Posted on 03/21/2009 7:02:03 AM PDT by Liz
The North officially came to terms with there being on their conscience the evil of the institution even while not wanting to face the consequences of ending it altogether due to their knowledge of that it was going to lead to bloodshed. It was an indifference that went on far too long with the institution even when they trended to free states.
I don’t see where you win an argument in trying to use Shepard born a free man to further your argument for slavery of any kind. And you are right that the North started out the war just wanting to keep the South in the Union, but Lincoln rightly saw it for what it was involving the evil institution of slavery and that we could not have this issue and more war come up again so end it. And ironic it was for Southern ‘freedom’ when their main issue was owning their negroes. Say whatever, but that was the South’s cause. And I guess I might as well admit to having ancestors who fought for the Union. GET THE HELL OVER IT. I just strongly would have been an abolitionist in those days obviously as it was an unjust cause and a lot of people died because the South could and would not come to terms with the great shame that was.
Charles Manson sure got a lot of people to do his dirty work. Bleeding Kansas and the warfare that happened there was not such a simple thing and I can see where Brown was coming from in taking it to the slavery activists.
I have always come to my own conclusions. Slavery and the process to eliminate it and how to do it is an interesting debate. I obviously think Brown was pushing the issue and the reality of what people were indifferent to for so long and making this country deal with it. And the fact is this country was wrong and unjust in itself to legalize the injustices done to so many unfortunate to be born black and ‘property’ for so long.
Fact is that you would support bloodshed for taxes but not for true ‘LEGAL’ slavery. FAIL.
What an incredible statement. Just can’t put yourself in another man’s shoes, huh? Oh, I forgot, they were not human after all! Sickening statement.
They always did start it. Just never liked when the damned abolitionists hit back. And Brown was one who did, but at least he wasn’t dying to keep people enslaved. What a cause those slavery proponents went to the grave with!
That’s nice he freed his and then fought so that others could KEEP their’s and treat them at their own pleasure!
How sweet this ‘Yankee’ talk! FYI, we are all ‘Yankees’ again as the word originated during the Revolution. And I am conservative and believe there are causes worth fighting for and fighting slavery was one of them. So, I guess I should be an apologist for slavery and the South’s actions and I’ll be a ‘true conservative’ to you?! I really do not care.
True, as they threw the poor b**tards out there to die for their cause of slavery. Ignorance. Maybe not personally, but quit trying to deny the ‘Confederate States’ were there and fighting to keep their precious negroes enslaved, period.
Brown was a murdering terrorist, nothing changes that and nothing justifies that.
You take the last word, I won’t bother reading it and you cannot fail to reply. I am tired of this conversation.
Some other “justifications” based on “morals”.
The AIG bonuses were morally wrong in my view. Therefore it is acceptable for me to ignore the contract law and restrictions on Bill of Attainder we have had for 200 years because the Constitution is obviously morally flawed in allowing the immoral AIG bonuses.
“It is for the children.”
The United States is the most egregious environmental danger. This is immoral. Therefore it is okay to take the law into our own hands and burn down car dealerships, spike trees, and burn housing developments because the US system is obviously morally flawed in allowing immoral environmental damage and can thus be ignored.
The people in the World Trade Center are partially responsible for the failure of the Islamic world because they are workers for the system that exploits Islamic people. This is immoral. Therefore it is acceptable to ignore the laws of war, the other moral laws against murder that have been in place since civilization began, the prohibition on cowardly surprise attacks, and everything else because those are all negated by the immorality of the system the WTC workers work for.
Conservative philosophy is based on logic, reason, and thought. Those who claim to be conservative but are ruled by emotions and how they “feel” about issues, are not conservatives.
Keep up the fight.
Good points.
He was fighting for States-Rights. He freed his slaves upon inheriting them, because he didn’t believe in slavery.
Not everything in history is as cut & dry as you seem to think.
In your.....tiny......opinion!
he also despised Jews, Roman Catholics, Asians, AmerIndians, Latinos & "muddy coloured people" (MIXED BLOODS like ME, for example).
for lincoln, the ONLY reason to abolish slavery "in those areas still in rebellion" was to DAMAGE the CSA war effort.(face it, once more you've been DUPED & PLAYED for a FOOL by your MIS-education.)
further, there was a plan by the US Army to place the newly freed Blacks on "forced volunteer labor, under military control for a lengthy, but at this time indeterminate, period of servitude" (sounds like SLAVERY, huh. doesn't it to you???
btw, don't be too sure that your own ancestors weren't up to their ears in "the peculiar institution", as MANY well-to-do northern families WERE. they practiced slavery in the north as long as it was profitable. when it was no longer profitable, they sold their slaves. when the USA freed all the slaves, many of those same families stayed in the slavery business in the areas where it was still PROFITABLE. (i'll bet they didn't teach you THAT in your "gubmint apruvved publick screwls", did they???)
the FACTS are that FEW people in the mid 19th century, NORTH or SOUTH, cared a DAMN about the slaves, except as a source of LABOR/PROFIT. they SHOULD have cared;they did NOT care at all. as a professor said, in my long ago college days/DAZE: "you could have put every true abolitionist in the USA in one reading room of the NY Public Library in 1860; furthermore, you could have put every abolitionist in America, who was willing to fight a war to free the slaves, in a phone booth."
as for Heywood Sheppard, i simply posted the FACTS about him, which are known to few people outside of VA/WV. as i said, MANY Virginians consider Officer Sheppard as the FIRST victim of the DAMNyankee invaders.
free dixie,sw
both groups preyed on slave owners/non-slave owners/Missourians/Kansans/AmerIndians/slaves/freemen with equal fury.
those groups were mostly about MONEY & the LUST for MORE MONEY. (it was "war for fun & profit".)
to quote George M. Clide, a "lieutenant" of the "redlegs" : "If there was NO convenient reb farm nearby,we raided whichever place was closest. didn't make no nevermind to usins"
free dixie,sw
we have discussed this exact question repeatedly on these WBTS threads. (the FIRST time you asked it, it was a halfway intelligent question; every time since that you've asked it, has made you look progressively LESS smart.)
the Blacks, who "wore the gray" & which H.C. Blackerby counts, were FREEMEN as ONLY free-persons COULD take The Oath of Enlistment.
there were MANY slaves who were "rented out" to the various southern states/units, by their owners, (even some NORTHERN slave-owners rented slaves to the CSA! ===> you DAMNyankees don't want to talk about THOSE particular slave-owners, do you "Bubba", as it makes you and all the other DAMNyankees look like the LYING/SELF-righteous/arrogant HYPOCRYTES that DYs actually are.) but those slaves were NOT members of the military services.
further, it is well-known that a considerable number of slaves (i don't know how many, but Shelby Foote simply said "many") were FREED to join the CSA forces.
free dixie,sw
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.