PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues David Goldfield: The Civil War was about the right way to maintain White Supremacy


Pages : [1] 2

Taco John
06-11-2011, 12:21 AM
Thought this was a provocative article from Salon:

And as a strict constitutionalist, Lincoln resisted abolitionism, because like it or not, the Constitution made room for slavery. The president disliked slavery, but his priority was the union. He famously told abolitionist Republican Horace Greeley (who later turned against Reconstruction and ran for president as a Democrat, abandoning African Americans as did too many other abolitionists): "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."

In fact, during Lincoln's 1860 presidential campaign, Republicans went so far as to argue that they were the real White Man's Party, because their commitment to keeping the Territories slave-free wasn't about the evils of slavery; it was about keeping the West white, so white families alone could enjoy the bounty of the frontier without competition (except from Indians, who would be eradicated.) Democrats insisted they were the White Man's Party, because slavery liberated white men to be the property owners and entrepreneurs God intended them to be, while an inferior race did their manual labor, for free. Most Republicans and Democrats agreed on white supremacy; they differed on the right way to maintain it.

...

Instead of the traditional view that finds the Civil War a great moral and political triumph, David Goldfield calls it "America's greatest failure" in his fascinating new book, "America Aflame: How the Civil War Created a Nation." It killed a half-million Americans and devastated the South for generations, maybe through today. And while many Northern Republicans came to embrace abolishing slavery as one of the war's goals, Goldfield shows that Southerners are partly right when they say the war's main thrust was to establish Northern domination, in business and in culture. Most controversially, Goldfield argues passionately -- with strong data and argument, but not entirely convincingly -- that the Civil War was a mistake. Instead of liberating African Americans, he says, it left them subject to poverty, sharecropping and Jim Crow violence and probably retarded their progress to become free citizens.



It's a fascinating article:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2011/06/09/civil_war_america_aflame/index.html

L.A. Chieffan
06-11-2011, 12:25 AM
there were racists back then? gtfo

HolyHandgernade
06-11-2011, 10:14 AM
Most controversially, Goldfield argues passionately -- with strong data and argument, but not entirely convincingly -- that the Civil War was a mistake. Instead of liberating African Americans, he says, it left them subject to poverty, sharecropping and Jim Crow violence and probably retarded their progress to become free citizens.

[/indent]

It's a fascinating article:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2011/06/09/civil_war_america_aflame/index.html

There's a reason it isn't convincing. Whether or not the first intention was liberating slaves, the end affect is that it did. The Civil War didn't leave the former slaves subjected to poverty, sharecropping and Jim Crow violence, Reconstruction did.

Isn't just about any war the culmination of a series of mistakes that eventually grow to huge to untangle peaceably?

Jenson71
06-11-2011, 10:24 AM
Not that it would have cured everything, but the Civil Rights Acts during Reconstruction could have been construed in ways that the Civil Rights Acts of the 1960s were. But that didn't happen. If you want to read some interesting history, read The Civil Rights Cases (1883) and be sure to check out Justice Harlan's dissenting opinion.

And read Eric Foner's Reconstruction for probably the best volume on such an important legacy-shaping era.

BucEyedPea
06-11-2011, 11:31 AM
There's a reason it isn't convincing. Whether or not the first intention was liberating slaves, the end affect is that it did. The Civil War didn't leave the former slaves subjected to poverty, sharecropping and Jim Crow violence, Reconstruction did.

Isn't just about any war the culmination of a series of mistakes that eventually grow to huge to untangle peaceably?

Yeah, except it was done away with the stroke of a pen everywhere else. In many cases using Emancipation Compensation. Is that so hard?
I don't see how killing a 620,000 of our own countrymen was more noble. Mass murder is not a greater good here.

As Ghandi said—"The ends is the means."

BTW it's also libertarian to believe the ends is the means. I thought you were a libertarian. :hmmm:

Barak Obuttocks
06-18-2011, 07:52 PM
We used to import slaves. Now we just export the operation to China. We've come along way. Wagu steaks all around!

banyon
06-19-2011, 07:32 AM
*groan* more unsourced historical speculation & revisionism.

As if there's an iota of evidence that Lincoln was a strict constructuonist

This coming out of the other side of the mouths of people who have previously claimed Lincoln was a tyrant who was a war criminal who endorsed "mass rapings".

Ah, the beauty of having your knowledge of us history being from a hodgepodge of fringe internet websites and pamphlets, oh and some books by an adjunct in economics with a masters in economics.

Simplex3
06-19-2011, 08:17 AM
Salon is just bizarro-Prison Planet.

SNR
06-19-2011, 08:33 AM
*groan* more unsourced historical speculation & revisionism.

As if there's an iota of evidence that Lincoln was a strict constructuonist

This coming out of the other side of the mouths of people who have previously claimed Lincoln was a tyrant who was a war criminal who endorsed "mass rapings".

Ah, the beauty of having your knowledge of us history being from a hodgepodge of fringe internet websites and pamphlets, oh and some books by an adjunct in economics with a masters in economics.Fine. You want credentials?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Miron

Barak Obuttocks
06-19-2011, 08:37 AM
*groan* more unsourced historical speculation & revisionism.

As if there's an iota of evidence that Lincoln was a strict constructuonist

This coming out of the other side of the mouths of people who have previously claimed Lincoln was a tyrant who was a war criminal who endorsed "mass rapings".

Ah, the beauty of having your knowledge of us history being from a hodgepodge of fringe internet websites and pamphlets, oh and some books by an adjunct in economics with a masters in economics.

Hi I'm banyon. I'm smarter than you. I work for the government but I could be doing alot better in the private sector--- just like the 400 lb woman at the DMV.

banyon
06-19-2011, 08:55 AM
Fine. You want credentials?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Miron

Oh, it's a different guy that teaches libertarian-styled economics. Awesome.

banyon
06-19-2011, 08:56 AM
Hi I'm banyon. I'm smarter than you. I work for the government but I could be doing alot better in the private sector--- just like the 400 lb woman at the DMV.

I'm SHTSPRAYER. You should somehow listen to me about how bad Barack Obama and Democrats are even though I depend on their welfare and unemployment checks after I lost my trucking job for a bad meth test. Oh, and I have no teeth.

SNR
06-19-2011, 08:58 AM
Oh, it's a different guy that teaches libertarian-styled economics. Awesome.You were commenting that all the libertarian professors being cited were hacks with Master's degrees who teach at Western Butthole Technical Institute.

Does the former Chair of Economics and current Director of Undergraduate Economics studies at Harvard University suit you?

banyon
06-19-2011, 09:01 AM
You were commenting that all the libertarian professors being cited were hacks with Master's degrees who teach at Western Butthole Technical Institute.

Does the former Chair of Economics and current Director of Undergraduate Economics studies at Harvard University suit you?

Not if he has no background in the topics he's opining on, no.

Hey I have a law degree too, does that mean I should start weighing in as an expert on Chaucer?

Regardless of who he is, his arguments have no basis in fact, historical primary sources, or actual quotations from the historical figures.

SNR
06-19-2011, 09:03 AM
Not if he has no background in the topics he's opining on, no.

Hey I have a law degree too, does that mean I should start weighing in as an expert on Chaucer?Senior. Professor. At. Harvard. University.

He's not a lawyer teaching Chaucer. He's an economist teaching economics. At fucking Harvard.

RedNeckRaider
06-19-2011, 09:05 AM
Lincoln deserves much less credit for his stance on slavery than he gets. Revisionist history put him in the role of wanting blacks to be free. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Emancipation Proclamation was outright self serving for the north. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery legal in the loyal border states. Lincoln called the Emancipation Proclamation a measure of war. The call to arms was to "Save the Union" and sure as hell was not "Free the slaves" People wish to feel good about the war and hold it up as something it was not. If the government had any earnest intentions about the treatment of blacks in 1863 they some how found reasons to wait a 100 years to start the process~

banyon
06-19-2011, 09:27 AM
Senior. Professor. At. Harvard. University.

He's not a lawyer teaching Chaucer. He's an economist teaching economics. At ****ing Harvard.

Uh, this article isn't about economics. At all.

banyon
06-19-2011, 09:28 AM
Lincoln deserves much less credit for his stance on slavery than he gets. Revisionist history put him in the role of wanting blacks to be free. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Emancipation Proclamation was outright self serving for the north. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery legal in the loyal border states. Lincoln called the Emancipation Proclamation a measure of war. The call to arms was to "Save the Union" and sure as hell was not "Free the slaves" People wish to feel good about the war and hold it up as something it was not. If the government had any earnest intentions about the treatment of blacks in 1863 they some how found reasons to wait a 100 years to start the process~

This is accurate. It's also why he managed to persuade the border states to stay on the North's side. Portraying him as a "Strict Constructionist" without any evidence (particularly when he told the strict constructionist Chief Justice Taney to go screw himself) isn't.

Barak Obuttocks
06-19-2011, 10:31 AM
Lincoln was an asshole.

SNR
06-19-2011, 12:08 PM
Uh, this article isn't about economics. At all.You do the same thing with economists from that intellectual school.

It's one thing to find faulty reasoning in someone like DiLorenzo's history. It's another thing to dismiss it as a whole.

lostcause
06-19-2011, 12:20 PM
Yeah, except it was done away with the stroke of a pen everywhere else. In many cases using Emancipation Compensation. Is that so hard?
I don't see how killing a 620,000 of our own countrymen was more noble. Mass murder is not a greater good here.

As Ghandi said—"The ends is the means."

BTW it's also libertarian to believe the ends is the means. I thought you were a libertarian. :hmmm:

Slavery in the United States was not going to end because a law was put into place. The southern states were far too dependent on it economically and socially to just walk away from slavery because a northern coalition of states ended it. I find the loss of 600,000 American lives a travesty; however, I also see the enslavement of millions of people as a travesty as well.

RedNeckRaider
06-19-2011, 12:26 PM
Slavery in the United States was not going to end because a law was put into place. The southern states were far too dependent on it economically and socially to just walk away from slavery because a northern coalition of states ended it. I find the loss of 600,000 American lives a travesty; however, I also see the enslavement of millions of people as a travesty as well.

They didn't end anything. The slavery issue was a by product of the war not the reason for it. The north retained the right to keep slaves while demanding the south freed them~

lostcause
06-19-2011, 12:38 PM
They didn't end anything. The slavery issue was a by product of the war not the reason for it. The north retained the right to keep slaves while demanding the south freed them~

Its too messy to simplify that emancipation was a cause or by product of the war. As for the continuation of slavery in the North during the Civil War, I suppose I'm not familiar with that.

FD
06-19-2011, 12:40 PM
Senior. Professor. At. Harvard. University.

He's not a lawyer teaching Chaucer. He's an economist teaching economics. At ****ing Harvard.

Lecturer is not the same as professor, its quite a large step below.

Not taking sides here, just wanted to point that out.

FD
06-19-2011, 12:42 PM
They didn't end anything. The slavery issue was a by product of the war not the reason for it. The north retained the right to keep slaves while demanding the south freed them~

The North ended slavery fully and in their own states by the end of the war. I think you're thinking of the Emancipation Proclamation, which only applied to the states in rebellion. This was because Lincoln felt that he had no power under the Constitution to outlaw slavery except under his powers as Commander in Chief in a time of armed rebellion. The emancipation was framed as a military tactic for it to pass Constitutional muster, and therefore could only apply to areas actively held by rebels.

banyon
06-19-2011, 12:46 PM
You do the same thing with economists from that intellectual school.

It's one thing to find faulty reasoning in someone like DiLorenzo's history. It's another thing to dismiss it as a whole.

It is faulty. I said that.

It ascribes "strict constructionism" (a modern term) as Lincoln's view of the Constitution (to somehow justify it in a historically inaccurate revisionist manner), when there's no credible evidence taken as a whole to hold that view. In fact, most of the important evidence holds precisely the contrary, which is what has already been pointed out.

RedNeckRaider
06-19-2011, 01:08 PM
The North ended slavery fully and in their own states by the end of the war. I think you're thinking of the Emancipation Proclamation, which only applied to the states in rebellion. This was because Lincoln felt that he had no power under the Constitution to outlaw slavery except under his powers as Commander in Chief in a time of armed rebellion. The emancipation was framed as a military tactic for it to pass Constitutional muster, and therefore could only apply to areas actively held by rebels.

No shit and why was that? I stated that it was a by product of the war and not the reason for it~

Barak Obuttocks
06-19-2011, 01:09 PM
Slavery in the United States was not going to end because a law was put into place. The southern states were far too dependent on it economically and socially to just walk away from slavery because a northern coalition of states ended it. I find the loss of 600,000 American lives a travesty; however, I also see the enslavement of millions of people as a travesty as well.

It ended in Brazil in 1890. Not a single shot was fired.

The "civil war" was a war of aggression waged on a civilian population.

Barak Obuttocks
06-19-2011, 01:10 PM
Another fun fact: The Emancipation Proclamation excluded northern states slaves.

RedNeckRaider
06-19-2011, 01:16 PM
Another fun fact: The Emancipation Proclamation excluded northern states slaves.

Covered more than once in this thread~

banyon
06-19-2011, 01:33 PM
It ended in Brazil in 1890. Not a single shot was fired.

The "civil war" was a war of aggression waged on a civilian population.

Slavery still exists in many parts of the world, and it hasn't magically gone away, not to mention of course, we'd have a drastically different history by allowing 11 states to take up arms against us and secede.

These Civil War hindsighter threads are among the most absurd in this forum.

"If only we'd just let bygones be bygones everyone would've got along, just like our modern sensibilities on these matters".

Have you people seen what happens to political dissidents in China? And they have a modern economy, which doesn't seem to be changing the political reality. Sometimes, in the course of human history, people have to fight for something that's worth fighting for, it's not just handed to you free.

Saul Good
06-19-2011, 01:37 PM
Slavery still exists in many parts of the world

This is an overstatement.

BucEyedPea
06-19-2011, 02:45 PM
Slavery in the United States was not going to end because a law was put into place. The southern states were far too dependent on it economically and socially to just walk away from slavery because a northern coalition of states ended it. I find the loss of 600,000 American lives a travesty; however, I also see the enslavement of millions of people as a travesty as well.
Slavery would have died out sooner or later. The Age of Elightenment had changed people's thinking. It also did not need a law alone there had to be more to make it mutually advantageous. Slaver owners could have been offered compensation. This is how it happened elsewhere. It may have taken America longer but it wouldn't have lasted.

Besides, it was a small fraction who were plantation owners with slaves in the south than the whole south relying on it. The rest fought because they were defending their homes. Oh and the death toll of the Civil War has been recently upgraded to about 750,000. Lincoln committed this greater crime to keep the Union together—not to end slavery. That's what he said because the Constitution allowed it and there would have never been a Constitution without some compromise.

Today, our govt makes us all slaves to the state, courtesy of earlier actions by Lincoln by destroying the Union philosophically. So banyon is right slavery still exists. Plus human trafficking is on the rise.

Saul Good
06-19-2011, 02:49 PM
There's a difference between institutional slavery and isolated crimes (ie pimps treating women as sex slaves).

BucEyedPea
06-19-2011, 02:51 PM
There's a difference between institutional slavery and isolated crimes (ie pimps treating women as sex slaves).

Kind like what we live in today under the state. :deevee: :#

Barak Obuttocks
06-19-2011, 03:07 PM
Slavery still exists in many parts of the world, and it hasn't magically gone away, not to mention of course, we'd have a drastically different history by allowing 11 states to take up arms against us and secede.

They took up arms to defend themselves against an invasion.

KC native
06-19-2011, 03:48 PM
They took up arms to defend themselves against an invasion.

So, once again this asshole gets banned and comes right back. So much consistent moderation.

Barak Obuttocks
06-19-2011, 03:50 PM
So, once again this asshole gets banned and comes right back. So much consistent moderation.

:deevee:

You just wait until tomorrow, scumbag.

Baby Lee
06-19-2011, 03:58 PM
This is an overstatement.

And omits the phrase 'state sanctioned'

banyon
06-19-2011, 04:06 PM
They took up arms to defend themselves against an invasion.

Fort Sumter was not a Union invasion.

banyon
06-19-2011, 04:07 PM
And omits the phrase 'state sanctioned'

Are you joining these looney tunes that are saying everyone who fought the Civil War was just a stupid moron who didn't realize it would be a moot point in 20 years?

Barak Obuttocks
06-19-2011, 04:09 PM
Fort Sumter was not a Union invasion.

Some kids from the Citadel lobbed a shell over a ship. :rolleyes:

Yeah, that's a good reason to slaughter thousands of people at Vicksburg, Richmond, Atlanta...

orange
06-19-2011, 04:13 PM
They didn't end anything. The slavery issue was a by product of the war not the reason for it. The north retained the right to keep slaves while demanding the south freed them~

Your knowledge of this subject is incomplete. I suggest you research "Thirteenth Amendment."

Here's a start:

But the final version of the Thirteenth Amendment--the one ending slavery--has an interesting story of its own. Passed during the Civil War years, when southern congressional representatives were not present for debate, one would think today that it must have easily passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Not true. As a matter of fact, although passed in April 1864 by the Senate, with a vote of 38 to 6, the required two-thirds majority was defeated in the House of Representatives by a vote of 93 to 65. Abolishing slavery was almost exclusively a Republican party effort--only four Democrats voted for it.

It was then that President Abraham Lincoln took an active role in pushing it through congress. He insisted that the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment be added to the Republican party platform for the upcoming presidential elections. He used all of his political skill and influence to convince additional democrats to support the amendments' passage. His efforts finally met with success, when the House passed the bill in January 1865 with a vote of 119-56. Finally, Lincoln supported those congressmen that insisted southern state legislatures must adopt the Thirteenth Amendment before their states would be allowed to return with full rights to Congress.

The fact that Lincoln had difficulty in gaining passage of the amendment towards the closing months of the war and after his Emancipation Proclamation had been in effect 12 full months, is illustrative. There was still a reasonably large body of the northern people, or at least their elected representatives, that were either indifferent towards, or directly opposed to, freeing the slaves.

http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/amendment.htm

RedNeckRaider
06-19-2011, 04:13 PM
So, once again this asshole gets banned and comes right back. So much consistent moderation.

I have often wondered why you have not been banned~

Baby Lee
06-19-2011, 04:34 PM
Are you joining these looney tunes that are saying everyone who fought the Civil War was just a stupid moron who didn't realize it would be a moot point in 20 years?

No just rebuting the looney tunes who conflates isolated criminal enterprises with national policy. ;)

SNR
06-19-2011, 06:09 PM
Slavery still exists in many parts of the world, and it hasn't magically gone away, not to mention of course, we'd have a drastically different history by allowing 11 states to take up arms against us and secede.

These Civil War hindsighter threads are among the most absurd in this forum.

"If only we'd just let bygones be bygones everyone would've got along, just like our modern sensibilities on these matters".

Have you people seen what happens to political dissidents in China? And they have a modern economy, which doesn't seem to be changing the political reality. Sometimes, in the course of human history, people have to fight for something that's worth fighting for, it's not just handed to you free.How long do think the South would have kept slavery legal if they had won the Civil War? A few years? Decades? More than a century?

RedNeckRaider
06-19-2011, 06:18 PM
Your knowledge of this subject is incomplete. I suggest you research "Thirteenth Amendment."

Here's a start:

But the final version of the Thirteenth Amendment--the one ending slavery--has an interesting story of its own. Passed during the Civil War years, when southern congressional representatives were not present for debate, one would think today that it must have easily passed both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Not true. As a matter of fact, although passed in April 1864 by the Senate, with a vote of 38 to 6, the required two-thirds majority was defeated in the House of Representatives by a vote of 93 to 65. Abolishing slavery was almost exclusively a Republican party effort--only four Democrats voted for it.

It was then that President Abraham Lincoln took an active role in pushing it through congress. He insisted that the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment be added to the Republican party platform for the upcoming presidential elections. He used all of his political skill and influence to convince additional democrats to support the amendments' passage. His efforts finally met with success, when the House passed the bill in January 1865 with a vote of 119-56. Finally, Lincoln supported those congressmen that insisted southern state legislatures must adopt the Thirteenth Amendment before their states would be allowed to return with full rights to Congress.

The fact that Lincoln had difficulty in gaining passage of the amendment towards the closing months of the war and after his Emancipation Proclamation had been in effect 12 full months, is illustrative. There was still a reasonably large body of the northern people, or at least their elected representatives, that were either indifferent towards, or directly opposed to, freeing the slaves.

http://www.greatamericanhistory.net/amendment.htm

So you are saying the reason for the war was slavery? While you are teaching me what year did the war start?

orange
06-19-2011, 06:37 PM
While you are teaching me what year did the war start?

1861. You have doubts?

So you are saying the reason for the war was slavery?

Been there, done that: http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=7558273&highlight=intolerable#post7558273

p.s.

Republicans sympathizing with the Confederacy.

http://www.microformatinc.com/images/lincoln.jpg

orange
06-19-2011, 06:39 PM
How long do think the South would have kept slavery legal if they had won the Civil War? A few years? Decades? More than a century?

One thing I've never seen - maybe you can point me to it; I'm sure the ronpaulforums or lewrockwell sites would have it - is any exposition by a southern slavery excuser explaining before the Civil War how slavery would peacefully evolve away to nothing.

RedNeckRaider
06-19-2011, 06:43 PM
1861. You have doubts?



Been there, done that: http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?p=7558273&highlight=intolerable#post7558273

Simple question why was it that Emancipation Proclamation did not happen until 1863? The total crock of self serving shit that it was to begin with. The Thirteenth Amendment--the one ending slavery-- was not passed until when again?

orange
06-19-2011, 06:48 PM
Simple question why was it that Emancipation Proclamation did not happen until 1863? The total crock of self serving shit that it was to begin with. The Thirteenth Amendment--the one ending slavery-- was not passed until when again?

Because abolition was not universally popular, not in the North, not even among Republicans. And Lincoln was a Politician with a capital P - he was not John Brown. He knew better than to push for something that he couldn't get. By 1863, the mood had changed. Certainly there was no longer any possibility of avoiding war by slow-footing. And by 1864, it had become possible to pass and ratify the 13th Amendment (with a little arm-twisting and back-scratching, that is).

http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/inside.asp?ID=625&subjectID=3

RedNeckRaider
06-19-2011, 07:02 PM
Because abolition was not universally popular, not in the North, not even among Republicans. And Lincoln was a Politician with a capital P - he was not John Brown. He knew better than to push for something that he couldn't get. By 1863, the mood had changed. Certainly there was no longer any possibility of avoiding war by slow-footing. And by 1864, it had become possible to pass and ratify the 13th Amendment (with a little arm-twisting and back-scratching, that is).

http://www.mrlincolnswhitehouse.org/inside.asp?ID=625&subjectID=3

You have a more optimistic belief in their intentions. If those men and the several who followed them in our government wanted fair treatment for blacks they would not have fucked around for a 100 years before being forced into starting the process. It was nothing more than a means to save the union and Lincoln himself called his actions a measure of war~

Barak Obuttocks
06-19-2011, 07:11 PM
You have a more optimistic belief in their intentions. If those men and the several who followed them in our government wanted fair treatment for blacks they would not have ****ed around for a 100 years before being forced into starting the process. It was nothing more than a means to save the union and Lincoln himself called his actions a measure of war~

orange is a leftwing asshole who sees everything through the prism of his existence. He can't identify with anything that came before the year he was born. His mom was a lesbian and his dad was anthony weiner ( or something very close).

