Well if you can find an accurate account of how many people in the south actually owned slaves...
and for the farmers that didn't... any competition for selling their excess crops, was large agriculture plantations.
So less than 3 % of the southerners owned slaves and most of those were plantation owners with large numbers of slaves.
So do you really think that most southerner farms left their homes, farms and family to go put their lives on the line so that the real rich people and their chief competitor for their goods could own slaves?
Would you?
Now ask yourself, was the Civil War about slavery? Might have been for some of the rich slave owners, who I am sure controlled large influences in state governments... but for the other 97% of those that answered the call... I really doubt they put it all on the line, to include their lives, so that Rich Plantation owners could own slaves.
"Minus the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the Country" Marion Barry, Mayor of Wash DC
“Owning guns is not a right. If it were a right, it would be in the Constitution.” ~Alexandria Ocasio Cortez
The great majority of Southerners owned no slave. States Rights being the major reason but to be sure Mr Stevens was a slave owner and more than likely it was a reason (states having a right to make their own decision) for him to support slavery or the right for his state to make the determination.
Clear as mud, ain't it? 😎
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." Thomas Jefferson
Judicial Review brought the Union to that point. The Fed court overturned South Carolinas "Negro Seamen Act." South Carolina's answer was if the States gave the Federal Government limited and enumerated powers, how then can they overturn a law passed by a State.
Well if you can find an accurate account of how many people in the south actually owned slaves...
and for the farmers that didn't... any competition for selling their excess crops, was large agriculture plantations.
So less than 3 % of the southerners owned slaves and most of those were plantation owners with large numbers of slaves.
So do you really think that most southerner farms left their homes, farms and family to go put their lives on the line so that the real rich people and their chief competitor for their goods could own slaves?
Would you?
Now ask yourself, was the Civil War about slavery? Might have been for some of the rich slave owners, who I am sure controlled large influences in state governments... but for the other 97% of those that answered the call... I really doubt they put it all on the line, to include their lives, so that Rich Plantation owners could own slaves.
Yes, but aren't most to all wars caused by older wealthy powerful men, and the younger men then do the fighting and dying? Not saying the war of northern aggression was about slavery, just what causes most wars.
You know, it really doesn't make any difference what the reason was........the fact is that states joined the Union voluntarily, and they had the right to leave the same way. Ole Honest Abe and the Republicans were far more interested about having power over the South, than they were about anything else, and that includes their supposed reasons for not letting the South go in peace........preservation of the Union and the abolishment of slavery.
I've never read this before. For you Southerners who claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery, how can you justify your stance in light of his words?
P
In 1861, when Stephens made this speech, the general consensus among the majority of people North or South, East or West, was that the Negro was not the equal of the White man. It was not limited to the states, either, but in Europe as well. Africa was still a wild and barbarous place, with very little known about it or it's people. The Great Emancipator, Lincoln, viewed the Negro as being intellectually inferior to Whites, and wanted the ex slaves sent back to Africa. Yet, as is usually the case, it is only the Southern view about Negro slaves that seem to matter.
I've never read this before. For you Southerners who claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery, how can you justify your stance in light of his words?
P
In 1861, when Stephens made this speech, the general consensus among the majority of people North or South, East or West, was that the Negro was not the equal of the White man. It was not limited to the states, either, but in Europe as well. Africa was still a wild and barbarous place, with very little known about it or it's people. The Great Emancipator, Lincoln, viewed the Negro as being intellectually inferior to Whites, and wanted the ex slaves sent back to Africa. Yet, as is usually the case, it is only the Southern view about Negro slaves that seem to matter.
Facts don't matter either. Statistically, blacks ARE intellectually inferior. The great unspoken truth. I was once told that people who feel inferior, usually are. Found it to be true, a lot of the time.
Something I've often wondered is did the northern state's governments want slavery abolished because they truly believed in their hearts it was cruel and inhumane and freeing the slaves the only right and Godly thing to do or was it more because of political and/or economic reason?
In Clauadia Dale Goldin’s article “The Economics of Emancipation,” she argues the different gradual emancipation processes that were put into effect for many of the northern states. The article argues the idea that because slaves were considered property, that a complete emancipation without compensation was considered illegal. One of the gradual emancipation ideas was the thought that because slavery was believed to only last one more generation that male slaves would be considered free when they turn 28 and females would be considered free at 25. The idea that the females would be emancipated earlier than males was that the females were more productive than their male counterparts during their teenage years. This form of gradual emancipation also made the demand for female slaves decrease because their value from breeding capabilities has become zero because the next generation of children are considered free. Another form of gradual emancipation was that along with the gradual freeing of slaves the slave owners would pay the children of slaves $3.50 per month for public care of children that would otherwise be orphaned. These form of gradual emancipation had both positive and negative effects. One of the positive factors of gradual emancipation is that it was not only helping free the slaves, but it was not too costly to the slave owners. This lack of cost would make these ideas of gradual emancipation more enticing to slave owners. One of the main problems with this gradual emancipation is that if it was expected that gradual emancipating was happening, slave owners would attempt to sell their slaves while they still had them. This happened many times in New York for example. In 1799 when the slave owners expected the gradual emancipation to happen 12,000 slaves were freed by emancipation, but some 24,000 were sold to the south. The slave owners were not willing to just free their slaves, they needed to be compensated in some fashion so they sold their slaves to the south.(Goldin, 70) In addition to the problem of smuggling, if these gradual abolition laws were passed this would encourage more rigorous use of the slaves while they were still available. For example if they would require one more generation to work, then that generation would be worked harder than before. Now the question begs why didn’t the south want to attempt to input a gradual emancipation? One reason is that the south could not sell their slaves if they were expecting the emancipation of the slaves to happen Some would argue that the use of slavery was “an important duty for the south, part of their ‘unending task of race discipline.” Many economists like Lewis Gray and Kenneth Stampp have contested this view saying that the southern plantation argriculture was just as much a economic active product of the United States as any other business.
