PDA

View Full Version : Civil War began because of Slavery



revelarts
06-24-2015, 04:10 AM
Several people have been posting "history" on the so called "real" reason of the war. I've posted several factual items in reply to many of the assertions often without factual retort. I suspect since there is little to none.
It's just assertions of the REAL reasons being XYZ BUT NOT really slavery. And odd pretzel like reasoning to avoid the obvious.


I'm going to gather and RE-Present some of the facts that have helped me come to my FIRM conclusion, Slavery was in fact and at BASE, THE reason for the secession and the war.


!st all I think most would agree that slavery had been AN issue of contention since the revolution. the compromises n the constitution over slavery help cement the union. without them EVEN at that time the south would have Bailed.
"The framers of the Constitution believed that concessions on slavery were the price for the support of southern delegates for a strong central government. They were convinced that if the Constitution restricted the slave trade, South Carolina and Georgia would refuse to join the Union."


After the convention approved the Great Compromise, Madison wrote: "It seems now to be pretty well understood that the real difference of interests lies not between the large and small but between the northern and southern states. The institution of slavery and its consequences form the line of discrimination."

It was a mater of dispute and the congress and courts from that point on.
And in the new territories it broke out into violent conflicts.


the south felt threaten over territorial restrictions of slavery in fact and in intent;
surging anti-slavery agitation;
broad sanction of John Brown’s violence;
an economic posture threatening southern interests;
formation of a sectional party REPUBLICANS hostile to the South’s peculiar institution;
the Republican Party’s denunciation of the Supreme Court’s the Dred Scott decision.

The final cracks came after the formation and SUCCESS of the new republican party.

"The Republican party began as a spontaneous grass roots protest against the Kansas-Nebraska Act (http://www.conservapedia.com/Kansas-Nebraska_Act) of 1854, which allowed slavery into western territories where it had been forbidden by earlier compromises. The creation of the new party, along with the death of the Whig Party (http://www.conservapedia.com/Whig_Party), realigned American politics. The central issues were new, as were the voter alignments, and the balance of power in Congress. The central issues became slavery, race, civil war and the reconstruction of the Union into a more powerful nation, with rules changed that gave the vote to former slaves."
http://www.conservapedia.com/Republican_Party#Third_Party_System:_1854-1896


While the new party was FILLED with full blown hard core Abolitionist it also included people like Lincoln who were simply "anti-slavery" in the sense that didn't like it, wouldn't promote it, but would not really do much to PUSH for major changes. Lincoln Repeatedly assure the south that he wouldn't.
But as far as the South was concerned there was no real difference. "Republican" meant they wanted to destroy slavery if not today eventually. an they would NOT consider living under a Republican President.
why? because SLAVERY.


"the Montgomery Southern Confederacy proclaimed the danger that the Republicans would in four short years ‘inflict a moral sting upon slavery’ from which it would never recover. ‘The Southern States will not tamely submit to be governed by a party that declares eternal war on their constitutional rights’, announced the Raleigh Press of November 9."


"Increasingly, talk spread of the South breaking up the union in the event of a Republican victory. Lincoln refused to be intimidated by threats of secession, rejecting requests to make conciliatory overtures to the South. As the fateful election approached the Charleston Mercury warned, “The terrors of submission are tenfold greater even than the supposed terrors of disunion.”


“Now we are told in advance, the government shall be broken up, unless we surrender to those we have beaten, before we take the offices. In this they are either attempting to play upon us, or they are in dead earnest. Either way, if we surrender, it is the end of us, and of the government. They will repeat the experiment upon us ad libitum….There is, in my judgment, but one compromise which would really settle ths slavery question, and that would be a prohibition against acquiring any more territory.” Abraham Lincoln after the election but before the inauguration



"The future president of the Confederacy had a different, even more belligerent attitude. On January 13, Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis wrote the governor of South Carolina: “We are probably soon to be involved in that fiercest of human strife, a civil war. The temper of the Black Republicans is not to give us our rights in the Union or allow us to go peaceably out of it. If we had no other cause, this would be enough to justify secession at whatever hazard.” At the same time, a Texas correspondent for the New York Herald reported: “I do not know that I can find language sufficiently strong to express to you the unanimity and intensity of the feeling in this region in opposition to the perpetuation of the Union under the rule of President Lincoln and a black Republican administration.”

“A Party founded on the single sentiment of ...hatred of African slavery is now the controlling power,” wrote the Richmond Examiner of Lincoln’s election.


“They know that they can plunder and pillage the South, as long as they are in the same union with us,” wrote a New Orleans newspaper reacting to Lincoln’s victory. “They know that in the Union they can steal Southern property in slaves, without risking civil war, which would be certain to occur if such a thing were done from the independent South.”


Jefferson Davis on farewell speech the congress said
"...it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us -- which has brought Mississippi to her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal,..."


Davis made it PAINFULLY clear that, not only Mississippi but, the south believed that Negro slavery was a right that should be maintained even at the cost of secession AND civil war which they expected to come.
No other reasons are given by him. NONE.

revelarts
06-24-2015, 04:14 AM
the ONLY real edits from the U.S. Constitution to the Confederate Constitution are


"....(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Except when Robert Whit maintains it will vanish.

Sec. 2. (I) The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Except when Robert Whit maintains it will vanish.

(3) No slave or other person held to service or labor in any State or Territory of the Confederate States, under the laws thereof, escaping or lawfully carried into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor; but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such slave belongs,. or to whom such service or labor may be due."
Except when Robert Whit maintains it will vanish.

(3) The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several Sates; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery, as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected be Congress and by the Territorial government; and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such Territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confederate States....


the reason for all the fighting over the DECADES settled in the new document... the cause of the War.

revelarts
06-24-2015, 04:20 AM
the reasons those fighting in an promoting for war gave at the time.

Confederate Soldier
•James B. Lockney,28th Wisconsin Infantry, From his diary writing near Arkadelphia, Arkansas (10/29/63): "Last night I talked awhile to those men who came in day before yesterday from the S.W. part of the state about 120 miles distant. Many of them wish Slavery abolished & slaves out of the country as they said it was the cause of the War, and the Curse of our Country & the foe of the body of the people--the poor whites. They knew the Slave masters got up the war expressly in the interests of the institution, & with no real cause from the Government or the North." [This diary is on-line at: http://userdata.acd.net/jshirey/cw186310.html (http://userdata.acd.net/jshirey/cw186310.html).]

Governor of Arkansas
•Henry M. Rector, March 2, 1861, Arkansas Secession Convention, p. 4 "The area of slavery must be extended correlative with its antagonism, or it will be put speedily in the 'course of ultimate extinction.'....The extension of slavery is the vital point of the whole controversy between the North and the South...Amendments to the federal constitution are urged by some as a panacea for all the ills that beset us. That instrument is amply sufficient as it now stands, for the protection of Southern rights, if it was only enforced. The South wants practical evidence of good faith from the North, not mere paper agreements and compromises. They believe slavery a sin, we do not, and there lies the trouble."