Barak Obuttocks
06-19-2011, 07:13 PM
One thing I've never seen - maybe you can point me to it; I'm sure the ronpaulforums or lewrockwell sites would have it - is any exposition by a southern slavery excuser explaining before the Civil War how slavery would peacefully evolve away to nothing.

lo u rock we ll ron paul duh arrr

SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU FAT COMMIE PIECE OF SHIT

BucEyedPea
06-19-2011, 07:56 PM
...into firing the first shot.

Lincoln didn't even need to re-supply Ft Sumter. He did it to provoke the South by going into their territorial waters and he thanked the man he sent for getting them to shoot first. The South had left the Union already, peacefully, and they offered to pay for all federal installations inside their jurisdiction to. But Lincoln sends a ship into their waters instead.

Lincoln did invade the south afterwards. Robert E Lee was torn over participating in this war, but eventually decided he had to because it was his home.

BucEyedPea
06-19-2011, 08:02 PM
The North ended slavery fully and in their own states by the end of the war.


No, they ended slavery a generation or two BEFORE the South's War for Independence. Nearly all slaves in those states were emancipated through a series of statutes. Yeah! But it couldn't have ever happened in this country.



I think you're thinking of the Emancipation Proclamation, which only applied to the states in rebellion. This was because Lincoln felt that he had no power under the Constitution to outlaw slavery except under his powers as Commander in Chief in a time of armed rebellion. The emancipation was framed as a military tactic for it to pass Constitutional muster, and therefore could only apply to areas actively held by rebels.

This is NOT at all Lincoln's reason for this proclamation. He was a shrewd politician who issued it so England would not enter the war on behalf of the South. Imagine that, a country that abolished slavery with the pen defending the South. They needed their cotton for their textile mills was why but wound up getting it from Egypt instead.

Almost everything Lincoln said about slavery shows he was for it continuing; he even wanted to deport them all back to Africa. He is on record as saying he was trying to save the Union. He wanted to keep the South in the Union because he wanted them to pay a high tariff that was to benefit his crony industrialist who funded him into power. These were Hamiltonian RR interests who wanted to suck off the public teat to make money. Lincoln was just as racist as many plantation owners in the south.

Furthermore, the upper South orginally voted to remain in the Union after the South seceded. States like Virginia, Tenn and NC. Virginia voted 2-1 and Lincoln was glad to have her—SLAVES and ALL! After Lincoln invaded Virginia's sister states so then Virgina reversed their decision and seceded which ocurred after they took a popular vote. The rest of the upper South then followed Virgina. Lincoln's invasion was the reason these state left.

Not only did Lincoln, as well as other Northerners, make racist statements, they also legally abused the free blacks among them. Blacks could not testify in court against whites which led to criminal abuse. There was still pervasive institutionalized racism is the North. So don't get the idea they were fighting for the black man or slaves.

orange
06-19-2011, 08:48 PM
...into firing the first shot.


http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/12/22/opinion/disunion_jamie_jan3_ultimatum/disunion_jamie_jan3_ultimatum-blog427.jpg


Library of Congress
In this 1861 drawing, Governor Francis Pickens threatens President Buchanan by holding a lit fuse to a giant Union cannon, “Peacemaker,” which is pointed at his own abdomen. He threatens, “Mr. President, if you don’t surrender that fort at once, I’ll be ‘blowed’ if I don’t fire.” President Buchanan responds, “Oh don’t! Governor Pickens, don’t fire! till I get out of office.”

Amnorix
06-19-2011, 09:00 PM
Instead of the traditional view that finds the Civil War a great moral and political triumph, David Goldfield calls it "America's greatest failure" in his fascinating new book, "America Aflame: How the Civil War Created a Nation." It killed a half-million Americans and devastated the South for generations, maybe through today. And while many Northern Republicans came to embrace abolishing slavery as one of the war's goals, Goldfield shows that Southerners are partly right when they say the war's main thrust was to establish Northern domination, in business and in culture. Most controversially, Goldfield argues passionately -- with strong data and argument, but not entirely convincingly -- that the Civil War was a mistake. Instead of liberating African Americans, he says, it left them subject to poverty, sharecropping and Jim Crow violence and probably retarded their progress to become free citizens.

It's a fascinating article:
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/joan_walsh/politics/2011/06/09/civil_war_america_aflame/index.html

No doubt.

I'm glad to keep an open mind about it, but it sounds more like an author who wants to put a particular spin on events and then trying to cobble together the facts to support it, rather than analyzing the situation from all sides and all the data available to try to understand the protagonists' motivations.

Amnorix
06-19-2011, 09:03 PM
Yeah, except it was done away with the stroke of a pen everywhere else. In many cases using Emancipation Compensation. Is that so hard?
I don't see how killing a 620,000 of our own countrymen was more noble. Mass murder is not a greater good here.

As Ghandi said—"The ends is the means."

BTW it's also libertarian to believe the ends is the means. I thought you were a libertarian. :hmmm:

Just noting that you've been educated on this subject before, repeatedly, though it never does penetrate into your consciousness.

Amnorix
06-19-2011, 09:05 PM
I'm SHTSPRAYER. You should somehow listen to me about how bad Barack Obama and Democrats are even though I depend on their welfare and unemployment checks after I lost my trucking job for a bad meth test. Oh, and I have no teeth.

JFC, is that walking turd back? :banghead:

BucEyedPea
06-19-2011, 09:07 PM
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/12/22/opinion/disunion_jamie_jan3_ultimatum/disunion_jamie_jan3_ultimatum-blog427.jpg


Library of Congress
In this 1861 drawing, Governor Francis Pickens threatens President Buchanan by holding a lit fuse to a giant Union cannon, “Peacemaker,” which is pointed at his own abdomen. He threatens, “Mr. President, if you don’t surrender that fort at once, I’ll be ‘blowed’ if I don’t fire.” President Buchanan responds, “Oh don’t! Governor Pickens, don’t fire! till I get out of office.”

The first casualty of war is the truth. Most wars are fought for economic reasons while others reasons are created to get the people on board.

Google a pdf book titled A Century of War and go to the chapter on Fort Sumter. I believe it starts on page 33 with the data on the forts starting on page 44.
you will find a well documented case of violations of an armistice with the South regarding re-supply of certain southern ports, beginning with Fort Pickens first made by the Buchanan. Buchanan also promised and assured there would not only be no reinforcements to Pickens but none to Sumter as well. He knew it would be considered an act of war to violate these.

However after inauguration, Lincoln issued secretive orders in violation of these armistices, an act of war, who later claimed "executive privilege" [sound familiar?] when Congress made a written inquiry requesting documents about the armistice at Fort Pickens.

That ain't all Lincoln did behind the scenes and overtly.

I see you used something from the state...the one that violated the Constitution. Nice try but it's known that the winners get to write the history books which is always from their side.

Amnorix
06-19-2011, 09:12 PM
Lincoln deserves much less credit for his stance on slavery than he gets. Revisionist history put him in the role of wanting blacks to be free. Nothing could be further from the truth.

So he issued the Emancipation Proclamation because he DID NOT want slaves to be free. Interesting interpretation. Please, tell us more.

The Emancipation Proclamation was outright self serving for the north. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery legal in the loyal border states.

Right, presumably you understand why it would be somewhat difficult to issue a proclamation relative to the still loyal states whose rights under slavery were implicitly, if not explicitly, blessed by the Constitution itself. Under the state of war that we were in, however, it was deemed within his broad war powers to issue such a proclamation relative to the seceding states.

It was also politically savvy since, you know, he had enough problems in his hands without yet more states declaring secession.

But maybe you're right -- what he really wanted was to keep slavery in place, and it was all just a really brilliant example of reverse psychology. Except, wait, the slaves WERE freed. I guess it was reverse psychology that blew up on him. That must be it. Insightful...

Lincoln called the Emancipation Proclamation a measure of war. The call to arms was to "Save the Union" and sure as hell was not "Free the slaves" People wish to feel good about the war and hold it up as something it was not. If the government had any earnest intentions about the treatment of blacks in 1863 they some how found reasons to wait a 100 years to start the process~

Seems to me an assassins bullet put an end to whatever plans Lincoln had for the post-war period, the successor President and Congress couldn't get along, and the South decide to reinvent slavery to the extent it could under Jim Crow laws and similar measures.

As you know if you've read my many posts on this subject here through the years, I freely acknowledge the Union's goal early in the war was absolutely to save the Union, and NOT to free the slaves. But that doesn't mean either that Lincoln was not a brilliant combination fo skill and heroic to act to eliminate slavery WHEN IT WAS POLITICALLY FEASIBLE TO DO SO, and it doesn't mean that the South didn't START the war to, PRIMARILY (though not exclusively), protect their slavery system.

Amnorix
06-19-2011, 09:16 PM
Lincoln was an asshole.

.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_3IjRgoGWUBo/SfeFb3XePpI/AAAAAAAAAI4/UvX3Bts0K70/s400/irony.jpg

Amnorix
06-19-2011, 09:23 PM
Slavery would have died out sooner or later. The Age of Elightenment had changed people's thinking. It also did not need a law alone there had to be more to make it mutually advantageous. Slaver owners could have been offered compensation. This is how it happened elsewhere. It may have taken America longer but it wouldn't have lasted.

You don't seem to understand that the South seceded. The options were let them go, or fight to maintain the Union. The North didn't force them to secede, the South saw Lincoln's election as representing the loss of control over federal poltiics, and decided to take their ball and go home.

The Southern Constitution absolutely guaranteed no meddling in slavery. Southern slaveholders had an aggressive plan for expansion of the Confederacy into the Caribbean and even into Central America to incorporate more slave states to ensure the growth and strengthening of the Confederacy.

Of course, you're oblivious to all of this because you continue to live in your own dreamland, but I need to continually correct your inaccurate posts lest you lead others astray with your extremely tainted view of the situation.



Besides, it was a small fraction who were plantation owners with slaves in the south than the whole south relying on it. The rest fought because they were defending their homes.

True, but also entirely irrelevant.

Oh and the death toll of the Civil War has been recently upgraded to about 750,000. Lincoln committed this greater crime to keep the Union together—not to end slavery. That's what he said because the Constitution allowed it and there would have never been a Constitution without some compromise.

Today, our govt makes us all slaves to the state, courtesy of earlier actions by Lincoln by destroying the Union philosophically. So banyon is right slavery still exists. Plus human trafficking is on the rise.

You're babbling again. I'm glad to answer coherent thoughts. These don't qualify.

Amnorix
06-19-2011, 09:25 PM
Kind like what we live in today under the state. :deevee: :#

You're a slave. Wow. I gotta say, I'm pretty free myself.

How bad are your scars, comparatively?

http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/files/25659/12291873051wiki-Cicatrices_de_flagellation_sur_un_esclave.jpg/wiki-Cicatrices_de_flagellation_sur_un_esclave.jpg

Amnorix
06-19-2011, 09:31 PM
Simple question why was it that Emancipation Proclamation did not happen until 1863? The total crock of self serving shit that it was to begin with. The Thirteenth Amendment--the one ending slavery-- was not passed until when again?

So, just so we are clear, the statement that set in motion the wheels to free MILLIONS OF PEOPLE FROM SLAVERY is, in your mind, "a piece of shit"?

If that accurately captures your thoughts on the matter then, and I say this in all honesty, you are a complete fucking moron who has absolutely no concept of what it meant to be a slave or how brutal that system was.

Amnorix
06-19-2011, 09:36 PM
...into firing the first shot.

Lincoln didn't even need to re-supply Ft Sumter. He did it to provoke the South by going into their territorial waters and he thanked the man he sent for getting them to shoot first. The South had left the Union already, peacefully, and they offered to pay for all federal installations inside their jurisdiction to. But Lincoln sends a ship into their waters instead.

Lincoln did invade the south afterwards. Robert E Lee was torn over participating in this war, but eventually decided he had to because it was his home.


Just so I'm clear on the BEP timeline, was this before or after Lincoln was raping slaves? Or perhaps it was simultaneous. Was he putting the shaft to Sally Heming's granddaughter while thanking the gentleman in question? I'd like to make sure I understand your version of events.

JohnnyV13
06-19-2011, 09:45 PM
How long do think the South would have kept slavery legal if they had won the Civil War? A few years? Decades? More than a century?

Slavery would have been effectively dead by the 1880's, and probably illegal by the 1890's. Mechanized farming would have completely destroyed the economics behind slavery.

Amnorix
06-19-2011, 09:47 PM
No, they ended slavery a generation or two BEFORE the South's War for Independence. Nearly all slaves in those states were emancipated through a series of statutes. Yeah! But it couldn't have ever happened in this country.

I won't bother to repeat the many differences between the North and South economically. It's been tried before.

This is NOT at all Lincoln's reason for this proclamation. He was a shrewd politician who issued it so England would not enter the war on behalf of the South. Imagine that, a country that abolished slavery with the pen defending the South. They needed their cotton for their textile mills was why but wound up getting it from Egypt instead.

Right. Lincoln was an extremely shrewd politician, and the EP stayed England's hand, though there is an open question of how close they came to declaring support for the Confederacy anyway. But Lincoln couldn't really know for certain their position, and as soon as it was politically feasible he moved to make England's support of the Confederacy effectively impossible.

Almost everything Lincoln said about slavery shows he was for it continuing;

Absolutely, flat wrong. You've always been wrong on this, and always refused to see the difference between his personal beliefs (always against slavery) versus his positin when he was elected President, which was Union FIRST, even if the price was continuation of slavery.

he even wanted to deport them all back to Africa. He is on record as saying he was trying to save the Union. He wanted to keep the South in the Union because he wanted them to pay a high tariff that was to benefit his crony industrialist who funded him into power. These were Hamiltonian RR interests who wanted to suck off the public teat to make money.

This is when your frothing-at-the-mouth libertarian belief system starts sliding into the theater of the absurd. But no one will ever convince you otherwise, so I'm not going to bother to waste my time.

Lincoln was just as racist as many plantation owners in the south.

So in your mind there's no difference between thinking African-Americans are equals are not, and willing to hold them in bondage as PROPERTY. Yeah, thanks for that insight...

Not only did Lincoln, as well as other Northerners, make racist statements, they also legally abused the free blacks among them. Blacks could not testify in court against whites which led to criminal abuse. There was still pervasive institutionalized racism is the North. So don't get the idea they were fighting for the black man or slaves.

They started fighting for preservation for the Union. That was, throughout, the single most overriding goal. As time went by, however, it was increasingly understood and accepted throughout the North that slavery had to go. And so it did.

Amnorix
06-19-2011, 09:52 PM
Slavery would have been effectively dead by the 1880's, and probably illegal by the 1890's. Mechanized farming would have completely destroyed the economics behind slavery.

Even if so, how do you figured mechanized farming by the 1880s? Even assuming your analysis is correct, which it may be, you're looking at something far more like the early 1900s.

1900
41 percent of workforce employed in agriculture
1930
21.5 percent of workforce employed in agriculture;
Agricultural GDP as a share of total GDP, 7.7 percent

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/eib3/eib3.htm

Dave Lane
06-19-2011, 09:59 PM
Major Pownage by Messr Amnorix.

The war in the north initially was about restoring the union. The southern states seceded upon Lincolns election because they assumed he would become a supporter of limiting slavery in the US. So, in fact the war WAS about slavery from the southern perspective immediately.

orange
06-19-2011, 11:37 PM
That ain't all Lincoln did behind the scenes and overtly.


I'm not going to bother getting into it, it doesn't matter in the least. Lincoln NEVER made the slightest pretense that he would let the southern states "go peacefully." And the secessionists absolutely knew secession meant war - even if you don't.

lostcause
06-20-2011, 12:07 AM
No, they ended slavery a generation or two BEFORE the South's War for Independence. Nearly all slaves in those states were emancipated through a series of statutes. Yeah! But it couldn't have ever happened in this country.





This is NOT at all Lincoln's reason for this proclamation. He was a shrewd politician who issued it so England would not enter the war on behalf of the South. Imagine that, a country that abolished slavery with the pen defending the South. They needed their cotton for their textile mills was why but wound up getting it from Egypt instead.

Almost everything Lincoln said about slavery shows he was for it continuing; he even wanted to deport them all back to Africa. He is on record as saying he was trying to save the Union. He wanted to keep the South in the Union because he wanted them to pay a high tariff that was to benefit his crony industrialist who funded him into power. These were Hamiltonian RR interests who wanted to suck off the public teat to make money. Lincoln was just as racist as many plantation owners in the south.

Furthermore, the upper South orginally voted to remain in the Union after the South seceded. States like Virginia, Tenn and NC. Virginia voted 2-1 and Lincoln was glad to have her—SLAVES and ALL! After Lincoln invaded Virginia's sister states so then Virgina reversed their decision and seceded which ocurred after they took a popular vote. The rest of the upper South then followed Virgina. Lincoln's invasion was the reason these state left.

Not only did Lincoln, as well as other Northerners, make racist statements, they also legally abused the free blacks among them. Blacks could not testify in court against whites which led to criminal abuse. There was still pervasive institutionalized racism is the North. So don't get the idea they were fighting for the black man or slaves.

Well fine. Fuck Lincoln as a racist prick. Slavery as an institution in the south was not going away without the use of force. Period. I'm seeing sides formed in this thread and I don't get it. Slavery is wrong. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves. This all occured during the war of northern aggression. Kept the union together and killed a bunch of people.

Would this be a better world if Lincoln had allowed the South to secede without fighting it? I'm not sure what the line of the argument is.

lostcause
06-20-2011, 12:12 AM
Slavery would have been effectively dead by the 1880's, and probably illegal by the 1890's. Mechanized farming would have completely destroyed the economics behind slavery.

Its like people are reading the communist russian history books about the evolution from slavery onwards.

Even if this absolutely baseless suggestion was true, it does not change the simple fact that slavery in the history of this country is a travesty. And I am not somebody that thinks that allowing 30-40 years to let things work itself out in economic terms should have happened. Human bondage ended centuries after it should have and not a minute too soon.

patteeu
06-20-2011, 12:36 AM
This is accurate. It's also why he managed to persuade the border states to stay on the North's side. Portraying him as a "Strict Constructionist" without any evidence (particularly when he told the strict constructionist Chief Justice Taney to go screw himself) isn't.

Don't you think most of the people from his era would be considered strict constructionists by today's standards?

orange
06-20-2011, 02:48 AM
Even if this absolutely baseless suggestion was true, it does not change the simple fact that slavery in the history of this country is a travesty. And I am not somebody that thinks that allowing 30-40 years to let things work itself out in economic terms should have happened. Human bondage ended centuries after it should have and not a minute too soon.

Someone called "lostcause" weighing in on the side of abolition - the irony is rich. ;)

orange
06-20-2011, 03:21 AM
"Yet as the war went on, Lincoln came to see slavery as a moral cause, and he wouldn't entertain compromise armistice proposals that let the South keep black people in bondage. In a book with few heroes, Lincoln emerges as one over time, virtually alone as an American politician in blending compassion for slaves with compassion for white Southerners."

The snippets in the OP do not do the author justice. Others should read the full article - like Taco John suggested.

RedNeckRaider
06-20-2011, 05:41 AM
So, just so we are clear, the statement that set in motion the wheels to free MILLIONS OF PEOPLE FROM SLAVERY is, in your mind, "a piece of shit"?

If that accurately captures your thoughts on the matter then, and I say this in all honesty, you are a complete ****ing moron who has absolutely no concept of what it meant to be a slave or how brutal that system was.

If his reasoning for going to war was freeing slaves he would have set forth these actions before the war. As far as my concept of what it is like to be a slave, I have no way to relate to the humiliation and pain suffered by these people. It is extremely arrogant of you to pretend you do. The Emancipation Proclamation was a self serving crock of shit because it still allowed slavery, and Lincoln himself called it a measure of war. 100 hundred years went by before our government was forced into starting the process of fair treatment of blacks so save me the moral bullshit. It is refreshing to see those of you from the left battling so hard for a Republican~

BucEyedPea
06-20-2011, 08:30 AM
Well fine. **** Lincoln as a racist prick. Slavery as an institution in the south was not going away without the use of force. Period. I'm seeing sides formed in this thread and I don't get it. Slavery is wrong. The Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves. This all occured during the war of northern aggression. Kept the union together and killed a bunch of people.

You do NOT know that for certain. It is more reasonable to think otherwise since abolishing slavery by the pen was spreading around the world and even in our own northern states. The southern plantation owners were still a small minority even in their own states. If England, a large buyer of southern cotton, could get their cotton from Egypt during that war instead, then maybe they would have boycotted the south eventually. They were determined to stop the practice.

Then consider the entire progressive era's emphasis on egalitarianism, and you think it would have actually lasted? You think it would have lasted with the ever expanding technological developments over time that reduced labor and saved time?


The trends suggest otherwise:
Eras I am most referring to are in red.

1500–1700

1569 An English court case involving Cartwright who had bought a slave from Russia ruled that English law could not recognise slavery.
1588 The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth abolishes slavery[8]
1595 A law is passed in Portugal banning the selling and buying of Chinese slaves.[9]
16th century Japan Toyotomi Hideyoshi abolishes slavery among a number of other reforms.
1600 Last villein dies in England[citation needed]
February 19, 1624, The King of Portugal forbids the enslavement of Chinese of either sex.
1652 Slavery abolished in Providence Plantations.
1683 The Spanish crown abolishes slavery in Chile[citation needed]

1700–1800

1701 The Lord Chief Justice rules that a slave became free as soon as he arrived in England.
1723 Russia abolishes outright slavery but retains serfdom.
1761, 12 February, Portugal abolishes slavery in mainland Portugal and in Portuguese possessions in India through a decree by the Marquis of Pombal.
1772 The Somersett's case held that no slave could be forcibly removed from Britain. This case was generally taken at the time to have decided that the condition of slavery did not exist under English law in England and Wales, and emancipated the remaining ten to fourteen thousand slaves or possible slaves in England and Wales, who were mostly domestic servants.
1777 Slavery abolished in Madeira, Portugal
1777 Constitution of the Vermont Republic bans slavery.
1780 Pennsylvania passes An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery, freeing future children of slaves. Those born prior to the Act remain enslaved-for-life. The Act becomes a model for other Northern states.[18]
1783 Russia abolishes slavery in Crimean Khanate
1783 Massachusetts rules slavery illegal based on 1780 constitution. All slaves immediately freed.
1783 Bukovina: Joseph II, Holy Roman Emperor issued an order abolishing slavery on 19 June 1783 in Czernowitz
1783 New Hampshire begins a gradual abolition of slavery, freeing future children of slaves, and all slaves in [year].
1784 Connecticut begins a gradual abolititon of slavery, freeing future children of slaves, and all slaves in [year].
1784 Rhode Island begins a gradual abolition of slavery, freeing future children of slaves, and all slaves in [year].
1787 Sierra Leone founded by Britain as colony for emancipated slaves
1787 Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade founded in Britain
1788 Sir William Dolben's Act regulating the conditions on British slave ships enacted
1792 Denmark-Norway declares transatlantic slave trade illegal after 1803 (though slavery continues to 1848)
1793 Upper Canada, abolishes import of slaves by Act Against Slavery
1794 French First Republic abolishes slavery
1799 New York State passes gradual emancipation act freeing future children of slaves, and all slaves in 1827.
1799 in Scotland, by an act of the Parliament of Great Britain—the 'Colliers (Scotland) Act 1799' (39 Geo III c. 56) ended the legal slavery of Scottish coal miners that had been established by the Parliament of Scotland in 1606.[25] The Colliers and Salters (Scotland) Act 1775 (15 Geo III c. 28) was originally intended to accomplish this, but it had been only partially effective.