Quote
Possibility to Avoid Civil War
In Claudia Dale Goldin’s article “The Economics of Emancipation she argues the thoughts on whether the civil war should have been fought or should there of been alternative thoughts to end slavery. The north knew that gradual emancipation would not work unless there was considerable money spent to reimburse the southern owners for the slaves that they have purchased. She also argued that had the north and south correctly assessed the costs of the Civil War then there was a strong possibility that the war would have not been fought and there would have been discussions on how to buy the slaves back. Her article states that “In all probability, the major reason that the war was fought instead of there being a political settlement was that its costs were incorrectly anticipated. The north was obviously surprised by the tenacity of the south… neither side thought the war would last more than 2 years….As the war dragged on, Lincoln expressed opinion that the costs of the war were dreadfully and surprisingly high that slavery could be ‘bought out’ at a cheaper price….less than one half days cost of this war would pay for all of the slaves in Delaware…Less than 87 days cost of war would pay for all in Delaware, Maryland, D.C., Kentucky, and Missouri”(Goldin, 83). It is obvious that neither side was ready to enter war and neither side anticipated that it would cost so much. The south hoped that Great Britain would have helped pay for the war and the north believed that this would be a short war that would not last very long. It seemed that although the north had many ideas of gradual emancipation and abolition ideas of slavery none of these were seriously considered until 1861.The Union did not look to other former slavocracies to help them with their slave problem.
Not saying the war of northern aggression was about slavery
I hear this all the time, but when the VP of the Confederacy says it is, how can we think otherwise?
To the
P
Imagine that a party which controlled the White House and both Houses of Congress passed a law levying a large tax on every barrel of oil, and every dollar of royalty payments, and that he He proceeds from the tax were dedicated to mass transit in only cities of the Northeast.
If Texas, Oklahoma, and Louisiana were to secede and a war resulted, would you claim the war was about OIL? Would you expect the citizens of those states to fight and die for "big oil", or would they fight to preserve their livelihood.
That's basically what the tariffs did to the South.
The State of Virginia, tried to abolish slavery in 1808. Plantations that had any were pretty much in the South East part of the State.
The agreement was the state would pay the slave owners for their slaves freedom and then the slave could stay to work and be paid or leave.
Problem occurred that when slaves freedom was bought by the State, the slave was then kidnapped and taken into North Carolina where they were legally sold by their former owner there... who would then 'buy' a North Carolina slave and bring them back.
This was being done, over and over until it was stopped due to almost bankrupting the State's Coffers.
They tried to repeat it again in the 1830s, with close to the same results.
"Minus the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the Country" Marion Barry, Mayor of Wash DC
“Owning guns is not a right. If it were a right, it would be in the Constitution.” ~Alexandria Ocasio Cortez
For you Southerners who claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery, how can you justify your stance in light of his words?
They can't but will lie about it anyway. The South was demoncrap long before it was "conservative". Old habits die hard and usually not at all. The original revisionist history.
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
Its pretty hard to justify much about that era. How do people who look down on the South justify the fact that what was done to them was illegal and unconstitutional at the time? The founding fathers punted on the whole slavery issue 100 years earlier, leaving it up to the states, in order to get the South on board with the revolution, otherwise there would have been no United STATES in the first place. As late as 1850, slavery was given constitutional protection under the fugitive slave act. As far as secession goes, some pretty heavy hitters including Thomas Jefferson, were not against it, not to mention some Northern states threatened to secede earlier over various issues.
Why did people in the South who did not own slaves fight? Because in those days people saw themselves as citizens OF THEIR STATE, not as citizens of "The United States". Take Robert E. Lee for example. He turned down command of the Federal army because Virginia went the other way. He saw himself as a VIRGINIAN not an "American". Because these people's first allegiance was to their states, people of today who call them "traitors" are showing their ignorance of history, which quite frankly, they came by honestly as COMMIES have been running the public screwels at least for the lifetime of most people today.
Why does Robert E. Lee deserve a statue? Above all else, he did as much to patch the thing back together as anyone. Likewise, the Yankee generals, Grant, Sherman, at Appomattox were incredibly magnanimous for the times.....as was Lincoln. If only that IDIOT Booth had not shot Lincoln. We can sit back 150 years later, after times have changed so much, and take potshots at any of them depending on what you believe or think you believe and evidently we can sit by and let COMMIES destroy our history.
"Men must be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants". --- William Penn
I've never read this before. For you Southerners who claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery, how can you justify your stance in light of his words?
Let's establish first of all that my ancestors at the time of the American Civil War lived in Pennsylvania, or were still in Europe.
Now a history lesson for you. It is not contested that slavery was not an issue. It was an issue since the founding of the Constitution. The only reason it was not addressed in 1783 is that the country need a document that all 13 States would ratify. That took the issue off the table.
Next, the institution of slavery, by itself was not the issue that caused people enough angst to pick arms. The issue that was important enough, because the agrarian South needed a labor force prior to the Industrial Revolution. Slavery as an institution goes back as far as mankind. The Egyptians, the Romans were especially adept at it. By the19th Century, it was an institution that was becoming extinct as the Industrial Revolution began making it economically obsolete, much less the moral grounds that spreading democracy stood upon.