Georgia Confederate Delegate
•John B. Baldwin, Augusta County delegate to the Virginia Secession Convention, March 21, 1861: "I say, then, that viewed from that standpoint, there is butone single subject of complaintwhich Virginia has to make against the government under which we live; a complaint made by the whole South, and that is on the subject of African slavery...." [Journal of the Virginia Secession Convention, Vol. II, p. 139]

Baldwin again: "But, sir, the great cause of complaint now is the slavery question, and the questions growing out of it. If there is any other cause of complaint which has been influential in any quarter, to bring about the crisis which is now upon us; if any State or any people have made the troubles growing out of this question, a pretext for agitation instead of a cause of honest complaint, Virginia can have no sympathy whatever, in any such feeling, in any such policy, in any such attempt. It is the slavery question. Is it not so?..."

Congressman from South Carolina
Lawrence Keitt, , in a speech to the House on January 25, 1860: "African slavery is the corner-stone of the industrial, social, and political fabric of the South; and whatever wars against it, wars against her very existence. Strike down the institution of African slavery and you reduce the South to depopulation and barbarism." Later in the same speech he said, "The anti-slavery party contend that slavery is wrong in itself, and the Government is a consolidated national democracy. We of the South contend that slavery is right, and that this is a confederate Republic of sovereign States." Taken from a photocopy of the Congressional Globe supplied by Steve Miller. (http://www.inform.umd.edu/ARHU/Depts/History/Freedman/home.html)
Keitt again, this time as delegate to the South Carolina secession convention, during the debates on the state's declaration of causes: "Our people have come to this on the question of slavery. I am willing, in that address to rest it upon that question. I think it is the great central point from which we are now proceeding, and I am not willing to divert the public attention from it." Taken from the Charleston, South Carolina, Courier, dated Dec. 22, 1860. See the Furman documents site (http://www.furman.edu/%7Ebenson/docs/) for more transcription from these debates. Keitt became a colonel in the Confederate army and was killed at Cold Harbor on June 1, 1864.


http://www.civilwarcauses.org/quotes.htm
http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/slavery2.html
https://civilwargazette.wordpress.com/2008/03/13/did-blacks-fight-in-combat-for-the-confederacy/
http://www.historynet.com/african-americans-in-the-civil-war
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3241
http://www.libertylawsite.org/2013/09/12/the-south-was-right-the-historians-are-wrong-taking-the-antislavery-origins-of-the-civil-war-seriously/

Gunny
06-24-2015, 04:30 AM
Several people have been posting "history" on the so called "real" reason of the war. I've posted several factual items in reply to many of the assertions often without factual retort. I suspect since there is little to none.
It's just assertions of the REAL reasons being XYZ BUT NOT really slavery. And odd pretzel like reasoning to avoid the obvious.


I'm going to gather and RE-Present some of the facts that have helped me come to my FIRM conclusion, Slavery was in fact and at BASE, THE reason for the secession and the war.


!st all I think most would agree that slavery had been AN issue of contention since the revolution. the compromises n the constitution over slavery help cement the union. without them EVEN at that time the south would have Bailed.
"The framers of the Constitution believed that concessions on slavery were the price for the support of southern delegates for a strong central government. They were convinced that if the Constitution restricted the slave trade, South Carolina and Georgia would refuse to join the Union."


After the convention approved the Great Compromise, Madison wrote: "It seems now to be pretty well understood that the real difference of interests lies not between the large and small but between the northern and southern states. The institution of slavery and its consequences form the line of discrimination."

It was a mater of dispute and the congress and courts from that point on.
And in the new territories it broke out into violent conflicts.


the south felt threaten over territorial restrictions of slavery in fact and in intent;
surging anti-slavery agitation;
broad sanction of John Brown’s violence;
an economic posture threatening southern interests;
formation of a sectional party REPUBLICANS hostile to the South’s peculiar institution;
the Republican Party’s denunciation of the Supreme Court’s the Dred Scott decision.

The final cracks came after the formation and SUCCESS of the new republican party.

"The Republican party began as a spontaneous grass roots protest against the Kansas-Nebraska Act (http://www.conservapedia.com/Kansas-Nebraska_Act) of 1854, which allowed slavery into western territories where it had been forbidden by earlier compromises. The creation of the new party, along with the death of the Whig Party (http://www.conservapedia.com/Whig_Party), realigned American politics. The central issues were new, as were the voter alignments, and the balance of power in Congress. The central issues became slavery, race, civil war and the reconstruction of the Union into a more powerful nation, with rules changed that gave the vote to former slaves."
http://www.conservapedia.com/Republican_Party#Third_Party_System:_1854-1896


While the new party was FILLED with full blown hard core Abolitionist it also included people like Lincoln who were simply "anti-slavery" in the sense that didn't like it, wouldn't promote it, but would not really do much to PUSH for major changes. Lincoln Repeatedly assure the south that he wouldn't.
But as far as the South was concerned there was no real difference. "Republican" meant they wanted to destroy slavery if not today eventually. an they would NOT consider living under a Republican President.
why? because SLAVERY.


"the Montgomery Southern Confederacy proclaimed the danger that the Republicans would in four short years ‘inflict a moral sting upon slavery’ from which it would never recover. ‘The Southern States will not tamely submit to be governed by a party that declares eternal war on their constitutional rights’, announced the Raleigh Press of November 9."


"Increasingly, talk spread of the South breaking up the union in the event of a Republican victory. Lincoln refused to be intimidated by threats of secession, rejecting requests to make conciliatory overtures to the South. As the fateful election approached the Charleston Mercury warned, “The terrors of submission are tenfold greater even than the supposed terrors of disunion.”


“Now we are told in advance, the government shall be broken up, unless we surrender to those we have beaten, before we take the offices. In this they are either attempting to play upon us, or they are in dead earnest. Either way, if we surrender, it is the end of us, and of the government. They will repeat the experiment upon us ad libitum….There is, in my judgment, but one compromise which would really settle ths slavery question, and that would be a prohibition against acquiring any more territory.” Abraham Lincoln after the election but before the inauguration



"The future president of the Confederacy had a different, even more belligerent attitude. On January 13, Mississippi Senator Jefferson Davis wrote the governor of South Carolina: “We are probably soon to be involved in that fiercest of human strife, a civil war. The temper of the Black Republicans is not to give us our rights in the Union or allow us to go peaceably out of it. If we had no other cause, this would be enough to justify secession at whatever hazard.” At the same time, a Texas correspondent for the New York Herald reported: “I do not know that I can find language sufficiently strong to express to you the unanimity and intensity of the feeling in this region in opposition to the perpetuation of the Union under the rule of President Lincoln and a black Republican administration.”

“A Party founded on the single sentiment of ...hatred of African slavery is now the controlling power,” wrote the Richmond Examiner of Lincoln’s election.


“They know that they can plunder and pillage the South, as long as they are in the same union with us,” wrote a New Orleans newspaper reacting to Lincoln’s victory. “They know that in the Union they can steal Southern property in slaves, without risking civil war, which would be certain to occur if such a thing were done from the independent South.”