1800–1849

1802 The First Consul Napoleon re-introduces slavery on French colonies growing sugarcane. [ Of course Bony was a dictator trying to establish a New World Order. ]
1803 Denmark-Norway abolishes transatlantic slave trade on 1 January 1803
1803 Lower Canada abolishes slavery
1804 New Jersey begins a gradual abolition of slavery, freeing future children of slaves.[21] Those born prior to the Act remain enslaved-for-life; all the Northern states have not abolished slavery
1804 Haiti declares independence and abolishes slavery[17]
1805 Bill for Abolition passed in Commons, rejected in the House of Lords.
1807 25 March Abolition of the Slave Trade Act: slave trading abolished in British Empire. Captains fined £120 per slave transported.
1807 British begin patrols of African coast to arrest slaving vessels. West Africa Squadron (Royal Navy) established to suppress slave trading; by 1865, nearly 150,000 people freed by anti-slavery operations[26]
1807 Abolition of serfdom in Prussia through the Stein-Hardenberg Reforms.
1808 United States—import and export of slaves prohibited after 1 Jan.[27]
1810 Mexico: Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla declared slavery abolished, but it wasn't official until Independence War finished
1811 Slave trading made a felony in the British Empire punishable by transportation for British subjects and foreigners.
1811 Spain abolishes slavery at home and in all colonies except Cuba,[15] Puerto Rico, and Santo Domingo
1811 Chile: The First National Congress approves a proposal drafted by Manuel de Salas that declares the Freedom of wombs, which sets free the sons of slaves born on Chilean territory, no matter the conditions of the parents; it prohibited the slave trade and recognized as freedmen those who, passing in transit through Chilean territory, stayed there for six months.
1813 Argentina: the Law of Wombs was passed on February 2, by the Assembly of Year XIII. The law stated that those born after January 31, 1813 would be granted freedom when contracting matrimony, or on their 16th birthday for women and 20th for men, and upon their manumission would be given land and tools to work it. In 1853, slavery was completely abolished.
1814 Uruguay, before its independence, declares all those born of slaves in their territories are free from that day forward.
1814 Dutch outlaw slave trade.
1815 British pay Portugal £750,000 to cease their trade north of the Equator[28]
1815 Congress of Vienna. 8 Victorious powers declared their opposition to slavery
1816 Serfdom abolished in Estonia.
1817 Serfdom abolished in Courland.
1817 Spain paid £400,000 by British to cease trade to Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Santo Domingo[28]
1817 New York State sets a date of July 4, 1827 to free all its slaves.[29]
1818 Treaty between Britain and Spain to abolish slave trade [30]
1818 Treaty between Britain and Portugal to abolish slave trade [30]
1818 France and Netherlands abolish slave trading
1819 Treaty between Britain and Netherlands to abolish slave trade [30]
1819 Serfdom abolished in Livonia.
1820 Compromise of 1820 in U.S. prohibits slavery north of a line (36°30')
1821 Gran Colombia (Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, Panama) declares free the sons and daughters born to slave mothers, sets up program for compensated emancipation [31]
1822 Liberia founded by American Colonization Society (USA) as a colony for emancipated slaves.
1822 Greece abolishes slavery
1823 Chile abolishes slavery
1824 The Federal Republic of Central America abolishes slavery.
1825 Uruguay declares independence from Brazil and prohibits the traffic of slaves from foreign countries.
1827 Treaty between Britain and Sweden to abolish slave trade
1827 New York State abolishes slavery. Children born between 1799 and 1827 are indentured until age 25 (females) or age 28 (males).
1829 Mexico officially abolishes slavery
1830 The first Constitution of Uruguay declares the abolition of slavery.
1831 Bolivia abolishes slavery
1833 The British Slavery Abolition Act 1833 comes into force, abolishing slavery throughout most of the British Empire. The exceptions being territories controlled by the Honourable East India Company and Ceylon which were liberated in 1843 when they became part of the British Empire. Legally frees 700,000 in West Indies, 20,000 in Mauritius, 40,000 in South Africa.
1835 Treaty between Britain and France to abolish slave trade
1835 Treaty between Britain and Denmark to abolish slave trade
1836 Portugal abolishes transatlantic slave trade
1838 1 August – enslaved men, women and children in the British Empire finally became free after a period of forced apprenticeship following the passing of the Slavery Abolition Act in 1833
1839 British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society founded, now called Anti-Slavery International
1839 Indian indenture system made illegal (reversed in 1842)
1840 Treaty between Britain and Venezuela to abolish slave trade
1841 Quintuple Treaty is signed; Britain, France, Russia, Prussia, and Austria agree to suppress slave trade
1842 Treaty between Britain and Portugal to extend the enforcement of the ban on slave trade to Portuguese ships sailing south of the Equator.
1843 Honourable East India Company becomes increasingly controlled by Britain and abolishes slavery in India by the Indian Slavery Act V. of 1843.
1843 Treaty between Britain and Uruguay to suppress slave trade
1843 Treaty between Britain and Mexico to suppress slave trade
1843 Treaty between Britain and Chile to suppress slave trade
1843 Treaty between Britain and Bolivia to abolish slave trade
1845 36 British Royal Navy ships are assigned to the Anti-Slavery Squadron, making it one of the largest fleets in the world.
1846 Tunisia abolishes slavery
1847 Ottoman Empire abolishes slave trade from Africa.
1847 Sweden abolishes slavery
1847 Slavery ends in Pennsylvania. Those born before 1780 (fewer than 100 in 1840 Census) are freed.
1848 Denmark abolishes slavery
1848 Slavery abolished in all French and Danish colonies
1848 France founds Gabon for settlement of emancipated slaves.
1848 Treaty between Britain and Muscat to suppress slave trade
1849 Treaty between Britain and Persian Gulf states to suppress slave trade

1850–1899

1850 United States: Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 requires return of escaped slaves
1851 New Granada (Colombia) abolishes slavery[31]
1852 The Hawaiian Kingdom abolishes kauwa system of serfdom.[37]
1853 Argentina abolishes slavery when promulgating the 1853 Constitution
1854 Peru abolishes slavery[17]
1854 Venezuela abolishes slavery[17][31]
1855 Moldavia partially abolishes slavery.[38]
1856 Wallachia partially abolishes slavery.[38]
1860 Indenture system abolished within British occupied India.
1861 Russia frees its serfs in the Emancipation reform of 1861.[39]
1862 Treaty between United States and Britain for the suppression of the slave trade (African Slave Trade Treaty Act).[30]
1862 Cuba abolishes slave trade[17]
1863 Slavery abolished in Dutch colonies.[40]
1863 United States: Emancipation Proclamation declares those slaves in Confederate-controlled areas to be freed. Most slaves in "border states" are freed by state action; separate law frees the slaves in Washington, D.C.
1865 United States abolishes slavery with the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution; about 40,000 remaining slaves are affected.[17]
1869 Portugal abolishes slavery in the African colonies
1870 U.S. abolishes slavery in the Department of Alaska after purchasing it from Russia in 1867
1871 Brazil declares free the sons and daughters born to slave mothers after 28 September 1871.
1873 Slavery abolished in Puerto Rico
1873 Treaty between Britain and Zanzibar and Madagascar to suppress slave trade [30]
1874 Britain abolishes slavery in the Gold Coast (now Ghana) following its annexation in 1874 (after Third Anglo-Asante War).
1879 Bulgaria abolishes slavery (note: the slavery was abolished with the first constitution of the renewed Bulgarian state)
1882 Ottoman firman abolishes all forms of slavery, white or black.[41]
1885 Brazil passes Sexagenarian Law freeing all slaves over the age of 60.
1886 Slavery abolished in Cuba[17]
1888 Brazil passes Golden Law, abolishing slavery without indemnities to slaveowners or aid to newly freed slaves.[42]
1890 Brussels Act – Treaty granting anti-slavery powers the right to stop and search ships for slaves
1894 Korea abolishes slavery[43]
1896 France abolishes slavery in Madagascar
1897 Zanzibar abolishes slavery[44] following its becoming a British protectorate.

1900–today

1906 China formally abolishes slavery and the law became effective on 31 January 1910, when all adult slaves were converted into hired labourers and the young were freed upon reaching age 25.[14]
1912 Siam (Thailand), formally abolishes all slavery. The act of selling a person into slavery was abolished in 1897 but slavery itself was not outlawed at that time.[45]
1921 Nepal abolishes slavery[46][47]
1923 Afghanistan abolishes slavery[48]
1922 Morocco abolishes slavery [49]
1924 Iraq abolishes slavery
1924 League of Nations Temporary Slavery Commission
1926 Slavery Convention. Bound all signatories to end slavery Convention to Suppress the Slave Trade and Slavery (25 September 1926)
1928 Iran abolishes slavery[50]
1928 Domestic slavery practised by local African elites abolished in Sierra Leone[51] (ironically established as a place for freed slaves). A study found practices of domestic slavery still widespread in rural areas in the 1970s.
1935 Italian General Emilio De Bono proclaims slavery to be abolished in the Ethiopian Empire[52]
1936 Britain abolishes slavery in Northern Nigeria[53]
1942 Ethiopian Empire abolishes slavery
1945 In the subsequent defeat of Nazi Germany and Japan, workcamps for slave labor (primarily Jewish encampments in Nazi Germany and colonists in Japanese-dominated lands) were gradually closed by the liberators.
1946 Fritz Sauckel, procurer of slave labor for Nazi Germany, convicted at the Nuremberg trials and executed as war criminal.
1948 UN Article 4 of the Declaration of Human Rights bans slavery globally[54]
1952 Qatar abolishes slavery
1959 Slavery in Tibet is abolished by China after the Dalai Lama flees.
1960 Niger abolishes slavery[55]
1962 Saudi Arabia abolishes slavery
1962 Yemen abolishes slavery
1963 United Arab Emirates abolishes slavery
1970 Oman abolishes slavery
1981 Mauritania abolishes slavery

BucEyedPea
06-20-2011, 08:37 AM
Would this be a better world if Lincoln had allowed the South to secede without fighting it? I'm not sure what the line of the argument is.
Allowed? Why that word? The Constitution allowed the southern states to secede because it was understood, by many at that time still, that the document was a voluntary arrangement. There is nothing written in that document that says they must remain in the Union in perpetuity. The Articles of Confederation, on the other hand, were written for perpetuity. Furthermore, the Constitution allowed them their slaves as a compromise just to get the southern states to agree to having a new union with a new Constitution. Under the Ninth and Tenth Amendment they were allowed rights as states. It was mainly a bunch of noisy abolitionists that thought otherwise. Lincoln was NO abolitionist. Even mid-war, he tried to negotiate with the south to come back into the Union and he would still allow them to keep their slaves. Yeah, right Lincoln fought for slavery. My arse.


Killed a "bunch" of people? Including non-plantation owners mostly? How 'bout killing more people than in all wars combined up through Vietnam as a minimum?
More like massive slaughter for a bunch of mercantilists in the north who wanted to continue to exploit the south for their own greed.

Yeah, they were such GREAT progressives!

VAChief
06-20-2011, 08:45 AM
Major Pownage by Messr Amnorix.

The war in the north initially was about restoring the union. The southern states seceded upon Lincolns election because they assumed he would become a supporter of limiting slavery in the US. So, in fact the war WAS about slavery from the southern perspective immediately.

I hate reality tv, but I have often thought the DC forum here would be comedy gold. Think Reno 911 or It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

BucEyedPea
06-20-2011, 08:49 AM
Originally Posted by Dave Lane View Post
Major Pownage by Messr Amnorix.
Not on your life. Messr Amnorix was owned in two earlier debates by more than one poster, several who are not here right now. He's lucky. There were even quotes by Lincoln and articles from newspapers at that time showing how Lincoln was not anti-slavery and was even going to let the South back in mid-War with their slaves even. He just wanted to tax them highly. Amnorix ignores new evidence and information never made largely known to the public. Amnorix is just regurgitating the state's line [ propaganda] as sold in HS history books. Most statists support this line of thinking on the Civil War. Most at the time of that war knew the union was voluntary. The whole slavery angle is NO different than today's still mercantilist-controlled GOP saying we had to invade a poorly armed country in order to be safe. It's done to stir up the people and get them on-board and to keep other nation's out of the conflict if need be.

boogblaster
06-20-2011, 08:54 AM
Dont shit yaself bout slavery .. the elite north had slaves too .. it was bout money the south generated without payn taxes ....

Barak Obuttocks
06-20-2011, 10:41 AM
As far as my concept of what it is like to be a slave, I have no way to relate to the humiliation and pain suffered by these people. It is extremely arrogant of you to pretend you do.

Whenever I want introspection as to what it must have been like to be an African slave, I always defer to a white lawyer from Boston.

RedNeckRaider
06-20-2011, 10:54 AM
Whenever I want introspection as to what it must have been like to be an African slave, I always defer to a white lawyer from Boston.

LMAO

vailpass
06-20-2011, 02:05 PM
The bleeding hearts that step all over each other in order to show their self-flaggelation is the most sincere just crack me up.

Saul Good
06-20-2011, 02:30 PM
I hate reality tv, but I have often thought the DC forum here would be comedy gold. Think Reno 911 or It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia.

Sunny is the best show going. Too bad nobody watches it.

banyon
06-20-2011, 06:01 PM
Not on your life. Messr Amnorix was owned in two earlier debates by more than one poster, several who are not here right now. He's lucky. There were even quotes by Lincoln and articles from newspapers at that time showing how Lincoln was not anti-slavery and was even going to let the South back in mid-War with their slaves even. He just wanted to tax them highly. Amnorix ignores new evidence and information never made largely known to the public. Amnorix is just regurgitating the state's line [ propaganda] as sold in HS history books. Most statists support this line of thinking on the Civil War. Most at the time of that war knew the union was voluntary. The whole slavery angle is NO different than today's still mercantilist-controlled GOP saying we had to invade a poorly armed country in order to be safe. It's done to stir up the people and get them on-board and to keep other nation's out of the conflict if need be.

LOL.

At least Amnorix doesn't make sh*t up or swallow everything he's fed unquestioningly.

If we are to follow your standards, just look at this thread. Your timeline was challenged on When Lincoln first acted, like usual, you wouldn't/couldn't back up what you had just posted, then you want to call names and deflect. It's been the same ridiculous game here with you for four+ years.

And YOU don't have a shred of credibility on any historical arguments on the Civil War. Don't make us bump the thread again where you claimed Lincoln was promoting "mass rapings". You're a caricature of yourself at this point.

Amnorix
06-20-2011, 08:23 PM
If his reasoning for going to war was freeing slaves he would have set forth these actions before the war.

That wasn't his reasoning for going to war. He never said it was. It would not have been politically feasible, in 1861 for him to do so. And Lincoln had extremely good political senses. As soon as it was politically feasible for him to end slavery, in those jurisdictions over which he had authority, he did so. He also set the entire Union on the path toward abolition. What don't you get?

As far as my concept of what it is like to be a slave, I have no way to relate to the humiliation and pain suffered by these people. It is extremely arrogant of you to pretend you do.

I said I did? Really? When was that, exactly?

The Emancipation Proclamation was a self serving crock of shit because it still allowed slavery, and Lincoln himself called it a measure of war.

You're either dreadfully confused, or being intentionally obtuse because your political beliefs force you into the untenable (and somewhat contemptible) position of favoring the Confederacy.

The EP was a measure of war, and of course he said so. He was taking a brave but difficult stand in terms of the domestic politics of the North, especially with border states that had slavery which had remained loyal to the North. He wanted to accomplish several objectives with the EP, including (in no particular order), (1) keeping England out of the war, (2) satisfying the cries of the abolitionists in the North who were becoming increasingly strident in their desire to use the war to further their aim of ending slavery, (3) encourage African-Americans in the South to lessen, to the degree possible, their support of the Confederacy, (4) encourage African-Americans in the North to more strongly favor the Union and its cause. He had to do this while, again, dealing with the FACT that the border states HAD slavery (and weren't necessarily inclined to end it) and many in the North were NOT in favor of ending slavery, especially lower class workers who viewed free African Americans as competitors for jobs.

None of these facts lessens the fact that the EP was a brave and risky political stand which was also the right thing to do.

100 hundred years went by before our government was forced into starting the process of fair treatment of blacks so save me the moral bullshit. It is refreshing to see those of you from the left battling so hard for a Republican~

Lincoln was dead about two years after the EP was issued. He also had his hands full for the entire duration of that period with winning the Civil War. He had no hand in Reconstruction becuase, you know, he was DEAD. You want to run by me again what in hell the 100 year lapse between EP and the Civil Rights Act has to do with being Lincoln's fault? Or how it makes him a hypocrite or whatever nonsense you're arguing?

I freely acknowledge that regardless of his party, Lincoln was easily one of our greatest Presidents.

Amnorix
06-20-2011, 08:32 PM
You do NOT know that for certain. It is more reasonable to think otherwise since abolishing slavery by the pen was spreading around the world and even in our own northern states. The southern plantation owners were still a small minority even in their own states. If England, a large buyer of southern cotton, could get their cotton from Egypt during that war instead, then maybe they would have boycotted the south eventually. They were determined to stop the practice.

33% of Southerners owned Slaves. If slaves and the slave system were so obviously on the path to extinction, why did they go to war to fight for it? Why were they so aggressively trying to expand slavery into the Western territories? Why were they trying to expand slavery into the Caribbean and Central America?

If England was so adamant about forcing foreign countries to end their slavery systems, why were they debating helping the Confederacy in its effort to gain independence in the Civil War?

The answer is simple -- the Confederate states were more dependent on the slave system than any other country in the world, and had a far larger percentage of its wealth invested in slaves. Further, unlike most other well-developed countries (as compared to Caribbean islands), African-Americans were actually a majority of the population in states such as Mississippi and South Carolina, and whites were terrified of blacks being their equal. That wasn't exactly a concern in Russia, where the monarchy would be maintained and the serfs woudl be transformed into completely powerless peasants under the thumb of the same masters, but under a different rubric.

Then consider the entire progressive era's emphasis on egalitarianism, and you think it would have actually lasted? You think it would have lasted with the ever expanding technological developments over time that reduced labor and saved time?

You gift Lincoln and America's other political leaders with crystal balls that didn't exist. Even putting that aside, you ignore the facts that the South started the damn war by firing on Sumter, that Lincoln was already faced with seven states seceding before he even took office (something you almost invariably forget) and that the South itself, by its words and actions, clearly indicated that it did NOT think slavery was on the path to extinction.

Amnorix
06-20-2011, 08:51 PM
Not on your life. Messr Amnorix was owned in two earlier debates by more than one poster, several who are not here right now.

For good or for bad, I'm not given to false (or any other kind of) modesty when it comes to American history debates, but let's face it, I usually crush you and your ilk in these Civil War debates because, ultimately, you're arguing backwards from the position you support and trying to get facts to fit them. The weak straws that you grasp at don't begin to compare with the overwhelming facts that point in the other direction.

He's lucky. There were even quotes by Lincoln and articles from newspapers at that time showing how Lincoln was not anti-slavery and was even going to let the South back in mid-War with their slaves even.

Lincoln always made clear that he personally disliked slavery, and that he hoped for its abolishment. The house divided speech may strike a dim bell in your memory.

But he also made VERY clear that he did not view his job as President to be to abolish slavery. The southern states, however, weren't willing to wait around, so they seceded en masse before he even took the oath of office.

How you figure that he had no problem with slavery is beyond reckoning.

He just wanted to tax them highly.

On what basis do you make this statement? And on what basis do you suggest the Confederates states seceded because of thsi when their own articles of secession make it perfectly clear that they are seceding because of slavery?

Amnorix ignores new evidence and information never made largely known to the public.

Honestly, you've never presented any "new" evidence and information worth a damn. You grasp at straws which don't begin to hold weight against the vast array of facts that lead to completely different conclusions.

It was Banyon, I think, who said that if I shoot a horse because it has a broken leg, and analysis shows that it did have a broken leg, but you note that there is a flea on its ass, that doesn't prove that I shot the horse because of the flea.

Amnorix is just regurgitating the state's line [ propaganda] as sold in HS history books. Most statists support this line of thinking on the Civil War.

I'm well past high school history books. Thanks for trying. In fact, my thinking on the War of 1812, for example, has largely changed since high school because the strong weight of evidence indicates different from what HS history teaches.

The strong weight of evidence, however, backs what I'm saying about the Civil War, and my learning comes from original sources and multiple historians, not exclusive lewrockwell.com "wisdom".

Most at the time of that war knew the union was voluntary.

Well, let's see. The North had a majority of the population and they weren't in favor of that interpretation, so you're wrong.

Some dope named James Madison had a chance to weight in on the topics of nullification and secession in the 1830s, and he disagreed with you as well, so to the degree a principal author had anything to say, he would also say you're wrong.

But other than that, you're right.

The whole slavery angle is NO different than today's still mercantilist-controlled GOP saying we had to invade a poorly armed country in order to be safe. It's done to stir up the people and get them on-board and to keep other nation's out of the conflict if need be.

I'm not going to bother answering this Cracker Jack box quality history (mis)statement. I'm sorry the South seceded because of slavery and gave you an untenable argument to try to support 150 years later, but don't blame me, blame them.



These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Government, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights, by giving them the right to represent, and burthening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor.
We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html#South Carolina


Abolition and the Union cannot coexist. As the friend of the Union I openly proclaim it--and the sooner it is known the better.

