Posted on 12/30/2023 12:56:39 PM PST by Starman417
Hey, by the way, the article seems to be saying that it was a War between powerful wealthy men of the North against powerful wealthy men of the South. Would those powerful wealthy men of the South happen to be the “Robber Barons” you are always squawking about. Because I can’t seem to find any “Robber Barons” up North during the Civil War.
The map is misleading. There was a section in the NC Appalachians that had never had slaves, and the seceded from the Confederacy as soon as the Confederacy was formed. This area was called Mayland.
Mayland was ruthless ravaged by both the US and the Confederacy. I have visited some of the caves where the people hid when soldiers came to steal and destroy.
Now *that* is sloppy and dishonest.
I have added the final qualifying sentence of Lincoln’s many times on these threads. See my post #20 (again, for the first time).
You pick at nits because you can't rebut the substance. Your last sentence is of trivial importance and does not greatly impact the topic at all.
It must hold some secret significance to you, but to me nothing of importance is added when it is included.
And clearly you have trouble admitting you were *WRONG!!!*
👌
What are you, a loon? I type in "Horace Greeley letter". I get results. I grab one of them. Who gives a flying sh*t if it's a reprint of the original? It's text!
Again, your objection is "a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
You came here only to pick a fight with me. You didn't focus your commentary on the issue at hand, instead you simply launched an attack against me.
Hey, by the way, the article seems to be saying that it was a War between powerful wealthy men of the North against powerful wealthy men of the South.
A lot of people are waking up to the fact that powerful men in the North have been/are causing the vast majority of the problems throughout our history.
I think some guy just did a song this year about "Rich men North of Richmond." You should listen to it. :)
Would those powerful wealthy men of the South happen to be the “Robber Barons” you are always squawking about. Because I can’t seem to find any “Robber Barons” up North during the Civil War.
I sympathize with you for your inability to apply a term created during the "gilded age" to the previous era. Some people's minds don't have the necessary dexterity required to make that leap of understanding.
“Why should I read someone’s opinion...”
It’s called educating yourself, especially on such a hot button, controversial topic. I hope you don’t believe all those hundreds of thousands of Confederate and Union soldiers in their minds were fighting over slavery.
“sister states”
That isn’t the phrase that Virginia used. What phrase did they use?
‘not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern “slaveholding” States.’
Oh look, there’s the S word.
You are a dolt. It makes all the difference. Without that closing sentence, the preceding sentences are so often cited by Lost Causers to show that Lincoln didn’t give a hoot about Slavery. Whereas the fact of the matter is that he hated Slavery. But that is not important to you? What's really bothering you?
Marxist use slavery and the historical grievances of blacks to shame gullible whites into submission. It’s good to have a rational discussion about the causes of the civil war. In many ways we are now tittering on the brink of the second civil war for the very same reasons. Once our vote become meaningless, we either accept being slaves or civil war. Irony.
I think you mean “rewriting history”.
During the Civil War, there was an attempt to make peace with the Sioux and their enemies the Pawnee. The Army negotiator said “The Great White Father does not like for his Red Children to be fighting!”
The Sioux retort was to laugh and say “The Great White Father cannot keep his own children from fighting!” and went on their way.
The fights between the Sioux and Pawnee went on till way in the 1870s when the Pawnee and their families were slaughtered by a Sioux war party of over 1000 warriors at Massacre Canyon Nebraska.
The Pawnee were then moved to a reservation in Oklahoma, far away from the Sioux.
These threads have a large amount of people defending and making excuses for democrats which is strange.
If folks in the South would have picked their own damn cotton the USA would have been a lot better off today...
When that is the focus of your obsession, that is all you are going to look for. You have boiled the entire statement of Virginia down to one word, and it simply shows your own intellectual dishonesty.
Yes, saying "slaveholding states" is accurate, but irrelevant to the point.
Do you think Virginia would not have made the same objection had the state being invaded was Pennsylvania?
The objection is to the Federal government raising an army to force subjugation of a sovereign state.
Subjugation is based on the *EXACT SAME MORAL PREMISE* as slavery. That the powerful can force the weaker to do as they are told.
I guess our individual tolerance for slavery is contingent upon whose ox is being gored.
Yeah, an entire lifetime of indoctrination by all the propaganda apparatus of society isn't enough to make sure people know that Lincoln was opposed to slavery.
Good thing there are people like you to come along and add that last little sentence in case people are wavering into believing Lincoln didn't care about slavery.
Whereas the fact of the matter is that he hated Slavery.
So we have been told our entire lives. Oddly enough, evidence of his indifference about it floats up ever so often. The book "Forced Into Glory" points out some of it.
When you start to view Lincoln as a conniving, manipulative, lying politician, a lot of what you thought you knew about him seems to become quite uncertain.
Lincoln advocated abolition in the same way modern Liberals advocate LBGTQ+ and concern for "Black Lives Matters". Not because they believe it, but because it is politically necessary for them to say so in order advance their careers.
And your attempts to ignore slavery shows your own intellectual dishonesty.
I think you mean “rewriting history”.
This is a good example of what I meant when I said "Some people's minds don't have the necessary dexterity required to make that leap of understanding.”
Certainly the most accurate title of the week. A lot of what he says is very misleading.
The abolitionist movement in the North grew, but it never became a majority. Its leaders all had far more to gain from raising tariffs than they ever did from freeing slaves. Followers of the movement became increasingly radical.
Nonsense. The leaders of the abolitionist movement were preachers and writers. If a manufacturer did support the abolitionists, it's likely that he felt slavery was more important than the tariff. Most businessmen weren't abolitionists.
In his highly distributed debate transcripts, Lincoln said the way to handle the debt from the Mexican War was to dismiss the Compromise of 1833 and raise tariffs as high as 45%.
I think that 45% tariff proposal may have been Donald Trump's. What debate transcripts? There were no actual presidential debates that year. The tariff wasn't an issue in the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas senatorial debates. I don't see that Lincoln gave a figure in 1860 for how much the tariff would be raised, and it would have been out of the ordinary for any presidential candidate to give a figure. So, where's the evidence?
The Democrats had lowered the tariff in 1857, and there was little opposition to that. The country was preoccupied with the slavery question. But the world went into a depression in that same year, so there came to be support for a higher tariff in hopes of stimulating industry and reducing the deficit.
Lincoln was an Old Whig who favored protectionism, and Pennsylvania industrialists in particular favored a high tariff, but for the most part the tariff wasn't as big an issue as it's made out to be. Certainly, the cotton states of the Deep South were more concerned about slavery than about stopping the tariff increase, and that is why their representatives and senators left Congress rather than try to block the increase.
When Lincoln was inaugurated the abolitionist rhetoric increased severalfold.
More like the fear of abolitionism increased severalfold in the South. Abolitionists wanted more than Lincoln was willing to give, and most Northerners were willing to give much less than the abolitionists wanted, so abolitionist rhetoric didn't increase, but Southern fear of abolitionists did.
In Charleson Harbor, Ft Sumter sat as a blocking piece that could interdict and sink any ship breaking Federal Law-including not paying an increased tariff.
Then Fort Sumter would have been destroyed (as it largely was), so there was a standoff between the two sides. In any case, Sumter wasn't a place where tariffs could be collected, nor was there a place in the state where the federals could have collected them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.