Jefferson Davis on farewell speech the congress said
"...it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us -- which has brought Mississippi to her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal,..."


Davis made it PAINFULLY clear that, not only Mississippi but, the south believed that Negro slavery was a right that should be maintained even at the cost of secession AND civil war which they expected to come.
No other reasons are given by him. NONE.



Now, can you spell B-UL-L-S-H-I-T?

Slavery was an excuse to take away what the South had. Try disenfranchisement if you're looking for a word. The South traded with European markets because they paid more and the North couldn't handle it. They wanted to force everyone to buy their shit and not trade overseas while the South was the leading cotton industry in the world.

And NOTHING by law precluded seccesion. What happened is the US used a force of arms to subjugate a segment of society that no longer wanted you, and didn't need you.

Try again with your lame ass argument. We STILL don't need you.

revelarts
06-24-2015, 04:44 AM
Now, can you spell B-UL-L-S-H-I-T?
Slavery was an excuse to take away what the South had. Try disenfranchisement if you're looking for a word. The South traded with European markets because they paid more and the North couldn't handle it. They wanted to force everyone to buy their shit and not trade overseas while the South was the leading cotton industry in the world.
And NOTHING by law precluded seccesion. What happened is the US used a force of arms to subjugate a segment of society that no longer wanted you, and didn't need you.
Try again with your lame ass argument. We STILL don't need you.

Looks like you don't need any historical facts either.

Gunny
06-24-2015, 04:47 AM
Looks like you don't need any historical facts either.

Historical facts are fine. As long as they're real. That made up shit you;re spouting ain't even close.

revelarts
06-24-2015, 05:02 AM
Below is a letter sent by Alabama Commissioner, Stephen Hale, directed toward the then Kentucky Governor Beriah Magoffin, 27th December, 1860, concerning the stance of the CSA In the civil war:“Upon the principles then announced by Mr. Lincoln and his leading friends, we are bound to expect his administration to be conducted. Hence it is, that in high places, among the Republican party, the election of Mr. Lincoln is hailed, not simply as a change of Administration, but as the inauguration of new principles, and a new theory of Government, and even as the downfall of slavery. Therefore it is that the election of Mr. Lincoln cannot be regarded otherwise than a solemn declaration, on the part of a great majority of the Northern people, of hostility to the South, her property and her institutions — nothing less than an open declaration of war”

http://www.tamu.edu/faculty/ccbn/dewitt/slaveryletters2.htm




A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union


The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A. D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then a free, sovereign and independent nation, the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal States thereof,
The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.
Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated States to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquillity and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretenses and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slave-holding States.
...

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and the negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.
By consolidating their strength, they hare placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.
They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a "higher law" than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.
They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.
They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offences, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.....

....We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.
That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States. By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South....

indago
06-24-2015, 06:05 AM
"Familiarize yourselves with the chains of bondage and you prepare your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trample on the rights of others, you have lost the genius of your own independence and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises among you. And let me tell you, that all these things are prepared for you by the teachings of history, if the elections shall promise that the next Dred Scott decision and all future decisions will be quietly acquiesced in by the people." — Abraham Lincoln

revelarts
06-27-2015, 12:12 PM
“I’ve never heard of any other cause than slavery,”
wrote Confederate commander John S. Mosby.

South Carolina's reasons for secession
...A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

Mississippi's reasons for secession
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin…

Louisiana's reasons for secessionAs a separate republic, Louisiana remembers too well the whisperings of European diplomacy for the abolition of slavery in the times of an*nexation not to be apprehensive of bolder demonstrations from the same quarter and the North in this country. The people of the slave holding States are bound together by the same necessity and determination to preserve African slavery.

revelarts
06-27-2015, 12:14 PM
the editors of the Richmond-based Southern Punch in 1864:
” ‘The people of the South,’ says a contemporary, ‘are not fighting for slavery but for independence.’ Let us look into this matter. It is an easy task, we think, to show up this new-fangled heresy — a heresy calculated to do us no good, for it cannot deceive foreign statesmen nor peoples, nor mislead any one here nor in Yankeeland. . . Our doctrine is this: WE ARE FIGHTING FOR INDEPENDENCE THAT OUR GREAT AND NECESSARY DOMESTIC INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY SHALL BE PRESERVED, and for the preservation of other institutions of which slavery is the groundwork.”


Confederate veteran Ed Baxter unashamedly told a reunion in 1889:
“In a word, the South determined to fight for her property right in slaves; and in order to do so, it was necessary for her resist the change which the Abolitionists proposed to make under the Constitution of the United States as construed by them. . . Upon this issue the South went to war, I repeat that the people of the South had the right to fight for their property”. .

DragonStryk72
06-27-2015, 12:34 PM
Okay, so please post the following facts:

Why was slavery still legal in the north all throughout the Civil War?

Why were there more freed black men and women in the South than in the North?

Why did the Emancipation Proclamation only free Southern slaves, and not Northern ones?

Why didn't the 13th Amendment get rolling until after the war?

Why was it still legal in Delaware, until they finally ratified it in 1901?

If the Civil War was about slavery, then only one side would have it. That's pretty simple logic, Rev. So since both sides had slaves, and there were more free in the South, how can it be about slavery?

tailfins
06-27-2015, 12:53 PM
Why are you complaining about Southern slavery 150 years ago, when there's slavery in New Jersey today? They're called Information Technology sweatshops. They pay by the day and pressure the workers to put in 13+ hour days. I can tell you from observation: Satisfied workers produce much better quality than oppressed workers. If you like bugs, subcontract a sweatshop.

revelarts
06-27-2015, 01:44 PM
Okay, so please post the following facts:



Why was slavery still legal in the north all throughout the Civil War?
By 1800, all of the northern states had abolished slavery or set measures in place to gradually reduce it. Even Delaware. By 1789, four of the Northern states had adopted policies to at least gradually abolish slavery: Pennsylvania (1780), New Hampshire and Massachusetts (1783), Connecticut and Rhode Island (1784). By 1804 all the other Northern states had abolished slavery: New York (1799) although slavery in the state of New York was not completely abolished until 1827, New Jersey (1804).
In 1780 Pennsylvania passed the first state Abolition Act in the United States.
"That all Persons, as well Negroes, and Mulattos, as others, who shall be born within this State, from and after the Passing of this Act, shall not be deemed and considered as Servants for Life or Slaves; and that all Servitude for Life or Slavery of Children in Consequence of the Slavery of their Mothers, in the Case of all Children born within this State from and after the passing of this Act as aforesaid, shall be, an hereby is, utterly taken away, extinguished and for ever abolished."