You want to pick a part of the A.H. Stevens speech that centers in on the issue that was important enough to split the country? Look at this part:
Quote
The surest way to secure peace, is to show your ability to maintain your rights. The principles and position of the present administration of the United States the republican party present some puzzling questions. While it is a fixed principle with them never to allow the increase of a foot of slave territory, they seem to be equally determined not to part with an inch “of the accursed soil.” Notwithstanding their clamor against the institution, they seemed to be equally opposed to getting more, or letting go what they have got. They were ready to fight on the accession of Texas, and are equally ready to fight now on her secession. Why is this? How can this strange paradox be accounted for? There seems to be but one rational solution and that is, notwithstanding their professions of humanity, they are disinclined to give up the benefits they derive from slave labor. Their philanthropy yields to their interest. The idea of enforcing the laws, has but one object, and that is a collection of the taxes, raised by slave labor to swell the fund necessary to meet their heavy appropriations. The spoils is what they are after though they come from the labor of the slave
There is your explanation of the crux of the problem. It goes back to taxes. The States of the Industrial North on one hand condemned the practice of slavery, yet had no problems profiting from fruits of slave labor through taxation. This was the issue bold enough to cause a splint in the country. The Industrial North imposing its will on the agrarian South.
This does not mean that slavery was of no importance, it was. However, the number of Whites that owned slaves in the South was hardly universal. As a matter of fact, in the mountain regions, slavery was very rare. No need because agricultural was not on an industrial basis. Yet, plenty of mountain men went to fight for the South. If slavery was THE issue, then why bother if your family had no slaves, had no need for slaves, and nobody within a 3 day hike of you had them?
The issue was the attack on the way of life in the South, and being excessively taxed. These were the issues big enough to cause a war. Now, was slave labor an integral part of that way of life? Sure, it was. Did the North go to war exclusively to abolish slavery? No, absolutely not! The North went to war to preserve the Union first and foremost. Abolishing slavery was a byproduct of defeating the South, and a way to cripple the economy and punish those that attempted to break up the Union. Reconstruction was all about punishing the South. In war, you have winners and losers. Winner make the rules. Reconstruction was severe and the memories lingered. I moved to the South in the early 1970's. I was considered a "Yankee", and the older generation let me know about regularly. Most of it in fun, but it showed that even 100 years after the war, there was still some bitterness not over the loss of slavery, but from the severity of Reconstruction.
Maybe you'd like a first hand account: 13:20 mark is where you want to go.
"The Democrat Party looks like Titanic survivors. Partying and celebrating one moment, and huddled in lifeboats freezing the next". Hatari 2017
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid." Han Solo
Hard to overstate the economic impact of cotton, that product of the industrial revolution, flowing from mills from them newfangled steam engines.
Cheap, attractive, mass produced on machines, comfortable to wear, easily colored and patterned, likewise by machines. Quite unlike any mass commodity previously available. Everyone, everywhere, wanted it.
Just in time for the steam engine, Eli Whitney patents the cotton gin in 1794, making the the growth of short-staple cotton economically viable, cotton changes everything and sends the South down a dead-end path of cotton cultivation wherein chattel slavery becomes a very profitable proposition for those few with the means. Fortunes can be made growing cotton, in the first decades of the 19th Century cotton production grows exponentially, vast acreages given over to it,cotton producers and merchants financing and so making possible the Second Texas Revolution as an expansion of that cotton empire.
Most Southerners didn't own slaves, but all their wealthiest minority did; the Planter Class, who dictated domestic and foreign policy. Though few Southerners owned slaves, slaves represented the largest economic capitol of the South as a whole and slave grown cotton its major export. Slaves comprised about one quarter of the whole population of the South. In the States of South Carolina and Mississippi the enslaved actually outnumbered free folks.
Cotton is so profitable that little thought is given industrial development in the South, and while the North swells with immigrants, there is little incentive for said immigrants to move to the South where among other things, they would have to compete with slave labor.
Little wonder that by the time secession finally occurs in 1860, ALL the political leadership in the South comes from among the Planter Class. No wonder these people write a Constitution designed to perpetuate that way of life. Sad part is these people are also short-sighted to the point they try to pressure Great Britain into recognition by withholding their own cotton exports, a self-imposed and ultimately ruinous embargo. Britain responds to this embargo by taking the conceptually simple and necessary step of setting up cotton production inside their own empire, undermining the future economy of the South.
So was the war over slavery? The Confederate Veep said it was, so did the Declaration of Reasons of the first seven states to secede and these were all written by the Plantation Aristocracy.
But, as stated, it is doubtful that for the Confederate soldiers actually doing the fighting, the defense of wealthy planters and their slaves was the reason why they fought.
JMHO, Birdwatcher
"...if the gentlemen of Virginia shall send us a dozen of their sons, we would take great care in their education, instruct them in all we know, and make men of them." Canasatego 1744
"The rewritten history of the Civil War began with Lincoln as a brilliant political tactic to rally public opinion. The issue of slavery provided sentimental leverage, whereas oppressing the South with hurtful tariffs did not. Outrage against the greater evil of slavery served to mask the economic harm the North was doing to the South.
The situation in the South could be likened to having a legitimate legal case but losing the support of the jury when testimony concerning the defendant's moral failings was admitted into the court proceedings.
