Skip to comments.War Between the States about slavery? No way
Posted on 04/25/2011 9:31:58 AM PDT by Iron Munro
click here to read article
Al Mccray is a Tampa businessman and managing editor of TampaNewsAndTalk.com.
Sweet. I’ll go grab the popcorn!
IMHO slavery was a symptom, secession was the disease. at the onset of hostilities, Lincoln’s priority was saving the union.
Americans don’t want to believe that 100s of thousands of Americans died over tariffs.
slavery was a symptom, secession was the disease.
Game, Set, and Match.
“Preserving” the Union with grapeshot and double canister is a bit of a contradiction, isn’t it?
There were 5 main reasons of the war. Go to this site:
"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; but I do expect that it will cease to be divided. It will become all the one thing or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new, north as well as south." Abraham Lincoln, June 16, 1858, Address to the Republican Convention
Is “Because Yankees Suck” on the list?
Question: Would the South have seceded if they weren’t afraid that Lincoln would free the slaves, something that he admitted that he did not have the Constitutional authority to do?
Ever since the phrase “states rights” has been mocked and the object of hatred. Contradiction that the assumption of States Rights is one of the foundations of the Constitution.
Preserving the Union with grapeshot and double canister is a bit of a contradiction, isnt it?
Yeah, thats crazy,,forcibly preserving a relationship where one party wants to amicably leave. Why, that’d be like,,forcing people to work on your farm against their will, or something nutty like that.
The reason why the racist Lincoln wanted to stop slavery in the territories because he thought the west should be for whites only and not spoiled with blacks. Yes, Lincoln was a racist to the nth degree.
Question: Would the South have accepted a compensated emancipation?
My essential point is this: if you actually read that what was written by the legislature-- they tell you that the war is about slavery. They made the decision to go to war--and they told us why.
In 1860 there were only a handful of saints that weren’t racist to the nth degree.
Abraham Lincoln comment on the National Bank Act, February 1863
He was right! He saved the union but the republic was destroyed as a result!
No, it was all about states' rights ... the right to maintain slavery.
You must be some kind of truth freak.
I'll take a whack at it.
Why didn't President Lincoln issue a proclamation on day one of his presidency to free the slaves?
Because the Constitution gave him no power to do so, and because he thought southern Unionists would still prevail in the Upper South and Border states?
Why did he wait so many years later to issue his proclamation?
Lincoln took office March 1861. He issued the preliminary Emancipation Proclamation in September 1862. Since when is 18 months "so many years?"
Why was slavery still legal in the Northern states?
Because of frantic resistance by border state slaveowners and the fact that it takes time to get such legislation through? Despite this, all "northern," actually southern Unionist, states other than KY freed their slaves by state action before the end of the war.
Before 1864, how many elected members of the imperialist Yankee Congress introduced legislation to outlaw slavery anywhere in America?
August, 1861: Congress frees slaves being used in the Confederate war effort.
Slavery was abolished in the District of Columbia in April 1862. The same month, at Lincoln's request, Congress pledges financial aid to any state that undertakes gradual emancipation.
June, 1862: Congress abolishes slavery in the territories.
July, 1862: Congress frees the slaves of persons engaged in rebellion. Militia Act frees slaves who join the Union forces (and their families).
December, 1863 a bill for an amendment freeing all slaves was introduced.
The south polluted and tainted the wonderful concept of states rights, by using it as a method to defend an immoral “right” to slavery. And as a result, to this day,,, if we assert states rights in VERY legitimate situations, such as health care, we are instantly cast as plantation owners.
So what. He was a man of the age - by today’s standards nearly everyone was racist.
the south’s desire to seccede (or however ya spell it) was caused by pressure from the north over slavery. the south basically wanted to be left alone, the north could not abide slavery. generally speaking, of course.
interesting quote. hadn’t heard it before...
I plead Guilty!
I like nothing better than to hoist people on their own petards. I love orginal documents that contradict bloviation by people who should know better.
If the folks voting to start the American Civil War said it was about slavery, who am I to contradict them?
The Army of the Potomac invaded the South to capture, control and plunder the prosperity of Southern economic resources and its industries.