Why were there more freed black men and women in the South than in the North?
I don't think your facts are right here. but lets assume you are. There were more far more black people in the South period same as today i believe.And there were MILLIONS more slaves in the south than in the north.

a quick look as a few details of the numbers show that there were probably far more free blacks in the north than south. I'd like to see your sources

"About 1810, the decade before Mississippi became a state, free blacks numbered fewer than 300. Following statehood in 1817, the size of the free black population, while nearly doubling, remained comparatively small, totaling only 458 in 1820. By 1830 the state’s free black community had grown modestly to 519. During the 1830s and by 1840, Mississippi’s free black populace stood at roughly 1,400, an increase of more than 150 percent over the previous decade. The growth of the 1830s was followed by a decline of almost a third in the 1840s, reducing the state’s 1850 free black population to fewer than a thousand. In the 1850s, the decade immediately preceding the Civil War, Mississippi’s free black community shrank until only 773 remained in the months before secession."
http://mshistorynow.mdah.state.ms.us/articles/45/a-contested-presence-free-blacks-in-antebellum-mississippi-18201860
"Free blacks seem to have first appeared in Arkansas in 1803, when officials at Arkansas Post (http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=3)recorded 107 slaves and two free blacks in the state. By 1810, there were five free blacks listed as residents in the state of Arkansas. The population of free blacks steadily increased in the United States, at an even rate higher than whites or enslaved blacks, up until 1820, by which time free blacks in the North made up nearly half of the overall free black population. By 1820, there were fifty-nine free blacks in Arkansas, and 608 by 1850."
http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=6397
"In 1790, the first U.S. census counted 13,059 free blacks in New England, with another 13,975 in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania."
http://slavenorth.com/exclusion.htm

in Delaware by the 1860 census there were only about 1,800 slaves in a state of 90,000 people, including nearly 20,000 free African Americans.
http://genealogytrails.com/del/delslavery.html

Why did the Emancipation Proclamation only free Southern slaves, and not Northern ones?
Northern blacks were mostly free already. But Lincoln was a compromiser and allowed those that still had slavery to keep it as he took and AX to the southern states Slavery. and rallied the North for war.

Why didn't the 13th Amendment get rolling until after the war?
Because before 1860 the southern states wouldn't have anything to DO with such an amendment. During the war Lincoln issued the proclamation. After the war the final legal stokes could be laid in with the whole union involved.

Why was it still legal in Delaware, until they finally ratified it in 1901?
Because Delaware was full of slavery lovers who even considered seceding with the south over slavery.
Many from Deleware did fight for for the South. But many in Delaware also worked on the underground railroad and helped U.S. slaves escape southern and northern slavery to Canada.

If the Civil War was about slavery, then only one side would have it. That's pretty simple logic, Rev. So since both sides had slaves, and there were more free in the South, how can it be about slavery?
Be nice if it was that clean cut and perfect but it wasn't. The south saw the north chucking slavery out the door and not even wanting new territory to become slave states. So as all the southern writings above clearly agree on "WE ARE FIGHTING FOR INDEPENDENCE THAT OUR GREAT AND NECESSARY DOMESTIC INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY SHALL BE PRESERVED, and for the preservation of other institutions of which slavery is the groundwork.”

revelarts
06-27-2015, 02:21 PM
Why are you complaining about Southern slavery 150 years ago, when there's slavery in New Jersey today? They're called Information Technology sweatshops. They pay by the day and pressure the workers to put in 13+ hour days. I can tell you from observation: Satisfied workers produce much better quality than oppressed workers. If you like bugs, subcontract a sweatshop.
This is the world history section of the site right?
it's oK to talk about history from time to time right, especially history that people seem to dispute seems to me.

But yes your right sweats shops are terrible. and a topic worthy of it's own thread. I've post posted about sex slavery elsewhere not to much reply.

aboutime
06-27-2015, 09:21 PM
Okay, so please post the following facts:

Why was slavery still legal in the north all throughout the Civil War?

Why were there more freed black men and women in the South than in the North?

Why did the Emancipation Proclamation only free Southern slaves, and not Northern ones?

Why didn't the 13th Amendment get rolling until after the war?

Why was it still legal in Delaware, until they finally ratified it in 1901?

If the Civil War was about slavery, then only one side would have it. That's pretty simple logic, Rev. So since both sides had slaves, and there were more free in the South, how can it be about slavery?


Dragon. You should also take note, how rev rarely, if ever wants to admit...EVEN BLACK men had Black slaves back then. Imagine Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton...Biting their tongue...with such truth?

revelarts
06-27-2015, 09:51 PM
Dragon. You should also take note, how rev rarely, if ever wants to admit...EVEN BLACK men had Black slaves back then. Imagine Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton...Biting their tongue...with such truth?

Yep there were some black men that had slaves. It's was wrong AT. probably worse. Why do you think i have problem admitting that? I'm not claiming that white people are worse humans than anyone else. I don't claim... like some have about blacks... that whites have inborn EVIL PROPENSITIES or some racist BS like that. American whites and blacks are human beings. All human beings are corrupt and corruptible especially when they rally around various lies of pride like the white supremacy or Ayrian supremacy or Allah wants the infidels dead. But some human corruption just comes the love of money and power. the lies are just a cover to grease the wheels of oppression.

AT some blacks sold other blacks into slavery from Africa too. That was horrifically wrong as well. Do you know that the word SLAVE comes From the root SLAV as in Slavic peoples who were slaves in parts of Europe.
But no one here spends time talking about denying that do they?
But who exactly is denying thing about U.S. slavery here at DP A.T.?
do you want to call them out now for us?

Kathianne
06-27-2015, 09:56 PM
My planned schedule has been messed up, had to work today when it was supposed to be off. No day off until next Friday, so time is limited.

I just want to address one point here for the time being, 'why the Emancipation Proclamation freed only slaves in the South.' I thought 'everyone knew of at least the most pragmatic reason':

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0013.104/--abraham-lincoln-and-the-border-states?rgn=main;view=fulltext


Abraham Lincoln and the Border States

WILLIAM E. GIENAPP

Skip other details (including permanent urls, DOI, citation information) (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0013.104/--abraham-lincoln-and-the-border-states?rgn=main;view=fulltext#end-of-header)Volume 13 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0013?rgn=main;view=fulltext), Issue 1 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0013.1*?rgn=main;view=fulltext), 1992, pp. 13-46
Permalink: http://hdl.handle.net/2027/spo.2629860.0013.104
Permissions (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0013.104/--abraham-lincoln-and-the-border-states?rgn=main;view=fulltext#)



"I hope to have God on my side," Abraham Lincoln is reported to have said early in the war, "but I must have Kentucky." Unlike most of his contemporaries, Lincoln hesitated to invoke divine sanction of human causes, but his wry comment unerringly acknowledged the critical importance of the border states to the Union cause. Following the attack on Fort Sumter and Lincoln's call for troops in April 1861, public opinion in Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri was sharply divided and these states' ultimate allegiance uncertain. The residents of the border were torn between their close cultural ties with the South, on the one hand, and their long tradition of Unionism and political moderation on the other. At the same time, the expansion of the railroad network in the 1850s had disrupted these states' traditional trade patterns with the South by directing a growing amount of commerce, including farmstuffs, northward, so economically they looked in both directions. With popular emotions running high, there was a very real possibility that they would follow the Upper South out of the Union and join the Confederacy.