Toward the end of the war, Lincoln made the conflict primarily about the continuation of slavery. By doing so, he successfully silenced the debate about economic issues and states' rights . The main grievance of the Southern states was tariffs. Although slavery was a factor at the outset of the Civil War, it was not the sole or even primary cause. "
"The "Tariff of Abominations" was a protective tariff passed by the Congress of the United States on May 19, 1828, designed to protect industry in the northern United States. Enacted during the presidency of John Quincy Adams, it was labeled the Tariff of Abominations by its southern detractors because of the effects it had on the antebellum Southern economy. It set a 62% tax on 92% of all imported goods."
They can't but will lie about it anyway. The South was demoncrap long before it was "conservative". Old habits die hard and usually not at all. The original revisionist history.
Boy oh boy, where do I start?
Back during the days of the civil rights struggle, a Yankee came into a little Southern town to help the local darkies "organize" for their marches. An old White fellow there in the town asked the Yankee if he had Negroes in his town back up north. The Yankee admitted he did not. The old Southerner then told the Yankee that maybe instead of helping the local Negroes, he should just move them all up north to his town, and that way, everybody would be happy. It seems to me like Yankees are pretty good at telling others what to do.
RickyD is a poster that has taken every opportunity he has been given on here to either bash anything about the South, tell some Southerner that he is wrong, or in this case, is a liar. Apparently, he must have gotten a speeding ticket he didn't think he deserved by a Mississippi state trooper, or maybe ole Ricky is a descendant of slaves himself, who knows. But, whatever the case, he is eat up with hatred towards anyone that has ever posted anything sympathetic towards the South.
Yes, the South was Democrat AND conservatives........the Democrats were the original conservatives. The North was Republican and liberal or socialist......take your pick, Ricky my boy. Abe Lincoln was a diehard socialist, not a conservatives as we think today. The original revisionist history.......that was when the North got to write about the lies of the war that they brought upon the South.
Well if you can find an accurate account of how many people in the south actually owned slaves...
and for the farmers that didn't... any competition for selling their excess crops, was large agriculture plantations.
So less than 3 % of the southerners owned slaves and most of those were plantation owners with large numbers of slaves.
So do you really think that most southerner farms left their homes, farms and family to go put their lives on the line so that the real rich people and their chief competitor for their goods could own slaves?
Would you?
Now ask yourself, was the Civil War about slavery? Might have been for some of the rich slave owners, who I am sure controlled large influences in state governments... but for the other 97% of those that answered the call... I really doubt they put it all on the line, to include their lives, so that Rich Plantation owners could own slaves.
My people were in killer each other in Europe until recently so I have no "stake" in the slavery issue, or as much stake as a Confederate has in the Siege of Vienna war of 1683.
I have heard many talks at Gettysburg by historians that state rights, not slavery was the main reason that 97% of the people went to war for the South. As pointed out, very few southern people benefited from slavery, and many had to compete against it. Many feared the slaves and the uprisings from the slaves. 700,000 dead by northern aggression did not really solve the issue, it remains today. In the end, the southern states had a right to leave, and slavery was going to die with the industrial revolution. In the end the war was not the answer.
Interestingly the democrat goofs want secession and state rights above federal law, but now that is just fine, but somehow they damn Confederates for the same vision.
So, I don't know about your states but I can prove my state didn't secede nor fight the war because of slavery. My state had an election for representatives to the secession convention. Electors opposed to secession won the election and the convention made no decision for four months. After FortSumter Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to invade the south and force it back into the union. At that point, the secession representatives for my state, including all but one of those previously opposed, voted for secession. The ordinance of secession mentioned only Lincoln's call for troops and war upon the states as the reason to leave the union.
So, I don't know about your states but I can prove my state didn't secede nor fight the war because of slavery. My state had an election for representatives to the secession convention. Electors opposed to secession won the election and the convention made no decision for four months. After FortSumter Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to invade the south and force it back into the union. At that point, the secession representatives for my state, including all but one of those previously opposed, voted for secession. The ordinance of secession mentioned only Lincoln's call for troops and war upon the states as the reason to leave the union.
How does that prove anything? You believe that it means your state wasn't in it for slavery...
Equally valid point could be made that they were just letting other states take the big risk while sitting back and hoping it would be resolved without your state taking any risk.
Every state in the Confederacy allowed slavery. Every Single One. If it was about state's rights, wonder how it came about that not ONE SINGLE non-slave owning state joined the Confederacy?
There is no doubt that many, probably even a majority of the Southern men who fought weren't fighting for slavery - but there is also no doubt that every state joined to the Confederacy to protect slavery.
“The Savage 99 Pocket Reference”. All models and variations of 1895’s, 1899’s and 99’s covered. Also dates, checkering, engraving.. Find at www.savagelevers.com
I wish that all you posters on here who love to get on the South for wanting to keep their slaves would come down here and get the Negroes and take them all back with you, and that way maybe y'all would finally be happy.
So, I don't know about your states but I can prove my state didn't secede nor fight the war because of slavery. My state had an election for representatives to the secession convention. Electors opposed to secession won the election and the convention made no decision for four months. After FortSumter Lincoln called for 75,000 volunteers to invade the south and force it back into the union. At that point, the secession representatives for my state, including all but one of those previously opposed, voted for secession. The ordinance of secession mentioned only Lincoln's call for troops and war upon the states as the reason to leave the union.
How does that prove anything? You believe that it means your state wasn't in it for slavery...
Equally valid point could be made that they were just letting other states take the big risk while sitting back and hoping it would be resolved without your state taking any risk.
Every state in the Confederacy allowed slavery. Every Single One. If it was about state's rights, wonder how it came about that not ONE SINGLE non-slave owning state joined the Confederacy?