Amnorix
06-20-2011, 08:53 PM
Dont shit yaself bout slavery .. the elite north had slaves too .. it was bout money the south generated without payn taxes ....

The percentage of the population constituting slaves in the Northern states outside of the border states was almost invariably <1%.

The percentage of the population constitution slaves in the Confederate states usually ranged from 33% to 55%.

Taxes/tariffs is the weakest of the arguments that Confederate sympathizers can muster. Not that there are any better, but it really is very weak. Read the Articles of Secession and tell me again why they were leaving the Union....

Amnorix
06-20-2011, 09:04 PM
The bleeding hearts that step all over each other in order to show their self-flaggelation is the most sincere just crack me up.


Who is self-flaggelating? I know your sympathies lies with the South, but don't pretend your side was upholding a noble cause. It wasn't.

I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse. I do not question, however, the sincerity of the great mass of those who were opposed to us.


He wasn't talking about taxes or tariffs, and he wan't talking about some noble effort to preserve the balance between federal and state power. He's talking about a war primarily aimed at maintaining in perpetuity the institution of slavery.

http://ksbergman.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/one-of-the-worst-causes-for-which-to-fight/


I'm sorry if your boyhood understanding of what the South was all about was tainted by years of indoctrination otherwise. I'm sorry if your elders believed differently. But facts are facts, and they are irrefutable here.

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html



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.




Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility 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 pretences 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 slaveholding States.

Amnorix
06-20-2011, 09:07 PM
So, tell me BEP, if slavery is so clearly on the path to extinction, why is Mississippi declaring it to be "the greatest material interest in the world"? Why are all these states seceding in order to ensure that the institution is preserved?


At what point does overwhelming evidence cause you to re-examine your positions?

Amnorix
06-20-2011, 09:31 PM
Whenever I want introspection as to what it must have been like to be an African slave, I always defer to a white lawyer from Boston.

ROFL


Incapable of arguing the substance of the matter, you go for the weak joke and then run approach. I understand. When you have so little to work with, you gotta take whatever minor victories you can...

FD
06-20-2011, 10:40 PM
I honestly dont think I've ever seen someone on the internet win an argument as thoroughly as Amnorix has done here. Its pretty impressive.

ClevelandBronco
06-20-2011, 10:57 PM
33% of Southerners owned Slaves...

That sounded like absolute bullshit to me, so I did a little research.

Turns out it's, uh, yknow... true.

Now I want to know how my ancestors on my mother's side ended up so freaking poor that they didn't own anybody.

Jenson71
06-20-2011, 11:38 PM
I honestly dont think I've ever seen someone on the internet win an argument as thoroughly as Amnorix has done here. Its pretty impressive.

After the 10th time he's starting to get a firm grasp of it. ;)

Jaric
06-21-2011, 07:04 AM
Incapable of arguing the substance of the matter, you go for the weak joke and then run approach. I understand. When you have so little to work with, you gotta take whatever minor victories you can...I don't know, I got a good laugh out of it. :shrug:

BucEyedPea
06-21-2011, 07:21 AM
33% is not a majority....and I am going to check that number.
A few of those slave owners were black too.



EDIT: Per this fewer than than on-third of all Southern families owned slaves at the peak of slavery prior to the Civil War.
Some states like Miss and SC it approached half. "The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes), amounting to approximately 3.8% of the Southern and Border states population." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantation_economy


Black Slaveowners:

Of the blacks residing in the South, 261,988 were not slaves. Of this number, 10,689 lived in New Orleans. The country's leading African American historian, Duke University professor John Hope Franklin, records that in New Orleans over 3,000 free Negroes owned slaves, or 28 percent of the free Negroes in that city...

To return to the census figures quoted above, this 28 percent is certainly impressive when compared to less than 1.4 percent of all American whites and less than 4.8 percent of southern whites. The statistics show that, when free, blacks disproportionately became slave masters...

The majority of slaveholders, white and black, owned only one to five slaves. More often than not, and contrary to a century and a half of bullwhips-on-tortured-backs propaganda, black and white masters worked and ate alongside their charges; be it in house, field or workshop. The few individuals who owned 50 or more slaves were confined to the top one percent, and have been defined as slave magnates.

Also per this:

In 1860 only a small minority of whites owned slaves. According to the U.S. census report for that last year before the Civil War, there were nearly 27 million whites in the country. Some eight million of them lived in the slaveholding states.

The census also determined that there were fewer than 385,000 individuals who owned slaves (1). Even if all slaveholders had been white, that would amount to only 1.4 percent of whites in the country (or 4.8 percent of southern whites owning one or more slaves).
http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm


Even if not true, it still is not the greater good to commit mass murder. The ends does not justify the means. There was no need for any self-defense here—the only justification for using violence. And still was not fought over slavery. They seceded peacefully over state's rights, which of course was related to slavery, but the Constitution allowed that because it was the agreement that was struck at the Constitutional Convention to enter the Union. They really couldn't use the tax issue under that but it was the most proximate cause for leaving—peacefully with payment for all federal installations which was agreed to by Buchanan. You ought to read up of the under reported FACTS about that tax.

BucEyedPea
06-21-2011, 07:25 AM
I honestly dont think I've ever seen someone on the internet win an argument as thoroughly as Amnorix has done here. Its pretty impressive.

In your opinion....naturally because you agree with him.

I see you have nothing of substance to contribute except cheerleading duties.

banyon
06-21-2011, 09:10 AM
In your opinion....naturally because you agree with him.

I see you have nothing of substance to contribute except cheerleading duties.

Why are you spending all this time to argue what was essentially a tangential point about the exact % of slaveholders? What about all the other specious claims you made in this thread that were rebuked?


Speaking of no substance...

vailpass
06-21-2011, 10:19 AM
Who is self-flaggelating? I know your sympathies lies with the South, but don't pretend your side was upholding a noble cause. It wasn't. [/URL]

The South? I grew up in Iowa and have lived in Colorado and Arizona. "My side" is the side that refuses to take on an ounce of guilt over something I had absolutely nothing to do with, and that believes nobody moves forward that is looking back.

BucEyedPea
06-21-2011, 10:47 AM
Uhm, well, I'm a Northerner who switched sides when I found under-reported and even unreported facts.

If the Constitution was a noble cause, it too, allowed slavery. We would have never had it without this compromise and this is where the roots of this conflict lie.

You can't judge the past completely through a modern lense though. Particularly with an institution thousands of years old. We are a product of a modern era looking back. Cultures change slowly but they do change and things were changing. It was not noble to slaughter so many, destroy so much property, wage war on civilians, destroy our nation philosophically, shut down the printing presses, shoot at war protestors and usurp the Constitution by not going to Congress for the use of force. To say all these actions were noble, when slavery wasn't even the cause and no one said slavery was noble is nothing but a strawman—typical Amnorix. Just reframe the argument to slavery to justify mass murder when compensated emancipation could have been offered.

The means is the end. Nuff said!

RedNeckRaider
06-21-2011, 02:33 PM
That wasn't his reasoning for going to war. He never said it was. It would not have been politically feasible, in 1861 for him to do so. And Lincoln had extremely good political senses. As soon as it was politically feasible for him to end slavery, in those jurisdictions over which he had authority, he did so. He also set the entire Union on the path toward abolition. What don't you get?



I said I did? Really? When was that, exactly?



You're either dreadfully confused, or being intentionally obtuse because your political beliefs force you into the untenable (and somewhat contemptible) position of favoring the Confederacy.

The EP was a measure of war, and of course he said so. He was taking a brave but difficult stand in terms of the domestic politics of the North, especially with border states that had slavery which had remained loyal to the North. He wanted to accomplish several objectives with the EP, including (in no particular order), (1) keeping England out of the war, (2) satisfying the cries of the abolitionists in the North who were becoming increasingly strident in their desire to use the war to further their aim of ending slavery, (3) encourage African-Americans in the South to lessen, to the degree possible, their support of the Confederacy, (4) encourage African-Americans in the North to more strongly favor the Union and its cause. He had to do this while, again, dealing with the FACT that the border states HAD slavery (and weren't necessarily inclined to end it) and many in the North were NOT in favor of ending slavery, especially lower class workers who viewed free African Americans as competitors for jobs.

None of these facts lessens the fact that the EP was a brave and risky political stand which was also the right thing to do.



Lincoln was dead about two years after the EP was issued. He also had his hands full for the entire duration of that period with winning the Civil War. He had no hand in Reconstruction becuase, you know, he was DEAD. You want to run by me again what in hell the 100 year lapse between EP and the Civil Rights Act has to do with being Lincoln's fault? Or how it makes him a hypocrite or whatever nonsense you're arguing?

I freely acknowledge that regardless of his party, Lincoln was easily one of our greatest Presidents.

Get the **** out of here with that bullshit. Here is a short quote from the man who's intentions were as pure as the driven snow in your eyes:

"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone"

Thinking you have the right to own another man is despicable and indefensible. I also believe with our governments track record of dealing with non whites at the time and the actions taken I am skeptical of the pure intentions you are selling my arrogant friend~

ClevelandBronco
06-21-2011, 02:44 PM
...I also believe with our governments track record of dealing with non whites at the time and the actions taken I am skeptical of the pure intentions you are selling my arrogant friend~

They weren't overly fond of the wrong kind of whites either.

stevieray
06-21-2011, 02:58 PM
They weren't overly fond of the wrong kind of whites either.

:clap:

we're fortunate to be able to reflect and learn from our young country's mistakes.

fact is, like anything worthwhile,.. it was hard as hell for this country to find its way...reasonable, because it had never been done before.

The Colonies were under British rule when slavery was abound until the Founding Fathers declared all men were equal...this is even more evident when they changed the term property to pursuit.... IMO, this was their way of adressing the slave issue, knowing time was of the essence, mainly because it was so short and the colonies had to be united before they could declare independence...and ultimately believed that the American people would not only, but HAD to do the right thing for the Country to survive. I think this is where Lincoln falls also..main objective was to keep America intact, but moving forward.

It was only matter of time before the rest of the country would catch up to the brilliance of those handful of men.

What was the literacy rate during the Civil War?

orange
06-21-2011, 03:13 PM
Get the **** out of here with that bullshit. Here is a short quote from the man who's intentions were as pure as the driven snow in your eyes

And here are some long quotes from a man who knew Lincoln well (NOT Thomas DiLorenzo who only knows Lew Rockwell well):

...

I have said that President Lincoln was a white man, and shared the prejudices common to his countrymen towards the colored race. Looking back to his times and to the condition of his country, we are compelled to admit that this unfriendly feeling on his part may be safely set down as one element of his wonderful success in organizing the loyal American people for the tremendous conflict before them, and bringing them safely through that conflict. His great mission was to accomplish two things: first, to save his country from dismemberment and ruin; and, second, to free his country from the great crime of slavery. To do one or the other, or both, he must have the earnest sympathy and the powerful cooperation of his loyal fellow-countrymen. Without this primary and essential condition to success his efforts must have been vain and utterly fruitless. Had he put the abolition of slavery before the salvation of the Union, he would have inevitably driven from him a powerful class of the American people and rendered resistance to rebellion impossible. Viewed from the genuine abolition ground, Mr. Lincoln seemed tardy, cold, dull, and indifferent; but measuring him by the sentiment of his country, a sentiment he was bound as a statesman to consult, he was swift, zealous, radical, and determined.

Though Mr. Lincoln shared the prejudices of his white fellow-countrymen against the Negro, it is hardly necessary to say that in his heart of hearts he loathed and hated slavery. The man who could say, "Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war shall soon pass away, yet if God wills it continue till all the wealth piled by two hundred years of bondage shall have been wasted, and each drop of blood drawn by the lash shall have been paid for by one drawn by the sword, the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether," gives all needed proof of his feeling on the subject of slavery. He was willing, while the South was loyal, that it should have its pound of flesh, because he thought that it was so nominated in the bond; but farther than this no earthly power could make him go.

...

Fellow-citizens, ours is no new-born zeal and devotion--merely a thing of this moment. The name of Abraham Lincoln was near and dear to our hearts in the darkest and most perilous hours of the Republic. We were no more ashamed of him when shrouded in clouds of darkness, of doubt, and defeat than when we saw him crowned with victory, honor, and glory. Our faith in him was often taxed and strained to the uttermost, but it never failed. When he tarried long in the mountain; when he strangely told us that we were the cause of the war; when he still more strangely told us that we were to leave the land in which we were born; when he refused to employ our arms in defense of the Union; when, after accepting our services as colored soldiers, he refused to retaliate our murder and torture as colored prisoners; when he told us he would save the Union if he could with slavery; when he revoked the Proclamation of Emancipation of General Fremont; when he refused to remove the popular commander of the Army of the Potomac, in the days of its inaction and defeat, who was more zealous in his efforts to protect slavery than to suppress rebellion; when we saw all this, and more, we were at times grieved, stunned, and greatly bewildered; but our hearts believed while they ached and bled. Nor was this, even at that time, a blind and unreasoning superstition. Despite the mist and haze that surrounded him; despite the tumult, the hurry, and confusion of the hour, we were able to take a comprehensive view of Abraham Lincoln, and to make reasonable allowance for the circumstances of his position. We saw him, measured him, and estimated him; not by stray utterances to injudicious and tedious delegations, who often tried his patience; not by isolated facts torn from their connection; not by any partial and imperfect glimpses, caught at inopportune moments; but by a broad survey, in the light of the stern logic of great events, and in view of that divinity which shapes our ends, rough hew them how we will, we came to the conclusion that the hour and the man of our redemption had somehow met in the person of Abraham Lincoln. It mattered little to us what language he might employ on special occasions; it mattered little to us, when we fully knew him, whether he was swift or slow in his movements; it was enough for us that Abraham Lincoln was at the head of a great movement, and was in living and earnest sympathy with that movement, which, in the nature of things, must go on until slavery should be utterly and forever abolished in the United States.

When, therefore, it shall be asked what we have to do with the memory of Abraham Lincoln, or what Abraham Lincoln had to do with us, the answer is ready, full, and complete. Though he loved Caesar less than Rome, though the Union was more to him than our freedom or our future, under his wise and beneficent rule we saw ourselves gradually lifted from the depths of slavery to the heights of liberty and manhood; under his wise and beneficent rule, and by measures approved and vigorously pressed by him, we saw that the handwriting of ages, in the form of prejudice and proscription, was rapidly fading away from the face of our whole country; under his rule, and in due time, about as soon after all as the country could tolerate the strange spectacle, we saw our brave sons and brothers laying off the rags of bondage, and being clothed all over in the blue uniforms of the soldiers of the United States; under his rule we saw two hundred thousand of our dark and dusky people responding to the call of Abraham Lincoln, and with muskets on their shoulders, and eagles on their buttons, timing their high footsteps to liberty and union under the national flag; under his rule we saw the independence of the black republic of Haiti, the special object of slave-holding aversion and horror, fully recognized, and her minister, a colored gentleman, duly received here in the city of Washington; under his rule we saw the internal slave-trade, which so long disgraced the nation, abolished, and slavery abolished in the District of Columbia; under his rule we saw for the first time the law enforced against the foreign slave trade, and the first slave-trader hanged like any other pirate or murderer; under his rule, assisted by the greatest captain of our age, and his inspiration, we saw the Confederate States, based upon the idea that our race must be slaves, and slaves forever, battered to pieces and scattered to the four winds; under his rule, and in the fullness of time, we saw Abraham Lincoln, after giving the slave-holders three months’ grace in which to save their hateful slave system, penning the immortal paper, which, though special in its language, was general in its principles and effect, making slavery forever impossible in the United States. Though we waited long, we saw all this and more.

Can any colored man, or any white man friendly to the freedom of all men, ever forget the night which followed the first day of January, 1863, when the world was to see if Abraham Lincoln would prove to be as good as his word? I shall never forget that memorable night, when in a distant city I waited and watched at a public meeting, with three thousand others not less anxious than myself, for the word of deliverance which we have heard read today. Nor shall I ever forget the outburst of joy and thanksgiving that rent the air when the lightning brought to us the emancipation proclamation. In that happy hour we forgot all delay, and forgot all tardiness, forgot that the President had bribed the rebels to lay down their arms by a promise to withhold the bolt which would smite the slave-system with destruction; and we were thenceforward willing to allow the President all the latitude of time, phraseology, and every honorable device that statesmanship might require for the achievement of a great and beneficent measure of liberty and progress.

...

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=39

RedNeckRaider
06-21-2011, 03:13 PM
They weren't overly fond of the wrong kind of whites either.

That is true being of Irish decent I am familiar with some of my families history. I disagreed with the guy and he paints me in favor slavery. Typical debate tactic from a school boy well versed in debating. He was most likely the captain of his debate team. There is no moral high ground to be had from that era from the north or the south. Lincoln thought so highly of blacks he wanted to resettle them somewhere else and he damn sure did not see them as anything close to equal to a white man~

BucEyedPea
06-21-2011, 04:46 PM
Get the **** out of here with that bullshit. Here is a short quote from the man who's intentions were as pure as the driven snow in your eyes:

"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone"

Thinking you have the right to own another man is despicable and indefensible. I also believe with our governments track record of dealing with non whites at the time and the actions taken I am skeptical of the pure intentions you are selling my arrogant friend~

I had quotes like that posted before in earlier debates with him but he chooses to ignore Lincoln's own words.

Here's more quotes by Lincoln that I am cutting and pasting from previous discussions here:

"when they remind us of their constitutional rights [to own slaves], I acknowledge them, not grudgingly but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the claiming of their fugitives" (in indicating support for the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850)."


That the war was to preserve the union-
"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." ... My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to 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."

From his letter to Horace Greely.
http://www.classic-literature.co.uk/american-authors/19th-century/abraham-lincoln/the-writings-of-abraham-lincoln-06/ebook-page-38.asp

On Emancipation Proclamation (applied only to states in rebellion not those states that were in open rebellion)-

"The original proclamation has no...legal justification, except as a military measure."

Was used just to weaken the rebellious states.

BucEyedPea
06-21-2011, 04:52 PM
And here are some long quotes from a man who knew Lincoln well (NOT Thomas DiLorenzo who only knows Lew Rockwell well):

.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=39

Seriously orange, your slam on DiLorenzo only knowing Lew Rockwell as if he gets his material from him is it backwards as well as defamation. He's just an ally of Lew's but he still researched and wrote his own books, being a historian, and Lew Rockwell allows him to publish, comment and editorialize on his site. This is no different than The Nation , Think Progress or Common Dreams publishing comments of people who are in line with their views.

FACT is DiLorenzo uses Lincoln's very OWN words repeatedly and they do not match this piece of state propaganda from a state school you posted, let alone a site called "teaching american history" since that's where the hagiography of the man is taught and the full facts are left out.

Even the Lincoln Memorial has a set a fasces rods sitting on either side of Lincoln.

orange
06-21-2011, 05:19 PM
let alone a site called "teaching american history" since that's where the hagiography of the man is taught and the full facts are left out.

LMAOLMAOLMAO Those words are the words of FREDERICK DOUGLAS (you may have heard of him) ...

Even the Lincoln Memorial has a set a fasces rods sitting on either side of Lincoln.

... dedicating this statue of Lincoln

http://lisawallerrogers.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/freedman_s-monument-lincoln-park-washington-d-c-sculptor-thomas-ball-library-of-congress-prints-and-photographs-division.jpg?w=300&h=344

Notice - fasces, again.

BucEyedPea
06-21-2011, 05:20 PM
Those words are the words of FREDERICK DOUGLAS. You may have heard of him. LMAOLMAOLMAO

So what? It's his opinion—it's not Lincoln's words. His opinion aligns with the state propaganda. So of course a state school would choose his words over Lincoln's actual words. It still tells us nothing about the real Lincoln.

The nervous laughter is noted though. You usually do that when you can't prove something. In this case how Lincoln didn't really fight for men like Douglas.

Fellow-citizens, there is little necessity on this occasion to speak at length and critically of this great and good man, and of his high mission in the world.

O.M.G.

Suspending Habeus Corpus, breaking truces on re-supply of Pickens and Sumter, jailing congressmen and journalists for opposing his war, shutting down printing presses, shooting at anti-war protestors, ignoring France's offere to mediate the matter....wait...I gotta go get my list of his other tyrannical acts.

banyon
06-21-2011, 05:22 PM
Those words are the words of FREDERICK DOUGLAS. You may have heard of him. LMAOLMAOLMAO

Ha. What does Frederick Douglass know? He should defer to the lecturer on economics from the University of Maryland that posts on the Mises site.

ClevelandBronco
06-21-2011, 05:23 PM
Those words are the words of FREDERICK DOUGLAS. You may have heard of him. LMAOLMAOLMAO

And orange throws kerosene on the smoldering remains of the Hindenburg.

(And something about flying monkeys. It's all that's left.)

BucEyedPea
06-21-2011, 05:30 PM
LMAOLMAOLMAO Those words are the words of FREDERICK DOUGLAS (you may have heard of him) ...



... dedicating this statue of Lincoln

http://lisawallerrogers.files.wordpress.com/2010/02/freedman_s-monument-lincoln-park-washington-d-c-sculptor-thomas-ball-library-of-congress-prints-and-photographs-division.jpg?w=300&h=344

Notice - fasces, again.

Yes I see them again. I know it was another memorial that was being spoken about even just doing a skim read. I was just bringing up the most well known memorial of him that has a double set of fasces rods.

orange
06-21-2011, 05:30 PM
Ha. What does Frederick Douglass know? He should defer to the lecturer on economics from the University of Maryland that posts on the Mises site.

Frederick Douglass, Tool of the State - by Thomas DiLorenzo. Available soon from Regnery Press.

BucEyedPea
06-21-2011, 05:34 PM
Frederick Douglass, Tool of the State - by Thomas DiLorenzo. Available soon from Regnery Press.
Oh, I see what you're doing. As another Lincoln Cultist you insist of being the Gatekeeper of Truth about Lincoln. So you use another fake quote much like the fake views of Lincoln's.

You court historians run from hard-core leftists such as Eric Foner to liberals like Doris Kearns-Goodwin. Ya' know the guy, Froner, who opposed the breakup of the Soviet Union because Lincoln wouldn't have allowed it. Like the NC Straussians, the false legend is useful for your political agenda of statism and why we must have it, whether it be socialism, welfare statism or making over the world for progressive reasons through the use of violence.

Marx admired Lincoln too and even wrote to him with a pat on the back.

ClevelandBronco
06-21-2011, 05:35 PM
Fake quote. The balls on this chick.

banyon
06-21-2011, 05:41 PM
Oh, I see what you're doing. As another Lincoln Cultist you insist of being the Gatekeeper of Truth about Lincoln. So you use another fake quote much like the fake views of Lincoln's.

You court historians run from hard-core leftists such as Eric Foner to liberals like Doris Kearns-Goodwin. Ya' know the guy, Froner, who opposed the breakup of the Soviet Union because Lincoln wouldn't have allowed it. Like the NC Straussians, the false legend is useful for your political agenda of statism and why we must have it, whether it be socialism, welfare statism or making over the world for progressive reasons through the use of violence.