Together Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri had a white population of almost 2,600,000, nearly half that of the population of the eleven states of the Confederacy. [1] (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0013.104/--abraham-lincoln-and-the-border-states?rgn=main;view=fulltext#note_1) In none of the border states did slavery approach the importance it had in the Deep South, but only in Delaware, with fewer than 2,000 slaves out of a total population of about 112,000, was it insignificant (Table 1 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0013.104/--abraham-lincoln-and-the-border-states?trgt=tb_1;view=fulltext#tb_1)). Delaware stood alone among the border states in not containing a serious movement for secession. [2] (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0013.104/--abraham-lincoln-and-the-border-states?rgn=main;view=fulltext#note_2)

...

Really a fascinating look at the border states in relation to political/war decisions.

indago
06-27-2015, 10:15 PM
The Emancipation Proclamation was a military strategy by Lincoln. His thinking was that the economy of the South would be vastly disrupted by this maneuver, and shorten the war.

aboutime
06-27-2015, 10:24 PM
Yep there were some black men that had slaves. It's was wrong AT. probably worse. Why do you think i have problem admitting that? I'm not claiming that white people are worse humans than anyone else. I don't claim... like some have about blacks... that whites have inborn EVIL PROPENSITIES or some racist BS like that. American whites and blacks are human beings. All human beings are corrupt and corruptible especially when they rally around various lies of pride like the white supremacy or Ayrian supremacy or Allah wants the infidels dead. But some human corruption just comes the love of money and power. the lies are just a cover to grease the wheels of oppression.

AT some blacks sold other blacks into slavery from Africa too. That was horrifically wrong as well. Do you know that the word SLAVE comes From the root SLAV as in Slavic peoples who were slaves in parts of Europe.
But no one here spends time talking about denying that do they?
But who exactly is denying thing about U.S. slavery here at DP A.T.?
do you want to call them out now for us?


Sure thing. I'm calling you, and your ability to twist endless context out of shape by pretending, as you do; that only you are here to clear everyone else up about any topic.
Why should anyone talk about anything...The way you want them to talk?
You still sound like you work for the Obama administration, or at least, had some input for the DNC Talking Points Manual. Look at how you challenge nearly everyone by attempting to belittle them, with facts...only you want to talk about.
So..consider yourself CALLED OUT rev. Nobody really cares what the word slavery came from. That's just another attempt to change the context of the original question.

Kathianne
06-27-2015, 10:39 PM
Sure thing. I'm calling you, and your ability to twist endless context out of shape by pretending, as you do; that only you are here to clear everyone else up about any topic.
Why should anyone talk about anything...The way you want them to talk?
You still sound like you work for the Obama administration, or at least, had some input for the DNC Talking Points Manual. Look at how you challenge nearly everyone by attempting to belittle them, with facts...only you want to talk about.
So..consider yourself CALLED OUT rev. Nobody really cares what the word slavery came from. That's just another attempt to change the context of the original question.


When one is taking a side in a 'debate' the norm is to provide some justification for that position. Rev has done that repeatedly. I might argue that it would be beneficial at times, to provide one or two, reserving the others for other replies if necessary; but that is about style.

Would you find it more beneficial if like so many threads we just have: "See, you're a liberal." "There is no backing down from this, you ARE a liberal!" "No, I'm trying to have a discussion!" "Obama!!!!"

aboutime
06-27-2015, 10:46 PM
When one is taking a side in a 'debate' the norm is to provide some justification for that position. Rev has done that repeatedly. I might argue that it would be beneficial at times, to provide one or two, reserving the others for other replies if necessary; but that is about style.

Would you find it more beneficial if like so many threads we just have: "See, you're a liberal." "There is no backing down from this, you ARE a liberal!" "No, I'm trying to have a discussion!" "Obama!!!!"


No disrespect intended here Kathianne. But, I directed my words to rev. My apologies if you disagree with what I have said to him, and the way I have said it.

Kathianne
06-27-2015, 10:50 PM
No disrespect intended here Kathianne. But, I directed my words to rev. My apologies if you disagree with what I have said to him, and the way I have said it.
No disrespect taken or meant to you. I responded to what you wrote. Just because you choose to nearly always include the poster's name to what you are responding does not limit others from putting in their opinion.

revelarts
06-27-2015, 11:26 PM
When one is taking a side in a 'debate' the norm is to provide some justification for that position. Rev has done that repeatedly. I might argue that it would be beneficial at times, to provide one or two, reserving the others for other replies if necessary; but that is about style.

thanks, yes it's my understanding of debate too that you take a position and defend it with what you consider relevant info.

And yes i do have tendency at times to OVER LOAD info. I have to say in my defense this time that the info in the 1st several post here were spread out here and there in other threads around the board already in various conversations. And i just COLLECTED them here and added a bit more. Since the method of salting this info out there a piece at a time seemed to have been ignored, passed over or "rebutted" by assertions LIKE "your wrong!".

I felt a bit compelled (i was kinda bent)... compelled to try and have the weight and volume have a certain impact ... if possible.




Would you find it more beneficial if like so many threads we just have: "See, you're a liberal." "There is no backing down from this, you ARE a liberal!" "No, I'm trying to have a discussion!" "Obama!!!!"
LOL! yeah,
funny, but you know.. that's kinda sad really.

hjmick
06-28-2015, 09:41 AM
I've always found this letter interesting...



EXECUTIVE MANSTON,

WASHINGTON, Aug. 22, 1862.

Hon. Horace Greeley:

DEAR SIR: I have just read yours of the 19th, addressed to myself through the New-York Tribune. If there be in it any statements or assumptions of fact which I may know to be erroneous, I do not now and here controvert them. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falsely drawn, I do not now and here argue against them. If there be perceptible in it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an old friend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right.

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing," as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time save Slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy Slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about Slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union, and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. Yours,

A. LINCOLN.




To me, if interpreted as written, it would seem to indicate that Lincoln's primary reason for the war was the preservation of the Union, while the South's reason for secession was the changing laws and attitudes on slavery...


Did you know that the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t immediately free a single slave, and the only places it applied were places where the federal government had no control, i.e. the Southern states currently fighting against the Union. It didn’t apply to border slave states like Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, they had remained loyal to the Union. Lincoln also exempted areas of the Confederacy that had already come under Union control with the hope of gaining the loyalty of whites in those states...


The idea that secession should be prevented at all costs I also find amusing. Do we think the Founding Fathers had a problem with the concept? Isn't that exactly what they did in 1776? In fact, if any of you enjoy reading for pleasure, there is a book by Steve Berry titled The Lincoln Myth that uses this idea as a plot point in the story...

NightTrain
06-28-2015, 11:39 AM
The idea that secession should be prevented at all costs I also find amusing. Do we think the Founding Fathers had a problem with the concept?


James Madison specifically addressed the issue, and said it wasn't allowed in a personal letter to Daniel Webster. I don't think anyone could be more of an expert on the Constitution than he.