There is no doubt that many, probably even a majority of the Southern men who fought weren't fighting for slavery - but there is also no doubt that every state joined to the Confederacy to protect slavery.
Are you [bleep] retarded? They elected representatives to the secession convention AFTER seven states had already gone out. The candidates ran on the basis of being in favor or not in favor of secession. Those not in favor of secession won a clear majority DESPITE three counties having no candidates who were against. Yet after and ONLY after Lincoln's call for troops, all of those representatives previously against secession changed their positions. And the Ordinance of Secession made not one single reference to slavery. It only referenced the US government making war in the states.
Slavery was not enough for my state. It took an illegal call for troops to make it go out.
I've never read this before. For you Southerners who claim the Civil War wasn't about slavery, how can you justify your stance in light of his words?
P
Yes, the war was so much about slavery and it was such a critical issue that it appeared half way through the speech. How about Mr. Lincoln's take on the matter?
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything." by:
Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) 16th US President Source: Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858
Many on both sides felt the negro was inferior. When is the last time a major power went to war for something other than economics? Religion is often another cause but this too is often just a cover for economics.
Vladimir I. Lenin claimed, "One of the basic conditions for victory of socialism is the arming of the workers (Communists) and the disarming of the bourgeoisie (the middle class)."
I've seen PhD historians pretty much give up in the face of explaining why we went to war. I gather that it's complicated.
As I understand it, early in the war the North was fighting to preserve the Union. As the war progressed, Lincoln, ever the shrewd politician, cast the war as a fight over slavery because that would better advance his cause.
I can certainly sympathize with the South's concern over being forced to comply with federal laws that they didn't like or agree with. As I see it, their main problem was that in resisting, they were supporting the vile and immoral institution of slavery. I wonder how their intellectual and political position would have unfolded if the issue had been gun control.
Before the war, we said "The United States are...". After it, "The United States is...".
"The rewritten history of the Civil War began with Lincoln as a brilliant political tactic to rally public opinion. The issue of slavery provided sentimental leverage, whereas oppressing the South with hurtful tariffs did not. Outrage against the greater evil of slavery served to mask the economic harm the North was doing to the South.
The situation in the South could be likened to having a legitimate legal case but losing the support of the jury when testimony concerning the defendant's moral failings was admitted into the court proceedings.
Toward the end of the war, Lincoln made the conflict primarily about the continuation of slavery. By doing so, he successfully silenced the debate about economic issues and states' rights . The main grievance of the Southern states was tariffs. Although slavery was a factor at the outset of the Civil War, it was not the sole or even primary cause. "
"The "Tariff of Abominations" was a protective tariff passed by the Congress of the United States on May 19, 1828, designed to protect industry in the northern United States. Enacted during the presidency of John Quincy Adams, it was labeled the Tariff of Abominations by its southern detractors because of the effects it had on the antebellum Southern economy. It set a 62% tax on 92% of all imported goods."
Mike
Bears repeating because some people here are so fuggin stupid , they didn't get it the 1st time
There is a lot of stuff that made it 'complicated'....
The only part of Virginia that had slaves in any numbers was the southeast...
after FT Sumter, the VA Legislature was in recess....the SE politicians called a 'special session' and went up to Richmond, and with not even a quorum, seceded the state.
Afterwards the Legislature convened and actually to rescind the secession... however Washington DC had an enemy right across the Potomac, so they invaded Virginia to set up a safe perimeter defense... occupying Arlington and Fairfax County...
When that happened, the State Mobilized and considered it self invaded.
Robert E Lee would have taken command of the Union Troops until that happened...
He gave his allegiance to Virginia....
The Western Counties of the State were so pissed, owning no slaves or anything else to go to war over, they seceded from the State of Virginia...by 1863, they formed a new state.. originally called Kanawha named after the river that goes thru the center of the State, but later changed to West Virginia..
However many people from Western Virginia still fought for Virginia, not necessarily the confederacy.
Traveling around the State it is hard to find statues to Union Soldiers from what is now West Virginia. but it certainly is no problem finding statues to the local boys who fought for Virginia.
Virginia was so destroyed by the Civil War and all the repercussions that were thrown on it, decided it was better to remain a separate state.
And those invading troops were stopped at a town called Manassas...the south called it after the creek that ran thru the area, Bull Run...
as kids in the early 1960s, we were still discovering stuff left over from the two battles there... it was all over the place..
I even remember finding the remains of a cannon, with a couple of my friends in a sand bar on Bull Run, just 1/2 mile down the dirt road from our school in Yorkshire.
"Minus the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the Country" Marion Barry, Mayor of Wash DC
“Owning guns is not a right. If it were a right, it would be in the Constitution.” ~Alexandria Ocasio Cortez
The south certainly had no shortage of brave men, nor were they lacking in competent leaders and they have every right, if not duty to honor them through statues, memorials or any other method they see fit. I'm a proud yankee but not because we won, rather in spite of it.
�Politicians are the lowest form of life on earth. Liberal Democrats are the lowest form of politician.� �General George S. Patton, Jr.
Well if you can find an accurate account of how many people in the south actually owned slaves...
and for the farmers that didn't... any competition for selling their excess crops, was large agriculture plantations.
So less than 3 % of the southerners owned slaves and most of those were plantation owners with large numbers of slaves.
So do you really think that most southerner farms left their homes, farms and family to go put their lives on the line so that the real rich people and their chief competitor for their goods could own slaves?
Would you?