Marx admired Lincoln too and even wrote to him with a pat on the back.

Uh, the "court history" (whatever that means) on Lincoln was written before Doris Kearns-Goodwin was even born.

banyon
06-21-2011, 05:41 PM
Fake quote. The balls on this chick.

Yeah, it's fake. Because she said so.

BucEyedPea
06-21-2011, 05:44 PM
Fake quote. The balls on this chick.

Which one is fake?

Dave Lane
06-21-2011, 05:45 PM
Whenever I want introspection as to what it must have been like to be an African slave, I always defer to a white lawyer from Boston.

And whenever I have the feeling of wanting to know what the experience of Corky might have been like, I think of you.

orange
06-21-2011, 05:47 PM
Marx admired Lincoln too and even wrote to him with a pat on the back.

Yes, he did.


Sir:

We congratulate the American people upon your re-election by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your re-election is Death to Slavery.

From the commencement of the titanic American strife the workingmen of Europe felt instinctively that the star-spangled banner carried the destiny of their class. The contest for the territories which opened the dire epopee, was it not to decide whether the virgin soil of immense tracts should be wedded to the labor of the emigrant or prostituted by the tramp of the slave driver?

When an oligarchy of 300,000 slaveholders dared to inscribe, for the first time in the annals of the world, "slavery" on the banner of Armed Revolt, when on the very spots where hardly a century ago the idea of one great Democratic Republic had first sprung up, whence the first Declaration of the Rights of Man was issued, and the first impulse given to the European revolution of the eighteenth century; when on those very spots counterrevolution, with systematic thoroughness, gloried in rescinding "the ideas entertained at the time of the formation of the old constitution", and maintained slavery to be "a beneficent institution", indeed, the old solution of the great problem of "the relation of capital to labor", and cynically proclaimed property in man "the cornerstone of the new edifice" — then the working classes of Europe understood at once, even before the fanatic partisanship of the upper classes for the Confederate gentry had given its dismal warning, that the slaveholders' rebellion was to sound the tocsin for a general holy crusade of property against labor, and that for the men of labor, with their hopes for the future, even their past conquests were at stake in that tremendous conflict on the other side of the Atlantic. Everywhere they bore therefore patiently the hardships imposed upon them by the cotton crisis, opposed enthusiastically the proslavery intervention of their betters — and, from most parts of Europe, contributed their quota of blood to the good cause.

While the workingmen, the true political powers of the North, allowed slavery to defile their own republic, while before the Negro, mastered and sold without his concurrence, they boasted it the highest prerogative of the white-skinned laborer to sell himself and choose his own master, they were unable to attain the true freedom of labor, or to support their European brethren in their struggle for emancipation; but this barrier to progress has been swept off by the red sea of civil war.

The workingmen of Europe feel sure that, as the American War of Independence initiated a new era of ascendancy for the middle class, so the American Antislavery War will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.

Signed on behalf of the International Workingmen's Association, the Central Council:

YET ANOTHER contemporary who thought knew the war was about slavery. The American Antislavery War.

BucEyedPea
06-21-2011, 05:58 PM
Yes, he did.



Signed on behalf of the International Workingmen's Association, the Central Council: [/INDENT][/I]

YET ANOTHER contemporary who thought OPINED the war was about slavery.

FYP

Marx thought Lincoln was for the working man....note that was Int'l Workingmen's Association. He thought our Civil war was a harbinger for socialist revolutions. His preface to Capital covers some of this.

1867
Preface to The First German Edition of Capital
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/p1.htm

Marx couldn't have been more wrong about Lincoln and his motives. Marx considered all workingmen slaves but Lincoln was put in power by corporations of the time. He was a corporate attorney. A lot Marx knew.

Marx was wrong about it being about slavery by Lincoln. Go look at Lincoln's words. It's really all you need orange instead of endless cut and past of other contempories. So Marx erroneously called British Mercantilism "capitalism" was wrong about the "labor theory of value."

This is nothing but using the crisis as something to exploit to change all property relations.

The Civil is about slavery for modern progressives who love the centralization of power and who advocate the force and violence of the state all the way up through the welfare state and more —but it was NOT about slavery for Lincoln, for those who defended their homes from invasion or even many northerners.

BucEyedPea
06-21-2011, 06:17 PM
Orange, DiLorenzo said these things have been documented for decades by mainstream, pro-Lincoln scholars.


• He was a consummate politician who spoke out of both sides of his mouth, saying one thing to one audience and the opposite to another.

• He was adamantly opposed to racial equality, actually using the words "superior and inferior" to describe the "appropriate" relation between the white and black races.

• He opposed giving blacks the right to vote, to serve on juries, or to intermarry with whites.

• He supported the legal rights of slave owners and pledged his support of a constitutional
amendment that would have prohibited the federal government from ever interfering with Southern slavery.

• He was a mercantilist and a political tool of corrupt Northern business interests.

• He was a railroad industry lobbyist who championed corporate welfare.

• He once represented a slave owner in a case in which he sought to recover his runaway slaves. Lincoln lost the case and the slaves gained
their freedom.LMAOLMAOLMAO <---Smilies specially just for you orange 'cause I know you like them so much.

•He advocated sending all blacks back to Africa, Central America, or Haiti — anywhere but the U.S.

• He proposed strengthening the Fugitive Slave Law.

•He opposed the extension of slavery into the territories so that "free white people" would not have to associate with blacks or compete with them for jobs.

• He opposed black citizenship in Illinois and supported the state's constitution which prohibited the emigration of black people into the state.

• He was the head of the Illinois Colonization Society, which advocated the use of state tax dollars to deport the small number of free blacks that resided within the state.

•He nullified the early emancipation of slaves in Missouri and Georgia early in the war.

•He sent troops to New York City to put down a draft riot by shooting hundreds of them in the streets.

•He was an enemy of free-market capitalism.

•He started a war over tax collection that ended up killing 620,000 Americans and wounding and maiming even more. [ Recently corrected to 750,000 ]

• He conjured up the spectacular lie that no such thing as state sovereignty ever existed to "justify" his invasion and conquest of the Southern states.

• He refused to meet with Confederate peace commissioners before the war to work out a peaceful compromise.

• He provoked the upper South — Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee — to secede by launching a military invasion of their sister states.

•He supported economic interventionism through protectionist tariffs, corporate welfare, and central banking that would plunder one section of the country (the South) for the benefit of his Northern political supporters.

• He started a war without the consent of Congress; illegally declared martial law; illegally blockaded Southern ports; illegally suspended habeas corpus and arrested tens of thousands of political opponents; illegally orchestrated the secession of West Virginia; shut down hundreds of opposition newspapers and imprisoned their editors and owners; deported the most outspoken member of the Democratic Party opposition, Congressman Clement L. Vallandigham of Ohio; confiscated private property, including firearms; ignored the Ninth and Tenth Amendments; tolerated the arrest of ministers who refused to publicly pray for him; arrested duly elected members of the Maryland legislature as well as Congressman Henry May of Baltimore; and supported a law that indemnified federal officials from all of these illegal acts.

• He orchestrated the rigging of Northern elections.

• Introduced the slavery of conscription and income taxation.

• Censored all telegraph communication.

• Waged war on civilians by having his armies bomb Southern cities and destroy or steal crops, livestock and private property throughout the South.

• Created an enormous political patronage system that survives today.

• Allowed the unjust mass execution of Sioux Indians in Minnesota.

• Destroyed the system of federalism and states' rights that was created by the founding fathers, thereby destroying the voluntary union.

• Promoted generals for their willingness to use troops as cannon fodder.

•Created an internal revenue bureaucracy that has never diminished in size and power.

orange
06-21-2011, 06:17 PM
Marx Didn't Know Marxism - by Thomas DiLorenzo. Available soon from Regnery Press.

BucEyedPea
06-21-2011, 06:23 PM
Marx Didn't Know Marxism - by Thomas DiLorenzo. Available soon from Regnery Press.

So all you have is snide sarcasm. I understand you can't refute any of those FACTS about Lincoln or what fully Marx thought here even with the chapter linked where I got that from. You've proved your point—you got nuthin.'

orange
06-21-2011, 06:27 PM
I've got this:

... resistance to the Slave Power ... Death to Slavery ... "slavery" on the banner of Armed Revolt ... slaveholders' rebellion ... American Antislavery War ...

will do for the working classes. They consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln, the single-minded son of the working class, to lead his country through the matchless struggle for the rescue of an enchained race and the reconstruction of a social world.

Jenson71
06-21-2011, 06:29 PM
So all you have is snide sarcasm. I understand you can't refute any of those FACTS about Lincoln or what fully Marx thought here even with the chapter linked where I got that from. You've proved your point—you got nuthin.'

If you think Marx has an accurate view of historical events (and people), including Abe Lincoln and the U.S. Civil War, then can we assume you also believe his economic views are accurate (because they are based on his analysis of historical events)?

Jenson71
06-21-2011, 06:31 PM
• He once represented a slave owner in a case in which he sought to recover his runaway slaves. Lincoln lost the case and the slaves gained
their freedom.LMAOLMAOLMAO <---Smilies specially just for you orange 'cause I know you like them so much.

This is incredible. I have a suspicion, though it's currently unconfirmed, that Lincoln was a lawyer and had children to feed.

Jenson71
06-21-2011, 06:38 PM
Oh, I see what you're doing. As another Lincoln Cultist you insist of being the Gatekeeper of Truth about Lincoln. So you use another fake quote much like the fake views of Lincoln's.

There's certainly Lincoln hagiography. But there's also Lincoln demonography. And you're in the latter camp: bullet hit point after bullet hit point documenting that Lincoln was a (gasp!) politician and a (gasp!) lawyer and a (gasp!) Party representative and a (gasp!) racist and a (gasp!) whatever the hell else you can find that is looked down upon in 2011.

banyon
06-21-2011, 06:49 PM
This is incredible. I have a suspicion, though it's currently unconfirmed, that Lincoln was a lawyer and had children to feed.

Nope. Lawyers not only represent their clients, they have to believe in the actions their clients personally. That's why lawyers who represent rapists are actually rapists themselves.

Jenson71
06-21-2011, 06:51 PM
Nope. Lawyers not only represent their clients, they have to believe in the actions their clients personally. That's why lawyers who represent rapists are actually rapists themselves.

YOU GOT NUTHIN!

Amnorix
06-21-2011, 07:17 PM
That sounded like absolute bullshit to me, so I did a little research.

Turns out it's, uh, yknow... true.

Now I want to know how my ancestors on my mother's side ended up so freaking poor that they didn't own anybody.

Visited the Gettysburg battlefield very recently and its one of the best factoids I picked up that I hadn't known before.

BTW, anyone who has any interest in Civil War stuff MUST go. They have done a fantastic job of maintaining the site and even restoring parts of it back to what it would have been like in 1863 when the battle took place. As a bonus, you can visit Ike's house which is basically next door.

But be prepared -- the battlefield is HUGE. It covers multiple square miles. You could easily spend two or three days on the museum, guided tours, etc.

Amnorix
06-21-2011, 07:23 PM
The South? I grew up in Iowa and have lived in Colorado and Arizona. "My side" is the side that refuses to take on an ounce of guilt over something I had absolutely nothing to do with, and that believes nobody moves forward that is looking back.

I thought you and I once had an exchange that ended with something like me saying "and I bet you call the Civil War the War of Northern Aggression", and you responded "perhaps", but on second thought, that is your fellow Broncos fan, Garcia Bronco.

I have no guilt over the Civil War, and no guilt over the slavery system. History is a long, long chain of interrelated events, and if everyone burdened themselves with the guilt of the sins of their forefathers, there wouldn't be any time for anything else.

Amnorix
06-21-2011, 07:42 PM
Uhm, well, I'm a Northerner who switched sides when I found under-reported and even unreported facts.

You should analyze your new sources a bit better. From what I can tell, having been involved in multiple arguments with you on this general topic over the years -- they are trying to put cobble together random facts to fit a specific goal. The problem is that a decent analysis of ALL available facts fails miserable to fit the conclusion that is desperately sought.

If the Constitution was a noble cause, it too, allowed slavery. We would have never had it without this compromise and this is where the roots of this conflict lie.

Agreed. Wow, we have one item of agreement... :p

You can't judge the past completely through a modern lense though. Particularly with an institution thousands of years old. We are a product of a modern era looking back. Cultures change slowly but they do change and things were changing.

Things weren't changing in the direction of abolition in 1860, however. At least, not in the slave states. They were aggressively seeking expansion, and the country had been torn by the topic for a good 40 years. By 1860, the South was exasperated and worried that the North would someone start working toward eliminating slavery in the South despite Cosntitutional guarantees, and was simply not willing to deal with Lincoln as President, despite his guaranties that he was not going to interfere with ownership rights in slaves due to his desire to maintain the Union.

It's not that everything you say is wrong, it's that you take Facts A, F and Q, and overstate them to reach a conclusion that is completely insupportable in light of ignored facts B, C, D, E, etc., and also fail to note that Fact A is qualified by such and such. It's just bad analysis.

It was not noble to slaughter so many, destroy so much property, wage war on civilians, destroy our nation philosophically, shut down the printing presses, shoot at war protestors and usurp the Constitution by not going to Congress for the use of force. To say all these actions were noble, when slavery wasn't even the cause and no one said slavery was noble is nothing but a strawman—typical Amnorix. Just reframe the argument to slavery to justify mass murder when compensated emancipation could have been offered.

The means is the end. Nuff said!

You're doing a fine job, as usual, of ignoring what I'm saying.

1. The South started the Civil War. They fired on Fort Sumter, you may recall. They seceded, and started the Civil War primarily to preserve the slave system upon which their socio-economic structure depended to a degree far greater than any other country in the world (which is why voluntarily abolition wasn't foreseeable in the distant, much less near, future, to say the least).

2. The Union then had two choices -- let the South go its own way, or fight to preserve the Union. They chose to fight to preserve the Union.

3. Neither side had any concept of how long the war would last, or how many people would die. I could cite certain facts to support this (such as initial enlistment periods), but I find it tiresome to have to footnote with several sources everything I say when everyone else around here throws around unsupported facts as if they were supported by unquestionable sources. Your argument relative to mass murder is another example of you gifting the North's leadership with crystal balls that they did not possess.

It also renders your comment about judging the past through a modern lens ironic in the extreme.

Whether you believe the cause to have been noble or not, I find it hard to believe that anyone can denigrate the goal of immediately ending slavery. While the South was hardly the kind of intensely and overtly evil institution that Nazi Germany was, it's certainly fair to say that they ahd supported the war primarily to preserve an evil system that they deemed critical to their social, political and economic structure. Those that led the fight for the South in the Civil War had not created the system, but the thought of seeing it eliminated was so anathema to them that they fought to ensure that they would retain it.

Though the North initially fought for the not-particularly noble cause of preserving the Union (there being, in my mind, nothing particularly noble or not about preserving a given governmental unit), the addition of the fight over slavery turned the North's fight from one over strictly politics to one that was, in fact, noble as well.

Amnorix
06-21-2011, 07:54 PM
Get the **** out of here with that bullshit. Here is a short quote from the man who's intentions were as pure as the driven snow in your eyes:

I didn't say he was pure as the driven snow. I freely acknowledge that Lincoln, like probably 99% of all white Americans in 1860, was racist. To desire, on a personal level, the elimination of slavery didn't mean he wanted to, for example, permit interracial marriage.

But he took valiant stands to move the elimination of slavery forward. You can't refute that, no matter how hard you try. The EP came long before advanced polling techniques. He did his best, at a time when he had many other problems and it was extremely difficult to balance the competing interests, to announce the elimination of slavery WITHIN THE JURISDICTIONS HE CONTROLLED, in order to obtain the political and, yes, moral benefits of such act (which were in accordance with his oft-stated personal beliefs), without paying too high a cost (i.e. the loss of the border states to the Confederacy).

Actually, the FACT that the South seceded upon Lincoln's election is far more powerful support for the fact that Lincoln was commonly known to disfavor slavery than anything else. The South seceded because they knew Lincoln would not lightly permit expansion of slavery into the territories -- an argument that had repeatedly been kicked down the lane by prior generations.

Side note -- Washington was also a slave owner. While his release of the slaves he owned was self-serving to his personal legacy, it doesn't render it less noble. He knew slavery was wrong, but couldn't figure out how to end it either for the country, or even for himeslf, without economic ruin. But when he had the opportunity, he released his slaves.


Thinking you have the right to own another man is despicable and indefensible. I also believe with our governments track record of dealing with non whites at the time and the actions taken I am skeptical of the pure intentions you are selling my arrogant friend~

Pure intentions? WTF does that mean? Lincoln was a politican, and a truly GREAT one. He managed to correctly identify the place, time and method by which to emancipate slaves in such a way that it didn't send the border states fleeing to the Confederacy (rendering the Union's miltiary position untenable), obtaining benefits for the Union in foreign relations in the war (vis-a-vis England), and improving recruitment of black soldiers at a time when every man was starting to count in a very big way, while also dealing a blow to the Confederates relating to control over their slave populations and its willingness ot support the Confederacy (to the degree they heard about the EP).

To do soemthing noble in a time, place and manner that is not politically suicidal doesn't render it less noble. One needn't fall on one's sword to be noble.

BucEyedPea
06-21-2011, 08:01 PM
Kool aid drinker:
Someone who believes what they are told without thinking for themselves. From the followers of Jim Jones in Guyana who committed suicide by drinking poisoned Kool Aid.

Amnorix
06-21-2011, 08:02 PM
That is true being of Irish decent I am familiar with some of my families history. I disagreed with the guy and he paints me in favor slavery. Typical debate tactic from a school boy well versed in debating. He was most likely the captain of his debate team. There is no moral high ground to be had from that era from the north or the south. Lincoln thought so highly of blacks he wanted to resettle them somewhere else and he damn sure did not see them as anything close to equal to a white man~


You referring to the EP as a self-serving POS, which is both ludicrous and puts your entire morale compass into question. You still dont' have any kind of rational explanation for such a characterization. Instead, you point out that Lincoln was by and large a product of his times (shocking, he was racist!) That's nto an argument, that's just changing the topic.

Amnorix
06-21-2011, 08:03 PM
Kool aid drinker:
Someone who believes what they are told without thinking for themselves. From the followers of Jim Jones in Guyana who committed suicide by drinking poisoned Kool Aid.

Given that all you know about hisotry is whatever Lewrockwell.com tells you, you are certainly in a position to know.

Seriously, you don't even have any analysis to present.

Oh, and isn't this where you would typically start spouting ad hominem and other such drivel (deflection! projection! straw man!). So yeah, that too.

Amnorix
06-21-2011, 08:10 PM
I had quotes like that posted before in earlier debates with him but he chooses to ignore Lincoln's own words.

Here's more quotes by Lincoln that I am cutting and pasting from previous discussions here:

"when they remind us of their constitutional rights [to own slaves], I acknowledge them, not grudgingly but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the claiming of their fugitives" (in indicating support for the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850)."


That the war was to preserve the union-
"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." ... My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to 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."

From his letter to Horace Greely.
http://www.classic-literature.co.uk/american-authors/19th-century/abraham-lincoln/the-writings-of-abraham-lincoln-06/ebook-page-38.asp

On Emancipation Proclamation (applied only to states in rebellion not those states that were in open rebellion)-

"The original proclamation has no...legal justification, except as a military measure."

Was used just to weaken the rebellious states.


I don't ignore Lincoln's words -- I freely acknowledge them. But I understand the context in which they are made. I also understand how you take those comments and all of his other comments, in toto, the timeframes and contexts in which they occur, match them against his actions and the timeframes and contexts in which THEY occur, to form a complete conclusion of the man, his positions and his actions in the fabric of history.

You, on the other hand, with a preset destination in mind, try to find the few random roadmarkers that indicate Lincoln was on the path you have in mind, and ignore all the other facts that indicate he was going in some other direction instead.

That is your failure in this debate and, more importantly, as a historian.

I've seen similar arguments made by those who try to assert Stalin was about to invade Germany so Hitler acted in self-defense. You can cobble together random facts to support almost any lunatic position you like. I'm sorry the facts don't support your desired position here, but they don't. And whether I went to public or private high school has absolutely nothing to do with it.

Amnorix
06-21-2011, 08:38 PM
Suspending Habeus Corpus, breaking truces on re-supply of Pickens and Sumter, jailing congressmen and journalists for opposing his war, shutting down printing presses, shooting at anti-war protestors, ignoring France's offere to mediate the matter....wait...I gotta go get my list of his other tyrannical acts.

How do you mediate a Civil War when they're either in or out? Clearly they weren't going to be half-way in. Mediation was useless except as a path to a resolution -- separation, that he found untenable. It's also absurd to call refusing mediation "tyrannical". So that's stupid.

Jailng Congressmen and journalists -- Vallandiigham was an Ohio congressperson who clearly favored the Confederacy and was agitating in time of war against the government. WTF do you think should happen?

The press was also far more free in the North (a fact which Sherman, especially, hated) than in the South. The Confederacy was far more ruthless than the North in suppressing speech. Of course, you're too busy painting Lincoln as a monster to worry about such trivialities.

Breaking truces on resupplies -- I'd love to hear your rationale on this.

Suspending habeas corpus -- yes. He did. Strict adherence to the Constitution wasn't feasible in light of the civil war. If the house is burning down, you might violate a city ordinance against making noise after 10:00 p.m. also, for example.

Jefferson Davis noted that the Confederacy, forever exasperated by state governors arguing THEIR (state) rights, might, if it lost the war, have written as its epitaph, "Died of a theory".

You would love for the Union to have died because the Constitution prohibited certain actions necessary to save the Union. Lincoln, fortunately, was far more pragmatic.

lostcause
06-21-2011, 11:10 PM
Wait. Again. Am I really seeing that there is a side propagated that says it would have been better to allow millions of people to sit in chains and hope that economic circumstances mitigated it out over time?

I've read the last five pages of this thread and I'm still confused that there are people who would really rather just paint Lincoln as a douchebag and to hell with the slaves, because, well... they were slaves?

Regardless of whatever factual argument debating percentages and who jailed whom during the war and whatever... The economic model the south was propped up by was considered ethically wrong by most people at that time and by more than that today.

Is BEP's argument that slavery should have ended, but not by the Civil War? that is my grasp here; and if so, how long would have been a proper time to allow Emancipation compensation a chance to succeed before the second Nat Turner should have risen?

patteeu
06-22-2011, 06:07 AM
Wait. Again. Am I really seeing that there is a side propagated that says it would have been better to allow millions of people to sit in chains and hope that economic circumstances mitigated it out over time?

I've read the last five pages of this thread and I'm still confused that there are people who would really rather just paint Lincoln as a douchebag and to hell with the slaves, because, well... they were slaves?