We've already covered this in another thread, and Rev is right. The war was fought over secession; but the #1 reason behind the South's attempt to leave was indeed slavery, which is clearly documented in the States' declarations when they made the move.

revelarts
06-28-2015, 03:57 PM
I've always found this letter interesting...
To me, if interpreted as written, it would seem to indicate that Lincoln's primary reason for the war was the preservation of the Union, while the South's reason for secession was the changing laws and attitudes on slavery...
....
The idea that secession should be prevented at all costs I also find amusing. Do we think the Founding Fathers had a problem with the concept? Isn't that exactly what they did in 1776? In fact, if any of you enjoy reading for pleasure, there is a book by Steve Berry titled The Lincoln Myth that uses this idea as a plot point in the story...


I've seen this letter, and many other similar comments by Lincoln before the war. and after the war began. The problem is, as several of my post show, that the South didn't believe him. And the republican party in general sprang up in protest to the supreme court decision to perpetuate slavery in he territories and elsewhere. so the North was leaning harshly against slavery.

It's not part of my point to make Lincoln into an abolitionist saint, "myth" or strawman as he's been present to me elsewhere. My contention is that if you don't have your latter point .."South's reason for secession was the changing laws and attitudes on slavery"... then you don't get the civil war.

it takes 2 to fight a war, each side doesn't have to agree with the others real motives. If a husband thinks his wife is cheating and attacks the suspect man who DOES find the wife attractive and has said so publicly often. the cause IS the wife. they are in fact fighting over the wife. Even if the accused never intended to fight for her. Does matter at this It's on and if he wins he may get the woman he'd only hoped one day might be his. People may say it was REALLY over a misunderstanding. ok yeah in the abstract but the misunderstanding OVER the wife. not over a car or money or a job.... the wife.

I do understand people like to make the distinction between reasons for secession and the reasons for war. However it seems to me sometimes people want to make the 2 as if they're COMPLETELY DISTINCT separate AIR TIGHT events with COMPLETELY DISTINCT separate AIR TIGHT causes.

the changing laws IN the NORTH was from a RISING and fervent Anti-Slavery sentiment. one that had already shed blood in the territories and at Harpers Ferry. The intent of which was to ultimately abolish it.

In another Lincoln speech he said a “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,”.
the South took those as fighting words. And many in the North embraced the concept. While many in the north didn't really want to fight over it in War they did want slavery gone and the union preserved in the process. With all that on the table ALL stirred by decades of struggle over the same question finally the debate came to arms.

to say it's not "because" of slavery seems less than forthcoming. without it there'd be no secession or war. the package deal.

Lincoln tried to solve the problem --Secession and War-- by telling the south at 1st in so many words "OK keep your slavery we don't really mean it, really!" the south didn't go for that and then he said "OK we'll BUY your slaves." "During the first two years of the war Lincoln repeatedly offered ‘compensated emancipation’ to the border slave states that remained in the Union and any Confederate states interested," Foner said. "But they all rejected it. Lincoln was willing to pay but Southerners were not willing to give up their slaves, for money or for any other reason." " Lincoln’s request to Congress in 1862 (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=lincoln;cc=lincoln;view=text;idno=lincoln5;r gn=div1;node=lincoln5%3A312) for money to buy the freedom of slaves. Here’s how that proposal began:"Resolved that the United States ought to co-operate with any state which may adopt gradual abolishment of slavery, giving to such state pecuniary aid, to be used by such state in its discretion, to compensate for the inconveniences public and private, produced by such change of system. ...A year earlier, he had tried to get Delaware to pass a bill that would have cleared the way for Washington to spend $719,200 to free the state’s entire slave population, about 1,800 at that time. The bill failed in the Delaware Legislature.
In one odd case, Lincoln personally offered to buy a slave from an owner in Kentucky (http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5018&amp=&context=mulr&sei-redir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fq%3Dht tp%253A%252F%252Fscholarship.law.marquette.edu%252 Fcgi%252Fviewcontent.cgi%253Farticle%253D5018%2526 amp%253Bcontext%253Dmulr%26sa%3DD%26sntz%3D1%26usg %3DAFQjCNFHM3HBaSjKxVCb5FWdaydnPnDFOA#search=%22ht tp%3A%2F%2Fscholarship.law.marquette.edu%2Fcgi%2Fv iewcontent.cgi%3Farticle%3D5018%26context%3Dmulr%2 2)." ...In late 1862, when an escaped slave found refuge with a Union army regiment, and the Kentucky owner demanded his return, Lincoln wrote to the owner, "I will pay you any sum not to exceed $500."
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/mar/18/jon-stewart/jon-stewart-lincoln-tried-buy-slaves-free-them/

If he'd BOUGHT the southern slaves the WAR would stop.
Notice he did not offer to give them money to REJION the UNION with slavery intact.
SLAVERY was the problem, the cause. He was trying to remove the cause of the conflict.

I think part of the conflict between those of who are sincere and of less emotional opinions is over the way the question is framed.
If someone says "the NORTH didn't go a war to 'Free the Slaves'."
That, in a narrow sense, is correct.
But if you ask the overall question. Why was the civil war fought?
It was fought because of Slavery.
no slavery, no war. period.

While it's true that some in north had slaves and that not everyone in the North was even anti-slavery the HEATED and through going current was anti-slavery. Somewhat similar to the fact that not everyone in the U.S. during the revolution was Anti-MONARCHY and some would have been very comfortable having Washington as King. Still the major gist was freedom from monarchy and to self representation. And England's determination to kept the colonies.
it takes 2 with conflicting if not opposite opinions over an object to cause fight.

revelarts
06-28-2015, 04:02 PM
….Did you know that the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t immediately free a single slave, and the only places it applied were places where the federal government had no control, i.e. the Southern states currently fighting against the Union. It didn’t apply to border slave states like Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, they had remained loyal to the Union. Lincoln also exempted areas of the Confederacy that had already come under Union control with the hope of gaining the loyalty of whites in those states...Yes, I've known that for some time. it's one of the things that got me into looking at the question from both sides years ago. But I think even this point can be turned back at towards the question in favor of slavery begin the cause.
In this sense. If Lincoln didn't really CARE about slavery or whether the south kept their slaves why would he waste time making a resolution about a Non-ISSUE for him and the North?

Plus it had been threaten for decades. secession over slavery and war. a package deal. Jefferson Davis said it himself. quoted earlier.

the emancipation proclamation and Lincoln's letter are interesting pieces Here's one speech from the southern perspective that's really striking to me. It's given by the new
Vice president of the Confederacy Stevens:

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peculiar_institution)—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition....
making very clear what the confederacy was really about, as it's "cornerstone".
puts a clear light on the confederacy was all about.

...and on the meaning of the confederate FLAG BTW

DragonStryk72
06-28-2015, 04:48 PM
Yes, I've known that for some time. it's one of the things that got me into looking at the question from both sides years ago. But I think even this point can be turned back at towards the question in favor of slavery begin the cause.
In this sense. If Lincoln didn't really CARE about slavery or whether the south kept their slaves why would he waste time making a resolution about a Non-ISSUE for him and the North?

