represented a challenge to their drive for control of the western territories as well as trade profits with Europe.
I'm not denying that slavery, an abomination in thought and practice, was a contributor to the war. It certainly was, but like all wars the elites need people, usually uneducated people, to fight them. These people cannot be brought to sacrifice their lives on the noble cause of "enriching rich men". They need a 'moral' reason. This is where religion and patriotism excel and the issue of slavery went to the front burner.
The problem with American history as it's currently taught is that it leaves large gaps in knowledge for important events like the Civil War. Usually that knowledge is economicly based. The reason for that is clearly to keep the majority of people unaware of the mechanisms of a system designed against their interests.
-
yes this is all very good and well and i dont argue one bit of it ..
but why did the south secede? ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)
The South did not secede all at once as a nation genius. North Carolina seceded because of fear of invasion.