Regardless of whatever factual argument debating percentages and who jailed whom during the war and whatever... The economic model the south was propped up by was considered ethically wrong by most people at that time and by more than that today.

Is BEP's argument that slavery should have ended, but not by the Civil War? that is my grasp here; and if so, how long would have been a proper time to allow Emancipation compensation a chance to succeed before the second Nat Turner should have risen?

She's not arguing that slavery was a good thing. Are you arguing that the deaths of the better part of a million people, most of whom didn't own slaves, was a good thing? I assume you aren't. So the question becomes, how many lives was it worth to free about 4 million slaves earlier than they would have otherwise been freed by the prevailing trend toward abolition?

Would it be worth the deaths of 4 million people to prevent slavery from lasting 3 extra days? (I assume you'd agree that it isn't). How about the deaths of 5 people to prevent slavery from lasting another century? (I assume we could agree that this is a small price to pay for such a large benefit). Where is the crossover point for you?

Amnorix
06-22-2011, 06:38 AM
She's not arguing that slavery was a good thing. Are you arguing that the deaths of the better part of a million people, most of whom didn't own slaves, was a good thing? I assume you aren't. So the question becomes, how many lives was it worth to free about 4 million slaves earlier than they would have otherwise been freed by the prevailing trend toward abolition?

Would it be worth the deaths of 4 million people to prevent slavery from lasting 3 extra days? (I assume you'd agree that it isn't). How about the deaths of 5 people to prevent slavery from lasting another century? (I assume we could agree that this is a small price to pay for such a large benefit). Where is the crossover point for you?

What difference does it make in the absence of a crystal ball that tells you that information before you make the decision to go to war or not? If you had asked Lincoln or Davis on the day the war started, neither could possibly have conceived of the length and human cost of the war. It was FAR beyond the experience of any man alive in the US.

patteeu
06-22-2011, 07:16 AM
What difference does it make in the absence of a crystal ball that tells you that information before you make the decision to go to war or not? If you had asked Lincoln or Davis on the day the war started, neither could possibly have conceived of the length and human cost of the war. It was FAR beyond the experience of any man alive in the US.

The North didn't have to go to war. They may not have known what kind of casualties to expect but they knew there would be plenty of them if neither side gave up.

The point of my post wasn't to suggest that Lincoln could have used a math formula to decide whether war was worth the cost or not. It was to argue that after-the-fact assessments can go either way on the subject of whether the benefit turned out to be worth the cost depending on the assumptions you make.

BucEyedPea
06-22-2011, 08:58 AM
I've got this:

Pretty much what I said before about Marx seeing this conflict through the lens of any and all workingmen beginning with slaves and as if Lincoln was really for them or the workingman.

Don't forget Lincoln instituted the slavery of conscription and in a way where the wealthy could buy their way out for themselves or their sons.

This was Lincoln's war and his words tell us why he did it.
BTW most in the country didn't think it would happen so it wasn't taken seriously. Some people, men and women, had a picnic while watching the first battle of Bull Run thinking it would be over with then.

RedNeckRaider
06-22-2011, 09:38 AM
I didn't say he was pure as the driven snow. I freely acknowledge that Lincoln, like probably 99% of all white Americans in 1860, was racist. To desire, on a personal level, the elimination of slavery didn't mean he wanted to, for example, permit interracial marriage.

But he took valiant stands to move the elimination of slavery forward. You can't refute that, no matter how hard you try. The EP came long before advanced polling techniques. He did his best, at a time when he had many other problems and it was extremely difficult to balance the competing interests, to announce the elimination of slavery WITHIN THE JURISDICTIONS HE CONTROLLED, in order to obtain the political and, yes, moral benefits of such act (which were in accordance with his oft-stated personal beliefs), without paying too high a cost (i.e. the loss of the border states to the Confederacy).

Actually, the FACT that the South seceded upon Lincoln's election is far more powerful support for the fact that Lincoln was commonly known to disfavor slavery than anything else. The South seceded because they knew Lincoln would not lightly permit expansion of slavery into the territories -- an argument that had repeatedly been kicked down the lane by prior generations.

Side note -- Washington was also a slave owner. While his release of the slaves he owned was self-serving to his personal legacy, it doesn't render it less noble. He knew slavery was wrong, but couldn't figure out how to end it either for the country, or even for himeslf, without economic ruin. But when he had the opportunity, he released his slaves.




Pure intentions? WTF does that mean? Lincoln was a politican, and a truly GREAT one. He managed to correctly identify the place, time and method by which to emancipate slaves in such a way that it didn't send the border states fleeing to the Confederacy (rendering the Union's miltiary position untenable), obtaining benefits for the Union in foreign relations in the war (vis-a-vis England), and improving recruitment of black soldiers at a time when every man was starting to count in a very big way, while also dealing a blow to the Confederates relating to control over their slave populations and its willingness ot support the Confederacy (to the degree they heard about the EP).

To do soemthing noble in a time, place and manner that is not politically suicidal doesn't render it less noble. One needn't fall on one's sword to be noble.
I never once have implied in any way that I support slavery. You keep trying to vilify me. I assume this is because I disagree with you. I have said and continue to believe that the Emancipation Proclamation was a crock of shit because it supported slavery. I question his motives and suspect the driving force behind it was to weaken his opponent. I think Lincoln has been reinvented and given more credit than he deserves as far as his desire to champion the black man~

patteeu
06-22-2011, 10:25 AM
We shouldn't have to pretend that Lincoln and the vast majority of Northerners from that period were content-of-their-character-not-color-of-their-skin enlightened. Most of them would probably fit in with your average modern day white supremacist/separatist organization pretty well (pro racism without the support of slavery).

BucEyedPea
06-22-2011, 01:42 PM
<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BwmyJAEnz4s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The Mad Crapper
06-22-2011, 08:30 PM
Moonbats, explain to me how the lot of the slave/former slave changed 1865 to 1866.

stevieray
06-23-2011, 10:36 PM
like probably 99% of all white Americans in 1860, was racist.

probably?

not.

..it always amazes me how dems hold onto race so vehemetely...they need people to be racist (see your photo)..probably because they need blacks to believe they are less than, and Dems can pretend to save the day, when in reality, they've been sinking their ship with the same tactic for decades.

lostcause
06-24-2011, 12:59 AM
She's not arguing that slavery was a good thing. Are you arguing that the deaths of the better part of a million people, most of whom didn't own slaves, was a good thing? I assume you aren't. So the question becomes, how many lives was it worth to free about 4 million slaves earlier than they would have otherwise been freed by the prevailing trend toward abolition?

Would it be worth the deaths of 4 million people to prevent slavery from lasting 3 extra days? (I assume you'd agree that it isn't). How about the deaths of 5 people to prevent slavery from lasting another century? (I assume we could agree that this is a small price to pay for such a large benefit). Where is the crossover point for you?

Give me liberty or give me death. Three extra days is still centuries later than slavery should have ended. There is no crossover point for me, I refuse to say it is a war that didn't need to be fought. I see all these points about how it was only a couple days or years until it ended; but the same people are bitching that Lincoln was a hypocrite that liked slavery.

What I see, with my hindsight, is that this was not an institution that was going to leave the United States without war. I stand by this and I stand by the fact that if people were willing to die to protect that institution, then so be it. The Americans during the American Revolution were willing to die for representation and the British were willing to die to get the revenue from the colonies.

The Mad Crapper
06-24-2011, 05:43 AM
Give me liberty or give me death.

As long as it's someone else's blood flowing in the gutter. Spoken like a true lib.

The Mad Crapper
06-24-2011, 05:46 AM
I stand by this and I stand by the fact that if people were willing to die to protect that institution, then so be it.

What about the people willing to die to destroy that institution? You know, there are plenty of places left on the planet where slavery still exists for you to go martyr yourself.

patteeu
06-24-2011, 06:25 AM
Give me liberty or give me death. Three extra days is still centuries later than slavery should have ended. There is no crossover point for me, I refuse to say it is a war that didn't need to be fought. I see all these points about how it was only a couple days or years until it ended; but the same people are bitching that Lincoln was a hypocrite that liked slavery.

In that case, I don't think there's any reason to value your opinion on moral matters.

BucEyedPea
06-24-2011, 06:44 AM
I stand by this and I stand by the fact that if people were willing to die to protect that institution, then so be it.
Most of the people who fought were just regular folks fighting over being invaded and attacked by a country ( 'er actually the Lincoln admin) they just peacefully left. That's who Johnny Reb was.

The Americans during the American Revolution were willing to die for representation and the British were willing to die to get the revenue from the colonies.
Uhm no! There is no philosophical difference in the South's peaceful secession from the Union, than there was with the colonies secession from the crown earlier. They were getting exploited too. That exploitation was about to get worse with Lincoln's election. That high tariff, the south knew, was going to crush them.

Now about representation: Did Lincoln get any authorization from the people's house from Congress to invade the south, now a sovereign land? Nope. I mean, the man, even resorted to jailing some congressmen who disagreed with his war. He shot war protestors and shut down printing presses. Newspapers even carried articles on how the union was VOLUNTARY. He was not exactly popular. He governed like a tyrant in order to force his hand. That your for representation— my arse!

Amnorix
06-24-2011, 09:01 PM
So all you have is snide sarcasm. I understand you can't refute any of those FACTS about Lincoln or what fully Marx thought here even with the chapter linked where I got that from. You've proved your point—you got nuthin.'


Seriously, who the heck cares what Marx thought of Lincoln? It doesn't make a damn bit of difference to anything at all. Marx was trying to foment a political, social and economic movement. If he tried to link what he was doing to what Lincoln did, that had far less to do with Lincoln and far more to do with Marx trying to encourage the "masses" to follow his lead.

Marx lived until 1883, and the American Civil War was a relatively dramatic event in world history. It is not particularly surprising that he might try to glom onto Lincoln's popular actions and try to analogize it to what he was trying to accomplish. It's also not really persuasive of anything at all.

Amnorix
06-24-2011, 09:14 PM
Don't forget Lincoln instituted the slavery of conscription and in a way where the wealthy could buy their way out for themselves or their sons.

Sorry, but your beloved Confederates BEAT HIM TO IT!!!

ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL


The first general American military draft was enacted by the Confederate government on April 16, 1862, more than a year before the federal government did the same. The Confederacy took this step because it had to; its territory was being assailed on every front by overwhelming numbers, and the defending armies needed men to fill the ranks. The compulsory-service law was very unpopular in the South because it was viewed as a usurpation of the rights of individuals by the central government, one of the reasons the South went to war in the first place.

Under the Conscription Act, all healthy white men between the ages of 18 and 35 were liable for a three year term of service. The act also extended the terms of enlistment for all one-year soldiers to three years. A September 1862 amendment raised the age limit to 45, and February 1864, the limits were extended to range between 17 and 50. Exempted from the draft were men employed in certain occupations considered to be most valuable for the home front, such as railroad and river workers, civil officials, telegraph operators, miners, druggists and teachers. On October 11, the Confederate Congress amended the draft law to exempt anyone who owned 20 or more slaves. Further, until the practice was abolished in December 1863, a rich drafted man could hire a substitute to take his place in the ranks, an unfair practice that brought on charges of class discrimination.Many Southerners, including the governors of Georgia and North Carolina, were vehemently opposed to the draft and worked to thwart its effect in their states. Thousands of men were exempted by the sham addition of their names to the civil servant rolls or by their enlistment in the state militias. Ninety-two percent of all exemptions for state service came from Georgia and North Carolina.


http://www.wtv-zone.com/civilwar/condraft.html

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/conscript.htm


This was Lincoln's war and his words tell us why he did it.

You, umm, know the Confederates fired on Sumter right? That they started the war? The federal government could have, of course, allowed the Confederates to take their forts, I support, but they did, you know, fire first.

You also know, presumably, that fighting for the Union was overwhelmingly popular in teh North. Sure, not everywhere. Not in NYC, for example. But certainly across the board the volunteerism to join at first was as high as it was in the South. That's part of the reason why the NORTH could avoid the draft for longer than the South, for example.


BTW most in the country didn't think it would happen so it wasn't taken seriously. Some people, men and women, had a picnic while watching the first battle of Bull Run thinking it would be over with then.

Didn't think what would happen? The Bull Run picnic was a bunch of moronic civilians who thought the North's army would crush the South's. Not much more to read into it than that.

The Mad Crapper
06-24-2011, 09:17 PM
Sorry, but your beloved Confederates BEAT HIM TO IT!!!

ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL ROFL



http://www.wtv-zone.com/civilwar/condraft.html

http://www.etymonline.com/cw/conscript.htm




You, umm, know the Confederates fired on Sumter right? That they started the war? The federal government could have, of course, allowed the Confederates to take their forts, I support, but they did, you know, fire first.

You also know, presumably, that fighting for the Union was overwhelmingly popular in teh North. Sure, not everywhere. Not in NYC, for example. But certainly across the board the volunteerism to join at first was as high as it was in the South. That's part of the reason why the NORTH could avoid the draft for longer than the South, for example.



Didn't think what would happen? The Bull Run picnic was a bunch of moronic civilians who thought the North's army would crush the South's. Not much more to read into it than that.

LMAO

What a friggin' loser.

Amnorix
06-24-2011, 09:17 PM
I never once have implied in any way that I support slavery. You keep trying to vilify me. I assume this is because I disagree with you. I have said and continue to believe that the Emancipation Proclamation was a crock of shit because it supported slavery. I question his motives and suspect the driving force behind it was to weaken his opponent. I think Lincoln has been reinvented and given more credit than he deserves as far as his desire to champion the black man~

I understand now, I guess, though you draw ridiculous conclusions.

Of course, the EP had military and political motivations. But you seem to fail to recognize that it was not an order that was going to be universally accepted. Just because the EP helped to achieve military and political goals doesn't mean that it wasn't also promulgated in connection wiht a genuine desire to eliminate slavery because slavery was an evil.

The same problem vexed Lincoln that had vexed so many Presidents before him who were not particularly fond of slavery -- that it was embedded in the Constitution, and that the entire issue was a powderkeg of the highest order.

Amnorix
06-24-2011, 09:18 PM
LMAO

What a friggin' loser.

Your refutation of my arguments is as skillful as ever.

It's sad to see that you're back and once again carpet bombing this place with your feces, errr, posts.

Amnorix
06-24-2011, 09:22 PM
probably?

not.

..it always amazes me how dems hold onto race so vehemetely...they need people to be racist (see your photo)..probably because they need blacks to believe they are less than, and Dems can pretend to save the day, when in reality, they've been sinking their ship with the same tactic for decades.


errr....what?

I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

Lincoln was a Republican President, as you likely know, and I'm ardently supporting him here. You can argue whether the Republican party now is anything like the Republican Party of 1860, but that's another debate entirely.

Not sure what you're arguing. Do you believe most whites in the 1860s weren't racist? That it definitely was 99% that was racist?

The Mad Crapper
06-24-2011, 09:23 PM
Your refutation of my arguments is as skillful as ever.

It's sad to see that you're back and once again carpet bombing this place with your feces, errr, posts.

You're a spoiled rich white brat. You don't know shit about shit. You think you can talk down to people well guess what asshole I'm here to straighten your (something something).

Amnorix
06-24-2011, 09:33 PM
Most of the people who fought were just regular folks fighting over being invaded and attacked by a country ( 'er actually the Lincoln admin) they just peacefully left. That's who Johnny Reb was.

I agree with this, except to the extent you are arguing that the Lincoln Administration overrode the opinion of a majority of Northerners regarding whether to fight the war. If that's what you're saying, then you're off your rocker on that part.

Most Confederate troops fought to defend their homes. That is true. But the reason the leadership of the South seceded was to protect the institution of slavery. And I figured that out BECAUSE THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY SAID WHEN THEY SECEDED!!!


Uhm no! There is no philosophical difference in the South's peaceful secession from the Union, than there was with the colonies secession from the crown earlier. They were getting exploited too. That exploitation was about to get worse with Lincoln's election. That high tariff, the south knew, was going to crush them. [/quote]

Peaceful succession? Major Anderson and his men would love to be able to discuss that with you.

The tariff. What a joke. Overwhelming and irrefutable evidence has been repeatedly rammed down your throat and up your sphincter regarding the reasons the South seceded, based not only on the statements of the military and political leaders of the day, but ON THEIR OWN ARTICLES OF SECESSION, and yet you continue to turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to it all. To say that this undermines EVERY other argument you're making on thsi thread is a dramatic understatement. You have NO credibility whatsoever left if you continue to hold to that absurd position in light of the evidence against you.

But, of course, you never answre those posts. Because they are unanswerable. Instead, you just mumble tariffs every now and hten and hope it goes unnoticed. Or something.

Now about representation: Did Lincoln get any authorization from the people's house from Congress to invade the south, now a sovereign land? Nope. I mean, the man, even resorted to jailing some congressmen who disagreed with his war. He shot war protestors and shut down printing presses. Newspapers even carried articles on how the union was VOLUNTARY. He was not exactly popular. He governed like a tyrant in order to force his hand. That your for representation— my arse!

You always seem to forget that the Union was easily able to secure men for its armies for a very long while and, most importantly, that Lincoln was OVERWHELMINGLY RE-ELECTED in the election of 1864.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/images/00035719.jpg


Your arguments regarding his tyranny and disregard for the Constitution pale in the face of the internal upheaval he faced and, in many cases, in simple comparison to the Confederacy itself, which was far more intolerant of allowing freedom of the press etc. than the Union was during the war.

Amnorix
06-24-2011, 09:39 PM
You're a spoiled rich white brat. You don't know shit about shit. You think you can talk down to people well guess what asshole I'm here to straighten your f a g g it y ass out.


LMAOLMAOLMAO


Try not to burst a blood vessel. I may not know much, but I know I know more about the Civil War than you.

go bowe
06-25-2011, 12:01 AM
You're a spoiled rich white brat. You don't know shit about shit. You think you can talk down to people well guess what asshole I'm here to straighten your f a g g it y ass out.
is "pillowbitergity" filtered out around here?

besides, why would you go around talking about straightening a pillowbitergot's ass out?

aren't you worried that someone will think you're a pillowbiter?

one more thing, please proceed to straighten his fag g i t y ass out, this should be fun...

*sits and eats popcorn*

go bowe
06-25-2011, 12:02 AM
LMAOLMAOLMAO


Try not to burst a blood vessel. I may not know much, but I know I know more about the Civil War than you.

spoken just like a spoiled rich white brat type, tee hee hee... :LOL: :LOL: :LOL:

what do spoiled rich black brat types look like i wonder...

BucEyedPea
06-25-2011, 07:48 AM
Hey Amnorix,
The south had a right to shoot invaders of it's territorial waters ( an act of war) and breakers of an armistice ( another act of war) on re-supply of Sumter. Even Buchanan knew that would be an act of war. I notice you ignore these un-reported facts about Lincoln. You're just like LBJ and Bush Jr.

RedNeckRaider
06-25-2011, 07:54 AM
I understand now, I guess, though you draw ridiculous conclusions.

Of course, the EP had military and political motivations. But you seem to fail to recognize that it was not an order that was going to be universally accepted. Just because the EP helped to achieve military and political goals doesn't mean that it wasn't also promulgated in connection wiht a genuine desire to eliminate slavery because slavery was an evil.

The same problem vexed Lincoln that had vexed so many Presidents before him who were not particularly fond of slavery -- that it was embedded in the Constitution, and that the entire issue was a powderkeg of the highest order.

I understand it was not a popular stance, I get that. It is not ridiculous conclusions to say Lincoln was not the great defender of the black man that he is built up to be by many. Did this lead to the end of slavery yes but it was a byproduct of the war. As far this being the beginning of the government over stepping it boundries that is another subject and debate~

patteeu
06-25-2011, 08:12 AM
You're a spoiled rich white brat. You don't know shit about shit. You think you can talk down to people well guess what asshole I'm here to straighten your f a g g it y ass out.

:shake: It's not that hard to stay within the rules here, dude.

patteeu
06-25-2011, 08:15 AM
is "pillowbitergity" filtered out around here?

besides, why would you go around talking about straightening a pillowbitergot's ass out?

LMAO

aren't you worried that someone will think you're a pillowbiter?

one more thing, please proceed to straighten his pillowbiter g i t y ass out, this should be fun...

*sits and eats popcorn*

Too late, he's already gone.

stevieray
06-25-2011, 12:02 PM
Not sure what you're arguing. Do you believe most whites in the 1860s weren't racist?

You said 99 percent were racist.

I disagree.

Amnorix
06-26-2011, 10:23 AM
Hey Amnorix,
The south had a right to shoot invaders of it's territorial waters ( an act of war) and breakers of an armistice ( another act of war) on re-supply of Sumter. Even Buchanan knew that would be an act of war. I notice you ignore these un-reported facts about Lincoln. You're just like LBJ and Bush Jr.


errr...what "unreported facts". That Lincoln went to resupply Sumter, or that Buchanan just wanted to maintain the status quo until he got the hell out of office? Neither is unreported.

The south had no right to shoot at the resupply mission to Sumter because it had given up, forever, its separate sovereignty (as an independent "nation") when it joined with the other states in forming the United States. Even Madison acknowledged that there was no right to secession. No secession was legal, therefore there was no right to shoot at federal facilities.

Buchanan's opinion became irrelevant when Lincoln was sworn into office. Once again, however, you are overstating what Buchanan thought. He DID try to resupply Sumter, but when the Confederates fired, he did not press the issue. That doesn't mean he AGREED that the Confederates had the RIGHT to shoot on that ship. Actually, it's pretty much entirely the opposite.

Amnorix
06-26-2011, 10:25 AM
:shake: It's not that hard to stay within the rules here, dude.

That's a real shame.

Amnorix
06-26-2011, 10:26 AM
You said 99 percent were racist.

I disagree.

Ok, well, thanks for that contribution. I know you're the master of the one sentence post, so I won't ask for more from you.

I imagine that even we (who agree on so little) would agree that the overwhelming majority of whites in America in 1860 had positions that would be considered very racist under 2011 standards.

Barak Obuttocks
06-26-2011, 10:41 AM
Maybe the whites in America in 1860 knew something we didn't

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/the_school_from_hell_nVS0ubg9F7uzULCHOrNh2H

VAChief
06-26-2011, 11:10 AM
Maybe the whites in America in 1860 knew something we didn't

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/the_school_from_hell_nVS0ubg9F7uzULCHOrNh2H

You really are a sad little man.

Barak Obuttocks
06-26-2011, 11:48 AM
The "Civil War" resulted in total casualties of 1,094,453.

The Federals lost 110,100 killed in action and mortally wounded, and another 224,580 to disease. The Confederates lost approximately 94,000 as a result of battle and another 164,000 to disease. The best estimate of Federal army personnel wounded is 275,175; naval personnel wounded, 2,226. Surviving Confederate records indicate 194,026 wounded.