Plus it had been threaten for decades. secession over slavery and war. a package deal. Jefferson Davis said it himself. quoted earlier.

the emancipation proclamation and Lincoln's letter are interesting pieces Here's one speech from the southern perspective that's really striking to me. It's given by the new
Vice president of the Confederacy Stevens:

making very clear what the confederacy was really about, as it's "cornerstone".
puts a clear light on the confederacy was all about.

...and on the meaning of the confederate FLAG BTW

Actually, you also have to break it down separately, even when referring to slavery. Remember that it was more than just the aspect you're referring to, it was an industry. It was global, in fact, although nations were moving away from it, it was still the norm, and not the oddity. For modern times, it would be like trying to completely get rid of the oil industry. Whether it would be better for the planet notwithstanding, it would collapse whole economies (You know, like happened to the South when it was abolished), and put absurd numbers of people out of work.

This is why England's solution worked so well. By buying out all the slaves, then freeing them, the traders and owners had a nest egg to reinvest otherwise with, or to pay their now-employees while they worked out the differences in their books. We could have done it that way, and likely avoided the whole war, but yeah, it was about slavery. That's why we're the only developed country in the world to have a war over it.

Whether the north was producing slaves is immaterial, as they were still buying, and using, slaves. Your entire rebuttal of my questions was "Well, okay, yeah, that's all technically true, but they were really conflicted about it." The White House itself still had slaves, there's no way to continue making an argument on the point.

Even the South, over the course of the war, began to move incrementally away from slavery, because the international markets were moving away from them anyway.

revelarts
06-28-2015, 05:32 PM
Actually, you also have to break it down separately, even when referring to slavery. Remember that it was more than just the aspect you're referring to, it was an industry. It was global, in fact, although nations were moving away from it, it was still the norm, and not the oddity. For modern times, it would be like trying to completely get rid of the oil industry. Whether it would be better for the planet notwithstanding, it would collapse whole economies (You know, like happened to the South when it was abolished), and put absurd numbers of people out of work.

This is why England's solution worked so well. By buying out all the slaves, then freeing them, the traders and owners had a nest egg to reinvest otherwise with, or to pay their now-employees while they worked out the differences in their books. We could have done it that way, and likely avoided the whole war, but yeah, it was about slavery. That's why we're the only developed country in the world to have a war over it.

Whether the north was producing slaves is immaterial, as they were still buying, and using, slaves. Your entire rebuttal of my questions was "Well, okay, yeah, that's all technically true, but they were really conflicted about it." The White House itself still had slaves, there's no way to continue making an argument on the point.

Even the South, over the course of the war, began to move incrementally away from slavery, because the international markets were moving away from them anyway.



I don't think were in much disagreement here.

Yes, the north was very conflicted about slavery in many ways. I'm not sure why people don't think i understand that. Yes the north was conflicted and very racist in many ways. even some of the abolishoist were pretty hardcore racist. The North was not perfect by ANY stretch but it was moving away from slavery with a real moral passion. A passion that the south understood well as the opposite of their own vision of what slavery was..
But the South wasn't very conflicted at all. It believed without much reservation that slavery was, moral, a constitutional right and that the white man was the "natural" ruler of blacks. Also, as you say, the south was economically wedded to it. So they had few desires economically or morally to give it up.
But even with that background over the decades many proposals in the upper southern states had been raised about removing slavery ..all shot down that i know of. However after secession the confederate constitution cemented legal slavery into the the southern states indefinitely. I really don't know how politically those few apposed to slavery were going to get a leg up in a fight to abolish what had JUST been etched into the highest law of the land. Imagine if there was a new amendment just passed and ratified that made abortion a full legal right today. How much harder would it make it for pro-life advocates to fight and defeat abortion in the U.S.?
And I don't know how of much a move economically there was to slow or divest from slavery in the south. i've read a few letters of people geared to move slavery into other south american countries and especially into the new territories as the confederacy had dreams of moving westward and south. The slave trade was waning world wide but the products of slavery i'm not so sure. if you've got some info on that i'd love to see it.

One article I posted in another thread (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?49760-Slavery-Fact-of-the-Day&p=740255#post740255) was about the South's failure to even be willing free slave to fight in the war until the very last days when they were in full desperation mode. During the 1st 3.5 years of war Many basically asked the question. "why are we fighting if we are going to free the slaves if they fight in the war anyway?

red state
06-28-2015, 06:12 PM
http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by DragonStryk72 http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=745170#post745170)
Okay, so please post the following facts:

Why was slavery still legal in the north all throughout the Civil War?

Why were there more freed black men and women in the South than in the North?

Why did the Emancipation Proclamation only free Southern slaves, and not Northern ones?

Why didn't the 13th Amendment get rolling until after the war?

Why was it still legal in Delaware, until they finally ratified it in 1901?

If the Civil War was about slavery, then only one side would have it. That's pretty simple logic, Rev. So since both sides had slaves, and there were more free in the South, how can it be about slavery?


Dragon. You should also take note, how rev rarely, if ever wants to admit...EVEN BLACK men had Black slaves back then. Imagine Jesse Jackson, or Al Sharpton...Biting their tongue...with such truth?

WOW, THIS HAS BEEN A FANTASTIC THREAD AND AN EXTREMELY EDUCATIONAL ONE AS I DIDN'T KNOW THE NORTH STILL HAD SLAVES. I ACTUALLY THOUGHT THEY HAD FOLLOWED IN THE FOOTSTEPS OF YE MERRY OLE ENGLAND AND HAD ALLOWED SLAVERY TO FIZZLE OUT *(AS SHOULD GOOD OLE ABE ALLOWED SLAVERY TO FIZZLE OUT). IF THE NORTH HAD BEEN ALLOWED TO FIZZLE SLAVERY OUT....WHAT WOULD BE THE OBJECTIVE IN FORCING SOUTHERNERS TO LOSE THEIR 'INVESTMENT' ABRUPTLY AND WITHOUT REPRESENTATION OF REIMBURSEMENT UNLESS WHAT GUNNY SAID IS TRUE (WHICH IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND AS TRUE HISTORY AND NOT THE CRAP SCHOOLS ARE PROPAGANDIZING).

EVEN GOOD OLE ABE WAS GONNA ALLOW SLAVERY IF TALK OF SECESSION WAS STIFLED.....ONLY AFTER THE SOUTH TOLD HIM TO "STICK IT" DID HE USE SLAVERY AS THE NAIL IN THE COFFIN TO EXCUSE WHAT HE HAD GONE THROUGH WITH.

HAD THE SOUTH NOT BEEN GREATLY OUTNUMBERED, HAD MORE INDUSTRY AND HAD RETAINED THE ALLIES WE HAD LINED UP.......THE SOUTH WOULD HAVE WON, TECHNOLOGY WOULD HAVE SOON ENDED SLAVERY & ALL OF AMERICA WOULD MOST DEFINITELY BEEN MORE LIKE THE SOUTH WHICH IS............HUM........BETTER (A WHOLE LOT BETTER).