Now ask yourself, was the Civil War about slavery? Might have been for some of the rich slave owners, who I am sure controlled large influences in state governments... but for the other 97% of those that answered the call... I really doubt they put it all on the line, to include their lives, so that Rich Plantation owners could own slaves.
They fought because they were DRAFTED:
The first general American military draft was enacted by the Confederate government on April 16, 1862, more than a year before the federal government did the same. The Confederacy took this step because it had to; its territory was being assailed on every front by overwhelming numbers, and the defending armies needed men to fill the ranks. The compulsory-service law was very unpopular in the South because it was viewed as a usurpation of the rights of individuals by the central government, one of the reasons the South went to war in the first place.
Under the Conscription Act, all healthy white men between the ages of 18 and 35 were liable for a three year term of service. The act also extended the terms of enlistment for all one-year soldiers to three years. A September 1862 amendment raised the age limit to 45, and February 1864, the limits were extended to range between 17 and 50. Exempted from the draft were men employed in certain occupations considered to be most valuable for the home front, such as railroad and river workers, civil officials, telegraph operators, miners, druggists and teachers. On October 11, the Confederate Congress amended the draft law to exempt anyone who owned 20 or more slaves. Further, until the practice was abolished in December 1863, a rich drafted man could hire a substitute to take his place in the ranks, an unfair practice that brought on charges of class discrimination.
The great majority of Southerners owned no slave. States Rights being the major reason but to be sure Mr Stevens was a slave owner and more than likely it was a reason (states having a right to make their own decision) for him to support slavery or the right for his state to make the determination.
Clear as mud, ain't it? 😎
The primary "states right" at issue was the right of states to allow the ownership of slaves.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
I like your post because you link it to facts and reference material so people can check it on their own. Often times people on this forum, and others just give opnions with out facts and reference material to back it up.
If it was 1840 in Columbia South Carolina I could go to the local slave auction, buy ten men, have them kneel in the street. I could then shoot each one in the back of the head, my only crime would be disturbing the peace (if that would be illegal in 1840 please site the legal statutes). Slavery had to die if the US were to be an example of liberty to the rest of the world.
Interesting discussion, but in the big picture, currently, this is just a distraction. My GG grandfather was a plantation/slave owner in GA, but at this time, IDGAF what the Civil War was about. The big picture here is the ultimate goal of current PiecesOS to ultimately destroy our Constitution and our Country; "slavery claim" is just a foothold that logically connects next to our Founding Fathers...
[quote=JoeBob]Are you [bleep] retarded? They elected representatives to the secession convention AFTER seven states had already gone out. The candidates ran on the basis of being in favor or not in favor of secession. Those not in favor of secession won a clear majority DESPITE three counties having no candidates who were against. Yet after and ONLY after Lincoln's call for troops, all of those representatives previously against secession changed their positions. And the Ordinance of Secession made not one single reference to slavery. It only referenced the US government making war in the states.
Slavery was not enough for my state. It took an illegal call for troops to make it go out.
So your reason to believe your state fought for states rights rather than slavery is because Democrat politicians who were elected by the people to vote for no secession, didn't betray the voters and vote for secession until the shooting started?
Too funny... You probably believe the purpose of AntiFa is to fight fascists, don't you?
“The Savage 99 Pocket Reference”. All models and variations of 1895’s, 1899’s and 99’s covered. Also dates, checkering, engraving.. Find at www.savagelevers.com
[quote=JoeBob]Are you [bleep] retarded? They elected representatives to the secession convention AFTER seven states had already gone out. The candidates ran on the basis of being in favor or not in favor of secession. Those not in favor of secession won a clear majority DESPITE three counties having no candidates who were against. Yet after and ONLY after Lincoln's call for troops, all of those representatives previously against secession changed their positions. And the Ordinance of Secession made not one single reference to slavery. It only referenced the US government making war in the states.
Slavery was not enough for my state. It took an illegal call for troops to make it go out.
So your reason to believe your state fought for states rights rather than slavery is because Democrat politicians who were elected by the people to vote for no secession, didn't betray the voters and vote for secession until the shooting started?
Too funny... You probably believe the purpose of AntiFa is to fight fascists, don't you?
Yes, it is a historical fact that they didn't secede until after the shooting started. And no, they didn't betray their voters as that making war upon the states for merely exercising their right to leave a voluntary union of states was seen as a monstrous crime at the time, you fricking retard.
I wish that all you posters on here who love to get on the South for wanting to keep their slaves would come down here and get the Negroes and take them all back with you, and that way maybe y'all would finally be happy.
Your kin had them brought here, so you are now responsible for them. Get to work.
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
Yes, it is a historical fact that they didn't secede until after the shooting started. And no, they didn't betray their voters as that making war upon the states for merely exercising their right to leave a voluntary union of states was seen as a monstrous crime at the time, you fricking retard.
So there was another vote where delegates who were for secession were voted in?
You keep talking about the people of your state being for states rights, but the only proof you give is the people of your state voting against secession and the politicians taking you into the Confederacy.
“The Savage 99 Pocket Reference”. All models and variations of 1895’s, 1899’s and 99’s covered. Also dates, checkering, engraving.. Find at www.savagelevers.com
Yes, it is a historical fact that they didn't secede until after the shooting started. And no, they didn't betray their voters as that making war upon the states for merely exercising their right to leave a voluntary union of states was seen as a monstrous crime at the time, you fricking retard.
So there was another vote where delegates who were for secession were voted in?
You keep talking about the people of your state being for states rights, but the only proof you give is the people of your state voting against secession and the politicians taking you into the Confederacy.