When you factor in the wounded who later died of their injuries after the war, we're talking over 500,000 American men killed--- a half million men. Dead.

Civilian casualties were probably just as high.

In dollars and cents, a final official estimate in 1879 totaled $6,190,000,000 spent by the union. The Confederacy spent perhaps $2,099,808,707. By 1906 another $3.3 billion already had been spent by the U.S. government on Northerners' pensions and other veterans' benefits for former Federal soldiers. Southern states and private philanthropy provided benefits to the Confederate veterans. The amount spent on benefits eventually well exceeded the war's original cost.

The physical devastation, almost all of it in the South, was enormous: burned or plundered homes, pillaged countryside, untold losses in crops and farm animals, ruined buildings and bridges, devastated college campuses, and neglected roads all left the South in ruins.

The cost of the reconstruction? Billions. The War on poverty? Billions.

For what?

Amnorix, Lost Cause, VaChief talk a good game, but not for one second do I believe any one of those punks would put on a uniform and grab a rifle and join the fight at Gettysburg. But they are all too happy to throw someone else into that meatgrinder.

Again, I ask, FOR WHAT?

http://www.delcotimes.com/articles/2011/06/26/news/doc4e0696aaf127f552097776.txt?nstrack=sid:3501255|met:300|cat:0|order:1

stevieray
06-26-2011, 12:19 PM
Ok, well, thanks for that contribution. I know you're the master of the one sentence post, so I won't ask for more from you.

I imagine that even we (who agree on so little) would agree that the overwhelming majority of whites in America in 1860 had positions that would be considered very racist under 2011 standards.

stick your condescending remark up your ass.

and your assesment of racism is FOS.

Black men received pensions for fighting in the Revolutionary War. As I said before, you NEED people to be racist, probably to cover for your own racism

Amnorix
06-26-2011, 01:56 PM
stick your condescending remark up your ass.

and your assesment of racism is FOS.

Black men received pensions for fighting in the Revolutionary War. As I said before, you NEED people to be racist, probably to cover for your own racism

So your argument is that most white men in America in 1860 were not racist? Meaning, presumably, that they viewed African-Americans (and other minorities) as being their equals.

That's an interesting view. Ludicrous, but interesting.

Barak Obuttocks
06-26-2011, 02:21 PM
amnorix (obama's hand-puppet):So your argument is that most white men in America in 1860 were not racist? Meaning, presumably, that they viewed African-Americans (and other minorities) as being their equals.

That's an interesting view. Ludicrous, but interesting.

If most white men in America in 1860 were racist, and the war was fought to end slavery (your two main assertions in this thread), then who were all those white guys fighting for the union?

You don't make any sense.

Jenson71
06-26-2011, 03:21 PM
stick your condescending remark up your ass.

and your assesment of racism is FOS.

Black men received pensions for fighting in the Revolutionary War. As I said before, you NEED people to be racist, probably to cover for your own racism

A lot of blacks were promised their freedom after serving. That usually didn't happen. You might also be interested in the initial hesitation of blacks serving. Why initial? Because it wasn't until after the British gave their own enticing offers (freedom) did most whites think that maybe the blacks could serve.

Do you purposely try to whitewash racism in America, or are you just uneducated?

blackloyalist.com

Jenson71
06-26-2011, 03:27 PM
If most white men in America in 1860 were racist, and the war was fought to end slavery (your two main assertions in this thread), then who were all those white guys fighting for the union?

You don't make any sense.

A lot of people were either drafted or volunteered because you were going to be drafted. Or you served for someone who paid you to serve for them. Or you volunteered because you saw the United States was in danger of disintegrating. Or your friend went and told you to come along.

I'd say most whites from IA or Ohio or NY didn't see many blacks, weren't going to associate with them, but didn't feel they should be enslaved by any means.

Amnorix
06-26-2011, 04:03 PM
If most white men in America in 1860 were racist, and the war was fought to end slavery (your two main assertions in this thread), then who were all those white guys fighting for the union?

You don't make any sense.

More like your reading comprehension sucks.

Dave Lane
06-26-2011, 04:10 PM
As long as it's someone else's blood flowing in the gutter. Spoken like a true lib.

No, only as long as it is yours.

Dave Lane
06-26-2011, 04:13 PM
Ok, well, thanks for that contribution. I know you're the master of the one sentence post, so I won't ask for more from you.

I imagine that even we (who agree on so little) would agree that the overwhelming majority of whites in America in 1860 had positions that would be considered very racist under 2011 standards.

Duh... I mean is this really so hard, or does your racism make you feel the need to cover your tracks.

Dave Lane
06-26-2011, 04:23 PM
I think Steven Douglas' comment during the 1858 debate with Lincoln sums up the feeling of the time. I paraphase because I can't find the exact quote.

Mr. Lincoln thinks the negro his equal and in this we do agree. If god had intended the negro to be our equal he has taken his time in showing this. In all of its 10,000 years on this earth in everyplace it has gone and to every person it has met there, it has been that person's inferior.

This was 1858 so as close to the Civil War as you can get. There was no rebuke, there was no apology, and there was, I am certain, a large degree of agreement from the (republican / conservatives of the time) saying of course they are inferior. Racism was even thought of at the time, it wasn't even that far evolved yet.

KC native
06-26-2011, 04:24 PM
amnorix (obama's hand-puppet):So your argument is that most white men in America in 1860 were not racist? Meaning, presumably, that they viewed African-Americans (and other minorities) as being their equals.

That's an interesting view. Ludicrous, but interesting.

If most white men in America in 1860 were racist, and the war was fought to end slavery (your two main assertions in this thread), then who were all those white guys fighting for the union?

You don't make any sense.

Wow, so dicklick is just switching to mults when his regular account is banned? Glad to see consistent moderation again.

Dave Lane
06-26-2011, 04:27 PM
Snippets from speeches by Douglass

But the Abolition party really think that under the Declaration of Independence the negro is equal to the white man, and that negro equality is an inalienable right conferred by the Almighty, and hence that all human laws in violation of it are null and void. With such men it is no use for me to argue. I hold that the signers of the Declaration of Independence had no reference to negroes at all when they declared all men to be created equal. They did not mean negro, nor the savage Indians, nor the Fejee Islanders, nor any other barbarous race. They were speaking of white men. ("It's so," "it's so," and cheers.)

I hold that this Government was established on the white basis. It was established by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and should be administered by white men, and none others. But it does not follow, by any means, that merely because the negro is not a citizen, and merely because he is not our equal, that, therefore, he should be a slave. On the contrary, it does follow that we ought to extend to the negro race, and to all other dependent races all the rights, all the privileges, and all the immunities which they can exercise consistently with the safety of society. Humanity requires that we should give them all these privileges; Christianity commands that we should extend those privileges to them. The question then arises what are those privileges, and what is the nature and extent of them. My answer is that that is a question which each State must answer for itself. We in Illinois have decided it for ourselves. We tried slavery, kept it up for twelve years, and finding that it was not profitable, we abolished it for that reason, and became a free State. We adopted in its stead the policy that a negro in this State shall not be a slave and shall not be a citizen. We have a right to adopt that policy.

Dave Lane
06-26-2011, 04:30 PM
"Yes, here you find men who hurra for Lincoln, and say he is right when he discards all distinction between races, or when he declares that he discards the doctrine that there is such a thing as a superior and inferior race; and Abolitionists are required and expected to vote for Mr. Lincoln because he goes for the equality of races, holding that in the Declaration of Independence the white man and negro were declared equal

-Steven Douglas 1858

RedNeckRaider
06-26-2011, 04:30 PM
Wow, so dicklick is just switching to mults when his regular account is banned? Glad to see consistent moderation again.

You of all people have no reason to question anyone here :rolleyes:~

KC native
06-26-2011, 04:31 PM
You of all people have no reason to question anyone here :rolleyes:~

Eat shit. Glad to see you're acting like a 2 year old as usual.

RedNeckRaider
06-26-2011, 04:34 PM
"Yes, here you find men who hurra for Lincoln, and say he is right when he discards all distinction between races, or when he declares that he discards the doctrine that there is such a thing as a superior and inferior race; and Abolitionists are required and expected to vote for Mr. Lincoln because he goes for the equality of races, holding that in the Declaration of Independence the white man and negro were declared equal

-Steven Douglas 1858
He was talking about the guy that said this???

"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone"

Dave Lane
06-26-2011, 04:36 PM
In the northern part of the State I found Lincoln's ally, in the person of FRED DOUGLASS, THE NEGRO, preaching Abolition doctrines, while Lincoln was discussing the same principles down here, and Trumbull, a little farther down, was advocating the election of members to the Legislature who would act in concert with Lincoln's and Fred Douglass's friends. I witnessed an effort made at Chicago by Lincoln's then associates, and now supporters, to put Fred Douglass, the negro, on the stand at a Democratic meeting, to reply to the illustrious General Cass, when he was addressing the people there. They had the same negro hunting me down, and they now have a negro traversing the northern counties of the State, and speaking in behalf of Lincoln.

Barak Obuttocks
06-26-2011, 05:27 PM
Dave Lane prattling about Christian Abolitionists who actually did something to end slavery, unlike his cowardly atheist ilk, who wrapped themselves in the flag and hid under the desk. LMAO

I wonder what the 500 million dead soldiers would say if they could speak from their graves:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008252/Teenage-gang-charged-lynching-law-savage-attack-18-year-old-student.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

The war was a tragic mistake of epic proportions.

Bill Parcells
06-26-2011, 05:40 PM
You're a spoiled rich white brat. You don't know shit about shit. You think you can talk down to people well guess what asshole I'm here to straighten your f a g g it y ass out.

What happened to the Jet Moses I remember? dude, you are becoming embarrassing. seriously.

BucEyedPea
06-26-2011, 05:41 PM
In the northern part of the State I found Lincoln's ally, in the person of FRED DOUGLASS, THE NEGRO, preaching Abolition doctrines, while Lincoln was discussing the same principles down here, and Trumbull, a little farther down, was advocating the election of members to the Legislature who would act in concert with Lincoln's and Fred Douglass's friends. I witnessed an effort made at Chicago by Lincoln's then associates, and now supporters, to put Fred Douglass, the negro, on the stand at a Democratic meeting, to reply to the illustrious General Cass, when he was addressing the people there. They had the same negro hunting me down, and they now have a negro traversing the northern counties of the State, and speaking in behalf of Lincoln.
Proof please of Lincoln discussing the same principles of Douglas. There are a lot of false quotes that have been uncovered as being Lincoln's. I thought you railed against those using false quotes. Let me see 'em. Otherwise, I link some of them Fake Lincoln Quotes (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo25.html)

Of course a slave, even a freed one, would side with whoever will get them where they want to go. Can't blame them. That doesn't mean he knows the truth of all Lincoln did. Lincoln, however was a shrewd snake who btw did many things you lefties criticize the right for. Things that Lincoln used to justify his UN-Constitutional actions and violence. The Lincoln Myth is one of the ideological cornerstones of the centralized state, however he still was no friend of the abolitionists. He also spoke out of both sides of his mouth about religion, may have been an atheist because he ridiculed those who believed in God, but he clearly understand many Americans of his time were not so he used religious rhetoric to get them on his side. The evidence is overwhelming that Lincoln was a classic con man.

BucEyedPea
06-26-2011, 05:54 PM
Dave Lane prattling about Christian Abolitionists who actually did something to end slavery, unlike his cowardly atheist ilk, who wrapped themselves in the flag and hid under the desk. LMAO

I wonder what the 500 million dead soldiers would say if they could speak from their graves:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008252/Teenage-gang-charged-lynching-law-savage-attack-18-year-old-student.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
The war was a tragic mistake of epic proportions.

Maybe it's because there is evidence Lincoln was a non-believer and also ridiculed those who did believe in a God. He read the Bible, which he mocked, to prepare for his political career. Kinda like how religion mocker Dave Lane is using religion to be right.

Gabor Boritt wrote a book called the Gettysburg Bible which was featured in Newsweek.

Boritt does not deny that Lincoln was a non-believer.

"He would not join a church, could not embrace the Christian conception of sin and redemption, kept mostly silent about Jesus, and showed no inclination to build a personal relationship with God," he writes in Newsweek.

He "rejected, even ridiculed" the Calvinism of his parents. But Lincoln was a master politician, once defined by Murray Rothbard as one who is "a masterful liar, conniver, and manipulator." There has never been anyone better at it than Lincoln.

Lincoln may have been an atheist, but he fully understood that most Americans were certainly not, that they read the Bible, and that their emotions could be rather easily swayed by references to the Bible, especially at wartime when emotion seems to overwhelm reason on the part of much of the population.

As preparation for his political career Lincoln read the Bible (which he mocked) over and over (along with Shakespeare and various books on rhetoric and speech making). He cynically used Biblical language to make political points, sometimes insinuating that his policies were the will of God, and at other times absolving himself from all responsibility for them, saying, for example, that all the death and destruction of the war was the work of God, and that he had nothing to do with it. That was the theme of his Second Inaugural Address. The war just "came," he said, and was God's punishment of America's sins (pretending to know what is in the mind of God)....


Newsweek's Voodoo 'Gospel' ( http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo118.html[/url)

BucEyedPea
06-26-2011, 06:02 PM
I find it odd that the left rails against corporatism aka state capitalism yet Lincoln was the epitome of that system. ( what I often an referring to when I use the term mercantilism)

BucEyedPea
06-26-2011, 06:04 PM
Duh... I mean is this really so hard, or does your racism make you feel the need to cover your tracks.

Well it's obvious your statism doesn't need to be covered with any tracks.

BucEyedPea
06-26-2011, 06:10 PM
Snippets from speeches by Douglass

But the Abolition party really think that under the Declaration of Independence the negro is equal to the white man, and that negro equality is an inalienable right conferred by the Almighty, and hence that all human laws in violation of it are null and void. With such men it is no use for me to argue. I hold that the signers of the Declaration of Independence had no reference to negroes at all when they declared all men to be created equal. They did not mean negro, nor the savage Indians, nor the Fejee Islanders, nor any other barbarous race. They were speaking of white men. ("It's so," "it's so," and cheers.)

I hold that this Government was established on the white basis. It was established by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and should be administered by white men, and none others. But it does not follow, by any means, that merely because the negro is not a citizen, and merely because he is not our equal, that, therefore, he should be a slave. On the contrary, it does follow that we ought to extend to the negro race, and to all other dependent races all the rights, all the privileges, and all the immunities which they can exercise consistently with the safety of society. Humanity requires that we should give them all these privileges; Christianity commands that we should extend those privileges to them. The question then arises what are those privileges, and what is the nature and extent of them. My answer is that that is a question which each State must answer for itself. We in Illinois have decided it for ourselves. We tried slavery, kept it up for twelve years, and finding that it was not profitable, we abolished it for that reason, and became a free State. We adopted in its stead the policy that a negro in this State shall not be a slave and shall not be a citizen. We have a right to adopt that policy.
Irrelevant as to why Lincoln went to war.

Besides, we already saw words of Douglas courtesy of orange. These do not tell us why Lincoln provoked St Sumter in violation of an armistice and invading territorial waters of a fledging sovereign state and invaded other southern states without provocation. You pro-Lincoln guys can't change the facts that were never presented in New England dominated history books.

BucEyedPea
06-26-2011, 06:14 PM
"Yes, here you find men who hurra for Lincoln, and say he is right when he discards all distinction between races, or when he declares that he discards the doctrine that there is such a thing as a superior and inferior race; and Abolitionists are required and expected to vote for Mr. Lincoln because he goes for the equality of races, holding that in the Declaration of Independence the white man and negro were declared equal

-Steven Douglas 1858
NOPE
Lincoln clearly opposed racial equality on many occasions, such as during the August 21, 1858, debate in Ottawa, Illinois with Stephan Douglas, where he said:
"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races.... I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position."
Most Americans seem totally unfamiliar with this actual quotation, and many others just like it. They seem instead to be of the opinion that the following quotation is Lincoln's real attitude on race: "The restoration of the Rebel States to the Union must rest upon the principle of civil and political equality of both races...." Again, there is no record anywhere of Lincoln ever having said this, says Boller. [From Link above.]

He spoke out of both sides of his mouth on this issue.

BucEyedPea
06-26-2011, 06:38 PM
FACTS:

The abolition societies of the North never claimed more than two percent of the Northern adult population as members. Lincoln was never an abolitionist, distanced himself from them politically, and even boasted in a speech in New York City that

"we have abolitionists in Illinois; we shot one the other day."

All of this makes it extremely unlikely that anyone who voted for Lincoln in the 1860 election did so because they thought he would end Southern slavery (which of course the Republican Party Platform of 1860 did not promise).


The ONE sole cause for the Civil war has been replaced with a politically correct one. During the 60's and 70's universities used as a text Kenneth Stampp’s The Causes of the Civil War. Stampp was a former president of the American Historical Association and his scholarship has been replaced the new political correctness. I see this is being true. Of course this sets up more UN interference and invasions in other lands for humanitarian aka progressive reasons.

Furthermore secession does not necessitate any war, regardless for any reason for that secession. Secession and reasons for going to war are separate issues.


When New Englanders openly and publicly plotted to secede for fourteen years after Thomas Jefferson’s election, culminating in the 1814 secession convention in Hartford, Connecticut, neither President Jefferson nor President Madison (or anyone else) said one word about the appropriate response to a Northern-state secession being "invasion," "force," and "bloodshed." These are the words Lincoln used in his first inaugural address to describe what would happen in any Southern state that seceded.

The Official, Politically-Correct Cause of the 'Civil War' (http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo206.html)

banyon
06-26-2011, 07:25 PM
What happened to the Jet Moses I remember? dude, you are becoming embarrassing. seriously.

You brought this waste of bandwidth troll here. Isn't it time for some type of forum-wide mea culpa?

Dave Lane
06-26-2011, 07:36 PM
You brought this waste of bandwidth troll here. Isn't it time for some type of forum-wide mea culpa?

Who the fuck brought BEP? Jfc tar and feathers is way too good for them.

Bill Parcells
06-26-2011, 07:44 PM
You brought this waste of bandwidth troll here. Isn't it time for some type of forum-wide mea culpa?

OH STFU..He at least stays in the cesspool you love. I will give him credit for that.

Bill Parcells
06-26-2011, 07:46 PM
Who the **** brought BEP? Jfc tar and feathers is way too good for them.

BEP is has 4 browsers open on her puter during the day and posts on political forums all over the internet. kind of hard to blame anybody for bringing her here.

Dave Lane
06-26-2011, 07:48 PM
My birth was a tragic mistake of epic proportions.

FYP

Dave Lane
06-26-2011, 08:06 PM
More Douglas from 1858. They did love them some black folk.

The last time I came here to make a speech, while talking from the stand to you, people of Freeport, as I am doing to-day, I saw a carriage, and a magnificent one it was, drive up and take a position on the outside of the crowd; a beautiful young lady was sitting on the box-seat, whilst Fred Douglass and her mother reclined inside, and the owner of the carriage acted as driver.

(Laughter, cheers, cries of right, what have you to say against it, &c.)

I saw this in your own town.

("What of it.")

All I have to say of it is this, that if you, Black Republicans, think that the negro ought to be on a social equality with your wives and daughters, and ride in a carriage with your wife, whilst you drive the team, you have perfect right to do so. I am told that one of Fred Douglass' kinsmen, another rich black negro, is now traveling in this part of the State making speeches for his friend Lincoln as the champion of black men.

("White men, white men," and "what have you to say against it?" That's right,&c.)

All I have to say on that subject is, that those of you who believe that the negro is your equal and ought to be on an equality with you socially, politically, and legally, have a right to entertain those opinions, and of course will vote for Mr. Lincoln.

("Down with the negro," no, no, &c.)

Dave Lane
06-26-2011, 08:18 PM
More. The () items are the crowd crying out in agreement or disagreement.

Now, I do not believe that the Almighty ever intended the negro to be the equal of the white man.

("Never, never.")

If he did, he has been a long time demonstrating the fact.

(Cheers.)

For thousands of years the negro has been a race upon the earth, and during all that time, in all latitudes and climates, wherever he has wandered or been taken, he has been inferior to the race which he has there met. He belongs to an inferior race, and must always occupy an inferior position.

("Good," "that's so," &c.)

Brock
06-26-2011, 08:34 PM
OH STFU..He at least stays in the cesspool you love. I will give him credit for that.

Credit for staying in here because he'd be instantly and permanently banned if he brought his bullshit to the lounge? Yeah, okay.

|Zach|
06-26-2011, 08:35 PM
lol.

Dave Lane
06-26-2011, 08:36 PM
One last item from Douglas's speech which I believe is pretty indicative of of prevailing thoughts at the time.

Mr. Lincoln, following the example and lead of all the little Abolition orators, who go around and lecture in the basements of schools and churches, reads from the Declaration of Independence, that all men were created equal, and then asks, how can you deprive a negro of that equality which God and the Declaration of Independence awards to him? He and they maintain that negro equality is guarantied by the laws of God, and that it is asserted in the Declaration of Independence. If they think so, of course they have a right to say so, and so vote. I do not question Mr. Lincoln's conscientious belief that the negro was made his equal, and hence is his brother,

(laughter,)

but for my own part, I do not regard the negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother or any kin to me whatever.

("Never." "Hit him again," and cheers.)

BucEyedPea
06-26-2011, 09:06 PM
Irrelevant to Lincoln's motives. It's the opinion of Douglas.

Amnorix
06-26-2011, 10:21 PM
Irrelevant to Lincoln's motives. It's the opinion of Douglas.

Presumably you realize that this applies 10x to your quotes of Karl Marx on Lincoln...

Dave Lane
06-26-2011, 10:53 PM
I think its pretty obvious most people of the time considered that Lincoln was at the very best sympathetic to the to the plight of the slaves, and by some as a straight abolitionist. Coupled with the back up for Amnorix on what attitudes toward slavery were at the time the passages are an interesting group of quotes.

Its funny the number of people who are saying Lincoln, the great champion of the slaves, was a racist and yet Stevie says it isn't so.

The Mad Crapper
06-27-2011, 05:53 AM
A lot of people were either drafted or volunteered because you were going to be drafted. Or you served for someone who paid you to serve for them. Or you volunteered because you saw the United States was in danger of disintegrating. Or your friend went and told you to come along.

I'd say most whites from IA or Ohio or NY didn't see many blacks, weren't going to associate with them, but didn't feel they should be enslaved by any means.

So...

they didn't fight to end slavery? Then what were they fighting for?

The Mad Crapper
06-27-2011, 05:58 AM
More like your reading comprehension sucks.

No, you clearly stated that we had a war in which 500 million + white men were killed---

To end slavery... in a racist country.

This is typical for moonbats, don't sweat it. Mental gymnastics are always required to fit all the square pegs into round holes adhering to a make believe narrative.

Amnorix
06-27-2011, 06:30 AM
No, you clearly stated that we had a war in which 500 million + white men were killed---

To end slavery... in a racist country.