IF A CIVIL WAR IS COMING.........IT'LL BE A LOT NASTIER THIS TIME AROUND, BUT WITH A DIFFERENT OUTCOME. THIS TIME, WE HAVE THOSE ALL AROUND THE NATION WHO SEE THINGS OUR WAY AND THIS TIME WE HAVE MORE OF THE TECHNOLOGY (SUCH AS NASA, MAJOR SHIP YARDS AND LIL' NATION GUARD STATIONS ALL AROUND THAT HAVE BATTLE HARDENED/EXPERIENCED SOLDIERS WHO HAVE FOUGHT MUCH OF THE NATION'S BATTLES RECENTLY).....AND WE'RE NOT SO MUCH OUTNUMBERED THIS TIME EITHER (AND ARE MUCH BETTER SHOTS) AND WE STILL HAVE MOST OF THE FOOD, WATER AND GRIT.

I DON'T WANT A WAR BETWEEN THE LEFT & RIGHT (WHICH IS WHAT IT WILL BE) BUT IF THEY PULL ANOTHER ONE LIKE THEY DID THIS LAST WEEK THAT FORCES US TO TIP TOE LIKE CANADA...............I'LL BE ALL FOR IT!!!!!!

red state
06-28-2015, 06:30 PM
I don't think were in much disagreement here.

Yes, the north was very conflicted about slavery in many ways. I'm not sure why people don't think i understand that. Yes the north was conflicted and very racist in many ways. even some of the abolishoist were pretty hardcore racist. The North was not perfect by ANY stretch but it was moving away from slavery with a real moral passion. A passion that the south understood well as the opposite of their own vision of what slavery was..
But the South wasn't very conflicted at all. It believed without much reservation that slavery was, moral, a constitutional right and that the white man was the "natural" ruler of blacks. Also, as you say, the south was economically wedded to it. So they had few desires economically or morally to give it up.
But even with that background over the decades many proposals in the upper southern states had been raised about removing slavery ..all shot down that i know of. However after secession the confederate constitution cemented legal slavery into the the southern states indefinitely. I really don't know how politically those few apposed to slavery were going to get a leg up in a fight to abolish what had JUST been etched into the highest law of the land. Imagine if there was a new amendment just passed and ratified that made abortion a full legal right today. How much harder would it make it for pro-life advocates to fight and defeat abortion in the U.S.?
And I don't know how of much a move economically there was to slow or divest from slavery in the south. i've read a few letters of people geared to move slavery into other south american countries and especially into the new territories as the confederacy had dreams of moving westward and south. The slave trade was waning world wide but the products of slavery i'm not so sure. if you've got some info on that i'd love to see it.

One article I posted in another thread (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?49760-Slavery-Fact-of-the-Day&p=740255#post740255) was about the South's failure to even be willing free slave to fight in the war until the very last days when they were in full desperation mode. During the 1st 3.5 years of war Many basically asked the question. "why are we fighting if we are going to free the slaves if they fight in the war anyway?

I'd like to make one (or three) good points here without re-hatching the entire topic:



Those who owned slaves in the North were not plantation owners in need of a 100 or more pickers so they could easily take such a loss of investment more so than their Southern counterparts.
The North had virtual free labor (as Gunny pointed out) who cost them NOTHING. These "slaves" were mainly from Ireland and were expendable for lowering the ammo count of the South and could easily be replaced after working a man to death in a dangerous work environment. Heck, as least the Plantation owners cared for their investment and didn't want sickness, injury or fatigue to put one down.......after all, those few who owned slaves in the South, although wealthy like their Northern peers) were very different from the Northern slavers because the South had to PAY for their slaves.
I don't agree with slavery but if given the choice of the Irish and their mistreatment and being forced to stop a bullet and the life as a slave in the GORGEOUS South where the owner actually has an investment in me....I'll take the South (although I'd still 'GO WEST'). Many poor blacks faced starvation (like the Irish) after the war cuz slavery at least put food on their table (no welfare back then).

revelarts
06-29-2015, 12:36 AM
Red if i may comment on yours as well.


I'd like to make one (or three) good points here without re-hatching the entire topic:

Those who owned slaves in the North were not plantation owners in need of a 100 or more pickers so they could easily take such a loss of investment more so than their Southern counterparts.
Lincoln offered to by the Slaves in Delaware and in the South.
none took up his offer.



The North had virtual free labor (as Gunny pointed out) who cost them NOTHING. These "slaves" were mainly from Ireland and were expendable for lowering the ammo count of the South and could easily be replaced after working a man to death in a dangerous work environment. Heck, as least the Plantation owners cared for their investment and didn't want sickness, injury or fatigue to put one down.......after all, those few who owned slaves in the South, although wealthy like their Northern peers) were very different from the Northern slavers because the South had to PAY for their slaves.

I don't agree with slavery but if given the choice of the Irish and their mistreatment and being forced to stop a bullet and the life as a slave in the GORGEOUS South where the owner actually has an investment in me....I'll take the South (although I'd still 'GO WEST'). Many poor blacks faced starvation (like the Irish) after the war cuz slavery at least put food on their table (no welfare back then).
[/LIST]

Uh sheesh

there were many poor free blacks, mostly laborers, living in the North as well. often sectioned off into in poor areas, sometimes not even allowed to live in certain towns and of course without the full citizens rights of the Irish even. Some of them were escaped slaves most not. But after the fugitive slave act they all feared they'd go ...or go BACK... to the south. For some reason you don't hear many (any) accounts of those who volunteered to go back to the South to get the wonderful care of their old southern masters in the GORGEOUS South. Choosing to 'slave' in the poverty stricken limited freedom of the North for some reason.

Maybe they thought the old Patrick Henry line was true.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!"

Jeff
06-29-2015, 07:03 AM
Red if i may comment on yours as well.

Lincoln offered to by the Slaves in Delaware and in the South.
none took up his offer.


Uh sheesh

there were many poor free blacks, mostly laborers, living in the North as well. often sectioned off into in poor areas, sometimes not even allowed to live in certain towns and of course without the full citizens rights of the Irish even. Some of them were escaped slaves most not. But after the fugitive slave act they all feared they'd go ...or go BACK... to the south. For some reason you don't hear many (any) accounts of those who volunteered to go back to the South to get the wonderful care of their old southern masters in the GORGEOUS South. Choosing to 'slave' in the poverty stricken limited freedom of the North for some reason.

Maybe they thought the old Patrick Henry line was true.
"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God!"




So are you saying Lincoln wanted that nice cheap labor as well. :dunno:

So the Civil war was because the South wouldn't give up their labor for the cheap price Lincoln wanted to pay. :laugh:

Yes I am laughing and kidding Rev, don't blow a gasket. I find this a subject that we can joke about ( even though yes it is history ) but it does't effect a one of us alive today, other than the folks in the south that still wish to be doing their own thing.

revelarts
08-12-2015, 10:37 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcy7qV-BGF4

Col. Ty Seidule
Head Dept of History,
U.S. Military Academy, West Point