If they hadn't voted for it after Lincoln decided to make war, they would have been lynched. But by all means, you fricking disgusting retarded Yankee, tell us what people who lived 150 years ago REALLY meant and REALLY felt.
You fricking Yankees never change. YOU know best for everyone and everything.
If they hadn't voted for it after Lincoln decided to make war, they would have been lynched. But by all means, you fricking disgusting retarded Yankee, tell us what people who lived 150 years ago REALLY meant and REALLY felt.
You fricking Yankees never change. YOU know best for everyone and everything.
You are way too emotionally involved for something that happened 150 years ago, especially to a state you're too ashamed of to even put in your profile.
Chill, relax. Your ancestors weren't the only ones to be manipulated by the Democrat machine.
“The Savage 99 Pocket Reference”. All models and variations of 1895’s, 1899’s and 99’s covered. Also dates, checkering, engraving.. Find at www.savagelevers.com
If they hadn't voted for it after Lincoln decided to make war, they would have been lynched. But by all means, you fricking disgusting retarded Yankee, tell us what people who lived 150 years ago REALLY meant and REALLY felt.
You fricking Yankees never change. YOU know best for everyone and everything.
You are way too emotionally involved for something that happened 150 years ago, especially to a state you're too ashamed of to even put in your profile.
Chill, relax. Your ancestors weren't the only ones to be manipulated by the Democrat machine.
Frick you. That damned Yankee attitude is exactly why the war happened and exactly why we would all be better off without your sorry asses. As for being ashamed of my state, not at [bleep] all. Study your history, retard, there were only four states that went out after Fort Sumter. It should be pretty damned easy to figure out.
Oh, I forgot, you Yankees are all seeing and all knowing.
http://www.historynet.com/causes-of-the-civil-war this is a pretty good read, especially the piece at the bottom, the featured article I believe. Plenty of blame to go around and it is some what scary that it so closely mirrors what we are seeing happen today.
Slavery was the catalyst for but not the cause of the Civil War. The cause was sectionalism and ethnic divisions. The basic ethnic groups fought two civil wars in England before the one in America. And New England was the first section of the country to hold a convention for the purpose of secession and to almost do it during the War of 1812.
The New England representative from the secession convention was in Washington with a list of impossible demands waiting on an audience with the president when word of the Treaty of Ghent arrived signaling a successful end to the War of 1812. He slunk back home to New England. A mere five years later New England began the process of using slavery as a tool to beat the South into submission in order to gain control of the national government with the Missouri Compromise.
Frick you. That damned Yankee attitude is exactly why the war happened and exactly why we would all be better off without your sorry asses. As for being ashamed of my state, not at [bleep] all. Study your history, retard, there were only four states that went out after Fort Sumter. It should be pretty damned easy to figure out.
Oh, I forgot, you Yankees are all seeing and all knowing.
You call me a Yankee, but practically all of my ancestors came over after that entire stupid mess that had been simmering for 90 years and was inevitable was over. And besides that, nobody calls Nebraskans Yankees... we weren't even a state until the war was over.
I'm about as disinterested of a 3rd party as you'll ever find. What is obvious is that every hard core slave state was looking at financial devastation and political mayhem if slavery was abolished and the slaves freed by a Republican Congress - and the politicians and the rich (practically all of which were Democrats) were going to try to prevent that. The Democrats also controlled almost all of the local media - and there was no nation-wide media.
Unfortunately they believed their own ridiculous propaganda and believed that firing on Union troops and ships would make the "Yankees" run in terror and capitulate, rather than come back down and kick their stupid butts.
And it went from there. And there are millions of southerners still believing the Democrat propaganda put out 150 years ago. You aren't alone.
“The Savage 99 Pocket Reference”. All models and variations of 1895’s, 1899’s and 99’s covered. Also dates, checkering, engraving.. Find at www.savagelevers.com
Frick you. That damned Yankee attitude is exactly why the war happened and exactly why we would all be better off without your sorry asses. As for being ashamed of my state, not at [bleep] all. Study your history, retard, there were only four states that went out after Fort Sumter. It should be pretty damned easy to figure out.
Oh, I forgot, you Yankees are all seeing and all knowing.
You call me a Yankee, but practically all of my ancestors came over after that entire stupid mess that had been simmering for 90 years and was inevitable was over. And besides that, nobody calls Nebraskans Yankees... we weren't even a state until the war was over.
I'm about as disinterested of a 3rd party as you'll ever find. What is obvious is that every hard core slave state was looking at financial devastation and political mayhem if slavery was abolished and the slaves freed by a Republican Congress - and the politicians and the rich (practically all of which were Democrats) were going to try to prevent that. The Democrats also controlled almost all of the local media - and there was no nation-wide media.
Unfortunately they believed their own ridiculous propaganda and believed that firing on Union troops and ships would make the "Yankees" run in terror and capitulate, rather than come back down and kick their stupid butts.
And it went from there. And there are millions of southerners still believing the Democrat propaganda put out 150 years ago. You aren't alone.
Actually, by immigration patterns Nebraska and Iowa are the heart of Yankeeland today. Those states were settled predominantly by people from the Old Yankee Midwest who came mostly from New England. You can see it quite clearly in the way certain people think.
If any care to be enlightened, read this paper from Upenn on Yankee cultural imperialism. Look at the immigration patterns and look at the descriptions of Yankees in the 19th Century. You will see that the culture of the Yankee is that if the modern liberal. You will see that the descent from Yankees to liberals is direct as the regions of the country and their modern voting patterns show it. You will see that the struggle for the leadership and direction of the country began from the very start. And you will that the Yankee problem is an ongoing one. And you'll see that regardless of slavery and that with or without it that two peoples who had such hateful words for each other and such clear disdain for each other were bound to fight.