This is typical for moonbats, don't sweat it. Mental gymnastics are always required to fit all the square pegs into round holes adhering to a make believe narrative.

As I've said before, repeatedly, the North didn't begin the fight to end slavery, they fought it to save the Union. Later the fight became, at least for some, a fight to end slavery.

The South seceded to protect the institution of slavery.

Let me know if you need any further help on this.


http://www.mommyposh.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/feeding-baby-highchair.bmp

The Mad Crapper
06-27-2011, 06:44 AM
As I've said before, repeatedly, the North didn't begin the fight to end slavery


I agree.

they fought it to save the Union.



Well thats a real nice way of describing a war of aggression waged at times against a civilian population who didn't want to be a part of that union.

Later the fight became, at least for some, a fight to end slavery.

Yeah, for some. I'm sure some faught for gay marriage, too. :drool:

The South seceded to protect the institution of slavery.


Yup, it was a monolith. Unlike on the union side, where it was "some".

Maybe you can explain this to me---

From 1783 until 1861, the institution of slavery didn't need to be "protected by secession", but all of a sudden at that time it did. There was no provacation whatsoever from the federal government.

Under the Stars and Stripes, slavery no problem.
Under the Stars and Bars, slavery a problem.

180 years, no problem.
1 year, problem.

Amnorix
06-27-2011, 07:04 AM
Well thats a real nice way of describing a war of aggression waged at times against a civilian population who didn't want to be a part of that union.

The Southern leaders knew the likely cost of secession. It's a nicer word than rebellion, but...

Yup, it was a monolith. Unlike on the union side, where it was "some".

Maybe you can explain this to me---

From 1783 until 1861, the institution of slavery didn't need to be "protected by secession", but all of a sudden at that time it did. There was no provacation whatsoever from the federal government.

Under the Stars and Stripes, slavery no problem.
Under the Stars and Bars, slavery a problem.

180 years, no problem.
1 year, problem.

There is a veritable mountain of evidence that I have posted in this very thread in support of my position, including the articles of secession promulgated by the states themselves as the reasons for their acts.

I'm sorry you don't like the facts, but it doesn't change them any. Read through this thread and feel free to respond to anything I've posted on the topic. I'm not going to repost stuff from earlier in this same thread, that's absurd.

The Mad Crapper
06-27-2011, 07:15 AM
I'm sorry you don't like the facts

The fact is, slavery was not the reason to attack and destroy the Confederate States of America, it was an excuse.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2011, 07:39 AM
The south did not ONLY secede to protect slavery. Again, not everyone in the south were slaveowner. So it's a generality. Now for some southerners that was true but the horrifically high tariff ( I think it was 48%) is what prompted secession as the most proximate reason. What doesn't follow any logic is Lincoln was going to let them keep their slaves. So why would they leave for that reason alone? It makes no sense. Lincoln was going to keep them even mid-war if they would re-enter the Union in a secret meeting that is omitted from New England dominated history books. That's because Lincoln wanted to tax them for public works projects that benefited northern industrialists. The South used state's rights because they were given that as a right in the Constitution and under state's right's slavery was protected. So slavery is a factor but Lincoln did all in his power to not threaten that institution for the south. When all the omitted data is provided about Lincoln there was no need to secede. So it had to be something more. The high tariff pushed it all over the edge—not slavery.

Everything stems from racism and racism alone to the progressive left. One trick ponies. They still use it today.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2011, 07:49 AM
I think its pretty obvious most people of the time considered that Lincoln was at the very best sympathetic to the to the plight of the slaves, and by some as a straight abolitionist.

Please provide back up because I doubt it. His war was not popular. Or I'll go back and see if I can find those links I put up in earlier Civil War threads on this topic showing what leading newspapers thought about Lincoln's war. It's no wonder he shut down printing presses. Or do you think he just did that because they agreed with him?

Coupled with the back up for Amnorix on what attitudes toward slavery were at the time the passages are an interesting group of quotes.
What did they think about state's rights though?
How many of those knew the Union was a voluntary one even if they disagreed with slavery?

How could Buchanan have thought resupply of Fort Pickens in Florida and Sumter in SC would be an act of war by our Federal govt despite these attitudes? You see all these things play into the picture and without them that picture is incomplete in order to serve an agenda.

So what their attitudes were about slavery is NOT relevant to Lincoln provoking war and invading.

Dave Lane
06-27-2011, 07:53 AM
The south was wrong on all fronts. It got what it deserved. There was no agreement to opt out of the union after it was formed. They rebelled, started a war and paid the price. Totally deserved and they are lucky Lincoln and others didn't feel the need to be vindictive.

Amnorix
06-27-2011, 08:15 AM
The fact is, slavery was not the reason to attack and destroy the Confederate States of America, it was an excuse.

Rebellion usually gets suppressed.

The Mad Crapper
06-27-2011, 08:21 AM
You know, you moonbats never cease to amaze me. You look for every little thing to run this country down, whether it was dropping A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or humiliating arabs at Abu Grabh.

But the one time where the federal government waged war on it's own citizens, slaughtering hundreds of thousands--- that was a noble and righteous thing to do.

LMAO

BucEyedPea
06-27-2011, 08:23 AM
You know, you moonbats never cease to amaze me. You look for every little thing to run this country down, whether it was dropping A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or humiliating arabs at Abu Grabh.

But the one time where the federal government waged war on it's own citizens, slaughtering hundreds of thousands--- that was a noble and righteous thing to do.

LMAO

If's it's for humanitarian or progressive reasons they'll slaughter us. You bet! I always said they're not the pussies the right makes them out to be.

Amnorix
06-27-2011, 08:23 AM
The south did not ONLY secede to protect slavery.

As a philosophical point, sure, but it was the primary reason.

Again, not everyone in the south were slaveowner.

Not relevant. Nobody pretends that 100% of people south of the border wanted to secede. The relevant point is that the political leaders of the South, who led the efforts on secession, were invariably slave owners. In addition, slave owner or not, pretty much the entire south had a vested interest in slavery.

So it's a generality. Now for some southerners that was true but the horrifically high tariff ( I think it was 48%) is what prompted secession as the most proximate reason.

Really? When Lincoln hadn't even been inaugurated yet, the South seceded because of . . . what? A fear that he would raise tariffs higher? That's absurd.

But who cares, BECAUSE THE SOUTH SAID THAT THEY WERE SECEDING BECAUSE OF SLAVERY. They SAID it. IN PLAIN ENGLISH.

What doesn't follow any logic is Lincoln was going to let them keep their slaves. So why would they leave for that reason alone? It makes no sense.

For years the North and South had battled over the spread of slavery, the slave owners rights in fugitive slaves, etc. Lincoln was not going to support them in any of their efforts to do any of those things, and they knew it. They knew that they had lost control over the levers of power in Washington DC and that slave states were heading towards minority status in the Union. They wanted to expand their slave base and grow the slave economy, not see it stunted.

Have I mentioned the ARTICLES OF SECESSION? Maybe you should read them.

Oh, and don't forget the ARTICLES OF SECESSSION, where the slave states say they're leaving the Union because of, you know, slavery.

Last, but not least, are the Articles of Secession.

:shake:

Lincoln was going to keep them even mid-war if they would re-enter the Union in a secret meeting that is omitted from New England dominated history books. That's because Lincoln wanted to tax them for public works projects that benefited northern industrialists. The South used state's rights because they were given that as a right in the Constitution and under state's right's slavery was protected. So slavery is a factor but Lincoln did all in his power to not threaten that institution for the south. When all the omitted data is provided about Lincoln there was no need to secede. So it had to be something more. The high tariff pushed it all over the edge—not slavery.

Everything stems from racism and racism alone to the progressive left. One trick ponies. They still use it today.

While slavery is a system predicated on racist views, of course, the reason they seceded wasn't because they were racist, fundamentally, but rather because their entire socioeconomic system relied on slavery. Whether those slaves were black or white or mules didn't really matter for purposes of the rationale for seceding.

Feel free to cite some support for the "facts" part of your statement. Until the end of '62 or thereabouts, I'm sure Lincoln would have readmitted the slave states with slavery intact. Why not, if he hadn't issued the EP yet. After all, he had never started out intending to end slavery in the slave states, nor was that the reason he went to war.

The Mad Crapper
06-27-2011, 08:26 AM
If's it's for humanitarian or progressive reasons they'll slaughter us. You bet! I always said they're not the pussies the right makes them out to be.

Oh, I know that. As long as they don't have to fight, sure they will slaughter you. That's why progressives want gun confiscation.

The Mad Crapper
06-27-2011, 08:27 AM
While slavery is a system predicated on racist views

It's predicated on economic views.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2011, 08:28 AM
The south was wrong on all fronts.
The southern plantation owners who had slaves were wrong—morally. But not legally. Law does not necessarily grant justice.
You need to go back and re-read how this matter was resolved in compromise at the original Constitutional convention because it is not based on fact. If delegates at the original Con-Con hadn't have allowed slavery there would have been NO union. And you should KNOW IT as the truth of the matter. This is why Lincoln was going to allow the South to keep their slaves. He knew it too.

It got what it deserved.

On a karmic level I'd agree. So fine. Besides you're entitled to that opinion but look at it: It’s based entirely on a generality and results in the slaughter masses of people, many civilians, because of the few. That's immoral too.

I'd rather support the courageous efforts of those running the underground railroad.

There was no agreement to opt out of the union after it was formed.
This is NOT FACTUAL—at all. There are NO words in the Constitution the prevent secession. NONE! It’s a document of specific and enumerated powers. The Ninth implies more rights too. It was written primarily as a restraint on the federal govt. You can also research the notes on this same convention as they did discuss the idea of using force against a state who sought to leave and scrapped it. The Framers decided to leave it as a VOLUNTARY union. That's why there are no words claiming it as permanent or clauses disallowing leaving. Not only was it voluntary, but newspapers at the time in the North along with many others said the same thing. This stand is another classic usurpation of the meaning and substance of the Constitution.

I know this is hard to accept, it was new to me up to several years, but it does check out. I checked it by going to the notes on the original Convention. Don't expect New England dominated history books to clue anyone in.

They rebelled, started a war and paid the price. Totally deserved and they are lucky Lincoln and others didn't feel the need to be vindictive.
They did not rebel. That was Lincoln’s claim to justify war. They did not rise up against the Federal govt using any force whatsoever. They PEACEFULLY left the union, offered to pay for all federal installations in the south something Buchanan accepted but not Lincoln when he came into power. Lincoln WAS vindictive as was Sherman for his war crimes.Lincoln also governed like a tyrant even in the North and the newspapers discussed that as well.

The southern secession was no different than the secession by the colonies when they felt the crown was out of hand. Both wars were rooted in economic issues. Most wars are. Even progressive Obama's war and invasion of Libya is for economic reasons and power but sold to the public as protecting the citizens. Govt’s lie.

The Mad Crapper
06-27-2011, 08:30 AM
...God intended them to be, while an inferior race did their manual labor, for free.

That's not true. The slave holder had to provide shelter, clothing and food for his slaves. They did not provide free labor. In fact you can make the argument that slavery is not cost effective.

Amnorix
06-27-2011, 08:31 AM
Please provide back up because I doubt it. His war was not popular.

Depends on timeframe. Since he was RE-ELECTED in 1864, obviously it was popular enough...

Or I'll go back and see if I can find those links I put up in earlier Civil War threads on this topic showing what leading newspapers thought about Lincoln's war. It's no wonder he shut down printing presses. Or do you think he just did that because they agreed with him?

You frequently resort to trying to paint Lincoln as a tyrant. It's hollow.

What did they think about state's rights though?
How many of those knew the Union was a voluntary one even if they disagreed with slavery?

You mean like James Madison? He didn't think the Union was voluntary, for example.

How could Buchanan have thought resupply of Fort Pickens in Florida and Sumter in SC would be an act of war by our Federal govt despite these attitudes? You see all these things play into the picture and without them that picture is incomplete in order to serve an agenda.

Nice try, but no. Buchanan tried to resupply Sumter, but when the Star of the West was attacked, he basically just let the status quo go until he was out of office.

The Mad Crapper
06-27-2011, 08:32 AM
It got what it deserved.

One day moonbats are going to get what they deserve.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2011, 08:38 AM
It's predicated on economic views.

Yep! It's funny, because it was actually dying out in the earlier part of the century but the invention of the Cotton Gin, required more slaves for picking, as the cotton gin could process the cotton much faster in larger amounts. So the issue flared up again. Other technology came later. Plus slaves weren't cheap to buy or maintain.

There are arguments claiming slave labor was less efficient than hired labor though too. There are some arguments that refute that but I think it's weak. A better worker is one who works on their own determinism for some exchange. Compensated emancipation was a workable tool. The thing is you have to free people into something. Many of these slaves were freed into abject poverty.

The Mad Crapper
06-27-2011, 08:43 AM
Yep! It's funny, because it was actually dying out in the earlier part of the century but the invention of the Cotton Gin, required more slaves for picking as it could process the cotton much faster in larger amounts. So the issue flared up again.

There are arguments claiming slave labor was less efficient than hired labor though to. There are some arguments that refute that but I think it's weak. A better worker is one who works on their own determinism for some exchange. Compensated emancipation was a workable tool. The thing is you have to free people into something. Many of these slaves were freed into abject poverty.

Moonbats like Amnorix and Dave Loon are holding onto the ridiculous narrative spewed forth to all of us in 3rd grade that the civil war was a noble and righteous war fought to end slavery. That is complete rubbish.

Slavery was proving to be less and less cost effective and would have gone the way of the dinosour peacefully just like it did in Brazil in 1890.

Right now we have "cheap labor" ie Mexicans who are imported to pick the lettuce the slaves used to do. The costs are passed on to the taxpayer while the farmers reap all the rewards.

So the agriculture industry has figured out a better way for them. Unfortanetly, it's going to lead to another war, as we see the oppression by the federal government on states such as Arizona.

BucEyedPea
06-27-2011, 08:47 AM
Moonbats like Amnorix and Dave Loon are holding onto the ridiculous narrative spewed forth to all of us in 3rd grade that the civil war was a noble and righteous war fought to end slavery. That is complete rubbish.

Slavery was proving to be less and less cost effective and would have gone the way of the dinosour peacefully just like it did in Brazil in 1890.

Right now we have "cheap labor" ie Mexicans who are imported to pick the lettuce the slaves used to do. The costs are passed on to the taxpayer while the farmers reap all the rewards.

So the agriculture industry has figured out a better way for them. Unfortanetly, it's going to lead to another war, as we see the oppression by the federal government on states such as Arizona.

The left are bigger bullies. Their ideology is based on the use of force and violence in high quantities. When it's their values it's all okay because they're the humanitarians. When an R does it's for profits—except when it's Lincoln who they think is a big progressive. I see this progressive claim all over the net on moonbat sites.

The Mad Crapper
06-27-2011, 09:08 AM
There are arguments claiming slave labor was less efficient than hired labor though too. There are some arguments that refute that but I think it's weak. .

I disagree.

Cheap labor is more cost effective than slave labor. The slaveowner, who has now become the employer, used to have to feed, clothe, shelter and provide medical care to the slaves. Today those costs are passed on to the taxpayer, where the Mexican get medicaid, section 8 and food stamps.

The slave eventually grew older and weaker. A fresh batch of young Mexicans come here day in and day out.

Slave owners would have figured this out eventually.

And I can't say for certain, but I can't imagine our welfare state being as large as it is today, if we had just let slavery end peacefully like it did in Brazil in 1890.

As it stands now, we are going to wind up with another secession and another war.

Amnorix
06-27-2011, 09:37 AM
It's predicated on economic views.

That's a fair point, generally (i.e. there's plenty of same-race slaves in history), but where black slaves worldwide were used, it also had a very racist bent in an effort to justify the slave system. As you may or may not know, reams of literature were produced to support the concept that blacks were naturally inferior and thus their slave status was partly for their own benefit etc.

The foundation of slavery being racist was perhaps best stated in a way by Howell Cobb of Georgia.


(Thomas) Howell Cobb (September 7, 1815 – October 9, 1868) was an American (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) political figure. A Southern Democrat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrat), Cobb was a five-term member of the United States House of Representatives (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives) and Speaker of the House (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speaker_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives) from 1849 to 1851. He also served as a Secretary of Treasury (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Secretary_of_Treasury) under President (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_United_States) James Buchanan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Buchanan) (1857–1860) and the 40th Governor of Georgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Governors_of_Georgia) (1851–1853).

He is, however, probably best known as one of the founders of the Confederate States of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_States_of_America), having served as the Speaker of the Provisional Confederate Congress, when delegates of the secessionist states issued creation of the Confederacy.

Cobb served for two weeks between the foundation of the Confederacy and the election of Jefferson Davis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Davis) as first President. This made him, as the Speaker of the Congress, provisional Head of State at this time.


In the closing days of the war, Cobb fruitlessly opposed General Robert E. Lee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee)'s eleventh hour proposal of enlisting slaves into the army. Fearing this move would completely discredit the fundamental justification of slavery that blacks were inferior people, he said, "You cannot make soldiers of slaves, or slaves of soldiers. The day you make a soldier of them is the beginning of the end of the Revolution. And if slaves seem good soldiers, then our whole theory of slavery is wrong."

Amnorix
06-27-2011, 09:45 AM
This is NOT FACTUAL—at all. There are NO words in the Constitution the prevent secession. NONE! It’s a document of specific and enumerated powers. The Ninth implies more rights too. It was written primarily as a restraint on the federal govt. You can also research the notes on this same convention as they did discuss the idea of using force against a state who sought to leave and scrapped it. The Framers decided to leave it as a VOLUNTARY union. That's why there are no words claiming it as permanent or clauses disallowing leaving. Not only was it voluntary, but newspapers at the time in the North along with many others said the same thing. This stand is another classic usurpation of the meaning and substance of the Constitution.

James Madison disagrees with you. Vociferously and in writing.

Nor would George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams or Chief Justice Marshall agree with you.

And you place far more reliance on Northern newspaper editorials than anyone ever has, or should, in debating any kind of history. Just as you can today find newspaper editorials supporting any position you care to name, you could then too. Such positions carry little weight towards establishing historical facts in the absence of truly overwhelming majorities or unanimity of opinion, which didn't exist.

I know this is hard to accept, it was new to me up to several years, but it does check out. I checked it by going to the notes on the original Convention. Don't expect New England dominated history books to clue anyone in.

Cite please.

They did not rebel. That was Lincoln’s claim to justify war. They did not rise up against the Federal govt using any force whatsoever. They PEACEFULLY left the union, offered to pay for all federal installations in the south something Buchanan accepted but not Lincoln when he came into power.

They fired on Sumter, and that part about Buchanan accepting payment for federal installations is bullshit. Nor would Buchanan have had the power to accept such a deal by himself even if he was willing, which he wasn't.

Buchanan didn't send the Star of the West to Sumter because he was planning on selling it to the Confederates. JFC.

Lincoln WAS vindictive as was Sherman for his war crimes.Lincoln also governed like a tyrant even in the North and the newspapers discussed that as well.

Andersonville.

The southern secession was no different than the secession by the colonies when they felt the crown was out of hand. Both wars were rooted in economic issues. Most wars are. Even progressive Obama's war and invasion of Libya is for economic reasons and power but sold to the public as protecting the citizens. Govt’s lie.

The difference between revolution and rebellion lies primarily in who wins. The reality, however, in this particular instance is that the Constitution had no provision for withdrawal, the compact, once made, was permanent absence agreement of the members to change to a different form of government, and that individual states had no right (under law) to secede.

The Mad Crapper
06-27-2011, 09:48 AM
That's a fair point, generally (i.e. there's plenty of same-race slaves in history)

You know what? We just had a pleasant moment together.

I think I'm gonna take the rest of the day off from posting before I ruin it.

:thumb:

Amnorix
06-27-2011, 09:48 AM
Yep! It's funny, because it was actually dying out in the earlier part of the century but the invention of the Cotton Gin, required more slaves for picking, as the cotton gin could process the cotton much faster in larger amounts. So the issue flared up again. Other technology came later. Plus slaves weren't cheap to buy or maintain.

This part is true. In fact, I think I probably educated you on the topic because you used to argue that slavery was dying out. And while I realize you probably didn't mean it, the word "funny" in this context is wildly inappropriate. Nobody knew what the cotton gin meant, of course, but an unfortunate side effect of its invention was the continuation and expansion of slavery.

There are arguments claiming slave labor was less efficient than hired labor though too. There are some arguments that refute that but I think it's weak. A better worker is one who works on their own determinism for some exchange. Compensated emancipation was a workable tool. The thing is you have to free people into something. Many of these slaves were freed into abject poverty.

Slave labor was massively inefficent, no argument there.

Amnorix
06-27-2011, 09:51 AM
Moonbats like Amnorix and Dave Loon are holding onto the ridiculous narrative spewed forth to all of us in 3rd grade that the civil war was a noble and righteous war fought to end slavery. That is complete rubbish.

You're not reading my posts. Or not understanding them. Whichever.

Slavery was proving to be less and less cost effective and would have gone the way of the dinosour peacefully just like it did in Brazil in 1890.

I love how you give Lincoln and the rest of the North non-existent crystal balls. Tell me, what was it that Mississippi (I think it was) declared "the greatest material interest in the world" when it seceded? They didn't see slavery going the way of the dinosaur. That's why they seceded...

The Mad Crapper
06-27-2011, 01:01 PM
Amnorix, I see your point(s). I concede most of them.

All I gotta say on this topic and then I'm done:

In my opinion, the "Civil War" was not faught to "free the slaves; The invasion and destruction of the CSA was wrong, it was a tragic mistake; Slave labor is evil and stupid.

I'm sorry for being a dick to you. I sincerely mean it.

I know that hatred and wanting to destroy something only consumes the hater and ultimately destroy him or her.

I'm trying to change. Peace.

Amnorix
06-27-2011, 01:06 PM
Amnorix, I see your point(s). I concede most of them.

All I gotta say on this topic and then I'm done:

In my opinion, the "Civil War" was not faught to "free the slaves; The invasion and destruction of the CSA was wrong, it was a tragic mistake; Slave labor is evil and stupid.

I'm sorry for being a dick to you. I sincerely mean it.

I know that hatred and wanting to destroy something only consumes the hater and ultimately destroy him or her.

I'm trying to change. Peace.


Someone got a "jaw dropping through floor" emoticon I can borrow here...?

KC native
06-27-2011, 02:54 PM
I'm trying to change. Peace.

Why the fuck does anyone fall for this anymore?

Bill Parcells
06-27-2011, 05:41 PM
Credit for staying in here because he'd be instantly and permanently banned if he brought his bullshit to the lounge? Yeah, okay.

So wait, there are different rules in here? REALLY?

YOU ARE SO SMART BROCK! BRILLIANT!