I'm not sure what "prosperity" this guy is talking about. By any objective measure, the South was predominantly agrarian and substantially poorer than the North in the years leading up to the Civil War. In fact, when Frederick Douglass escaped from the South and made his way to Massachusetts, one of the eye-opening revelations he had was that lower-class black laborers in the town of New Bedford had a higher standard of living than the owner of the Maryland plantation where Douglass had lived and worked as a slave.
Most freed slaves stayed on the farm/plantation as share croppers post-bellum. A peculiar institution, for sure.
I'm still not exactly sure how fighting over a tariff regime, for example, would somehow mitigate the Southern states' culpability for the morally atrocious institution of slavery.
South Carolina (and others, of course) were most certainly correct that federal interference in the matter of fugitive slaves was indeed an encroachment on the states' rights, and a clear overstepping of constitutional authority. But the issue of slavery is inseparable from the rights argument.
For those of us descended from Confederates or their sympathizers, there is no need to be reflexively defensive on the matter. It was what it was.
Oh goody. I’m reading Lincoln Unmasked.
Oh goody. I’m reading Lincoln Unmasked.
Thats different than whips, hounds, and the right to buy and sell people. Sharecropping sucked, and yes, Jim Crow silliness tried to basically keep something as close to slavery alive as long as they could.
But we were talking about preserving forced relationships with force.
We saved a union but lost a Constitution.
In a way it was more a revolution than a civil war.
“He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.”
(Winston’s victory over himself-1984)
“For those of us descended from Confederates or their sympathizers, there is no need to be reflexively defensive on the matter. It was what it was.”
Well put,,,it’s shared American history now. It’s beyond retarded to try to defend slavery, the rebellion, Shermans March to the sea, etc. It should be owned by all. The funny thing is that after US Grant, and his behavior at Appomatox, nobody has an excuse to abuse the south,, or to carry on “the cause”.
The Union and the Confederacy armies instituted the first federal military draft in American history during the Civil War. In the wake of military losses and a shortage of soldiers, the Union resorted to a federal draft in March 1863, almost a year after the Confederacy. President Lincoln signed The Enrollment Act on March 3, 1863, requiring the enrollment of every male citizen and those immigrants who had filed for citizenship between ages twenty and forty-five. Federal agents established a quota of new troops due from each congressional district.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/enrollment-act-1863-the-conscription-act#ixzz1KYRWbgLg
This is partially true.
Lincoln made the war about slavery; that is what caused the shortage, nobody was going to volunteer to free the black man.
1. The basic nature of the U.S. government and its relationship with state governments, with either a powerful central government or a loose confederation of state governments as the model.
2. The process and organization of the settlement of the West.
3. The nature and regulatory structure of commerce in the United States over long distances between multiple states and territories -- mainly the railroads across the West and shipping along the Mississippi River system.
gonna stop back later to see how this one goes.
If a state or states secedes today, would you join the federales in quelling those states righters?
So,, seeing that slavery is nutty, is the same as the final collapse of Winston? Can you explain this answer and maybe relate it from a slaves point of view? Should he learn to accept the “massa” as knowing better for him, and learn to love him?
Why does a discussion with defenders of slavery seem to faintly echo the discussions with people that always gloss over and defend Nazi germany as actually being “anti-communist”?
you’re starting to see the bigger picture! most of the population and wealth was in the north. most of the taxes and tariffs were paid by the south. economic oppression was as big an issue for them being fed up as it was for another group 90 years prior
“African kings were running a booming enterprise of selling their own people into slavery. It was also customary that defeated people became slaves. “
I think if they won’t sold into slavery, they were killed. Anybody know if this true?
If the states seceeded so they could forcibly put captives on the auction block,,, would you go out there to defend it? If so,,,explain how that is different than radical islam.
The concept of States Rights are now polluted and connected in the public mind with slavery.
I don’t care to argue who is to blame for that.
He is revered for supposedly keeping the union from splitting up. Even though he did it by allowing a war to break out and vigorously pursuing it to the point 600,000 Americans killed each other for principles still being argued.
If Lincoln was half the great man the history books present he would have spent his time on diplomacy and reconciliation instead of planning and executing the most terrible war in our history. A great president would have avoided some, most or all of the deaths. A great president would not have presided over the scorched earth savaging and destruction of half of the nation he supposedly wanted to save.
Lincoln was no more president of all the people than is Obama. They both had/have their constriuencies - the rest be damned.
If my state wanted to secede I will defend her against all threats, including thuggish fascists.
i agree totally.