And finally, you'll see that nothing has changed. The groups are the same today and we are bound for a fight again. Modern immigration patterns has made the boundaries less sectional than they were before, but the descriptions of Yankees back then applies exactly to modern progressives.
Actually, by immigration patterns Nebraska and Iowa are the heart of Yankeeland today. Those states were settled predominantly by people from the Old Yankee Midwest who came mostly from New England. You can see it quite clearly in the way certain people think.
You are possibly correct in regards to Omaha, though it's really a cross between your average liberal New England state and your average screwed up Democrat city in the South.
The 99% of the rest of the state doesn't think or act anything like anybody east of the Missouri. And most of it was settled by overseas immigrants. You should quit making presumptions like your average Yankee politician in regards to the flyover states and actually come through sometime.
“The Savage 99 Pocket Reference”. All models and variations of 1895’s, 1899’s and 99’s covered. Also dates, checkering, engraving.. Find at www.savagelevers.com
In reading a little on the subject here being discussed...
I thought it was kinda interesting and you NEVER hear about this one...
But the place that southern cotton was sold to market was in NYC...
At the time of the Civil War, and Ft Sumpter... I found something that was about NYC.
Cotton was such an important commodity for the City, the Mayor actually petitioned the State of New York to Secede from both the State of NY and the Union.... setting itself up as an independent neutral city...
Lets also not forget about the riots and insurrection among the Irish when the Union started drafting people to serve in the Union Army...
another thing I was reading, in the 1700s, After Charleston SC, who was tied into the West Indies slave trade....and also had the largest slave population in the Nation...
the place that was Number 2, WAS NYC....which made NY State the second largest slave holding state at the time.
I guess that is another thing that seems to escape revisionist history, and today's modern BLM and Antifa wanting to destroy any representation of history of what really happened...
guess one can overlook owning slaves if it was North of the Mason Dixon...
and lets not also forget Maryland was a slave holding southern state as well...
"Minus the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the Country" Marion Barry, Mayor of Wash DC
“Owning guns is not a right. If it were a right, it would be in the Constitution.” ~Alexandria Ocasio Cortez
http://www.historynet.com/causes-of-the-civil-war this is a pretty good read, especially the piece at the bottom, the featured article I believe. Plenty of blame to go around and it is some what scary that it so closely mirrors what we are seeing happen today.
Oh, that won't work. Plenty of blame to go around is not acceptable. It's always just one parties fault: the other one. And they taught the blacks that too, and now see what we have: a bunch of white johnny reb wannabes and a bunch of black lazy ass idiots who just want to blame me for something that happened 150 years ago that I had no part in and neither did they, but they want to act like they did. Hard to decide who's worse. Peas in a pod.
We may know the time Ben Carson lied, but does anyone know the time Hillary Clinton told the truth?
Immersing oneself in progressive lieberalism is no different than bathing in the sewage of Hell.
The states voluntarily joined the United States and voluntarily chose to break their bonds with a despotic FedGov. All else is rubbish.
The Civil War was about the government failing to protect individual rights. Equal rights. Secession is not protection against establishing a government to prevent the abolishment of slavery. The key issue in the right to secession is not separating oneself from a government that prevents the “self-determination” of “peoples,” but separating oneself from a government that fails in its purpose: the protection of individual rights.
All else is rubbish.
Leo of the Land of Dyr
NRA FOR LIFE
I MISS SARAH
“In Trump We Trust.” Right????
SOMEBODY please tell TRH that Netanyahu NEVER said "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away."
In reading a little on the subject here being discussed...
I thought it was kinda interesting and you NEVER hear about this one...
But the place that southern cotton was sold to market was in NYC...
At the time of the Civil War, and Ft Sumpter... I found something that was about NYC.
Cotton was such an important commodity for the City, the Mayor actually petitioned the State of New York to Secede from both the State of NY and the Union.... setting itself up as an independent neutral city...
Lets also not forget about the riots and insurrection among the Irish when the Union started drafting people to serve in the Union Army...
another thing I was reading, in the 1700s, After Charleston SC, who was tied into the West Indies slave trade....and also had the largest slave population in the Nation...
the place that was Number 2, WAS NYC....which made NY State the second largest slave holding state at the time.
I guess that is another thing that seems to escape revisionist history, and today's modern BLM and Antifa wanting to destroy any representation of history of what really happened...
guess one can overlook owning slaves if it was North of the Mason Dixon...
and lets not also forget Maryland was a slave holding southern state as well...
It's a Jewish Conspiracy
I'm here to increase my social credit score and rub elbows with some of the highest rollers on the internet.
What a Yankee actually was was a New Englander or a New Yorker. Pennsylvania only got lumped in after we fought with the Union. But when PA fought Connecticut it was called the "Yankee-Pennamite Wars". We weren't Yankees and no one else outside of NY and New England were either. When the Army of Northern Virginia invaded Pennsylvania Robert E. Lee gave strict orders to not loot and to treat the citizenry respectfully because PA was a hotbed foe Confederate sympathizers and plenty of southern Pennsylvanians fought for the Confederacy.
Ain't talking about legality. I'm talking about right and wrong. And civilized right and wrong, in case you want to hit me with the "every culture did it" argument. We don't practice human sacrifice, either, despite the fact that every culture did it.
P
Obey lawful commands. Video interactions. Hold bad cops accountable. Problem solved.
